He doesn’t think he should have to, he’s proselytizing.
Can you cite this please, thanks.
Is there any chance you would read the cite if it was given?
Maybe a fourth time will let this sink in for you. You originally asked how plants could survive without the sun. I immediately pointed to Gen 1:3, in my first reply. This is the original source of the light, which I explained in my first response to you. I hope that helps.
I check all your cites, if it is simply a talkorigins glossary, with no help from you or others on direct references, then why should I bother, if you didnt??
No more than I can cite an astronomer specifically stating they use a heliocentric model. But you can, if you wish, ask any oil driller.
No, it has not been shown to be false. Maybe you want to revisit Matthew 24:34 first, and see all the other references to the word ‘generation’ in Psalms.
You seem to have asked around more on that than me. What exactly did they tell was so advantageous about the old earth model in finding oil deposits?
There are 74 references, did you want to comment on the innacuracy of any one in particular?
If you’ve ever been up close to an elephant seal, you’d know they are a lot different from the sea lions and seals you find in San Francisco. They are very different species. (A sea lion trying to mate with an elephant seal would not be pretty.) Go far enough back, they aren’t seals any more - in fact they’d be living on land, like the precursors to whales.
I’ve repeatedly responded to this. Have you even read my entire response? I don’t think you have.
When did the ‘light’ in Gen 1:3 go away?
He could read Glenn Morton’s story. Glenn was a YEC (who wrote papers for “Creation Research Society Quarterly”) and a geologist who had to leave YEC because he was constantly presented with evidence to the contrary, a brief sample:
You’ll notice that Reef Shark’s attitude is similar to those of Glenn’s fellow creationists who just would not listen.
Assertions are not evidence, try again.
‘Go far enough back’..You mean assume something other than what is observed?
You already said you dont know what they supposedly evolved from. I suggest sticking to what is observed, no assumptions.
Care to comment on creation.com’s “About Us” page, especially
If the evidence doesn’t not fit with their preconceived notions, it is thrown out as invalid. Why do you use this site as a source?
Maybe you should read Matthew 24:34 and stop falling back on subjective interpretation to support your own bias.
You want more? Easy to find lots more.
[Somehow Egypt still exists, the Nile isn’t dried up.](Ezekial - Ezekiel’s Inaugural Vision - In my - Bible Gateway 29:8-12&version=NASB)
Again, the Nile is still fine.
Nebuchadnezzar failed to conquer Tyre. Even after being conquered by Alexander the Great, somehow it still exists.
Nope, Israel is fighting with it’s neighbors.
There’s a lot more, if you bother to look that is.
What does any one reference being wrong have to do with anything? If the article says ‘Darwin said this’ and gives a reference to the book the quote is from, the fact that the reference is correct does not mean the article itself is correct. Reference 9 tries to refute the concept of deism by quoting a bible verse. That’s not a biased source or anything.
Besides, you’re missing the point entirely. You still haven’t read my original cite. It might help…
'Verses 3-5 We have here a further account of the first day’s work, in which observe, 1. That the first of all visible beings which God created was light; not that by it he himself might see to work (for the darkness and light are both alike to him), but that by it we might see his works and his glory in them, and might work our works while it is day. The works of Satan and his servants are works of darkness; but he that doeth truth, and doeth good, cometh to the light, and coveteth it, that his deeds may be made manifest, Jn. 3:21 . Light is the great beauty and blessing of the universe. Like the first-born, it does, of all visible beings, most resemble its great Parent in purity and power, brightness and beneficence; it is of great affinity with a spirit, and is next to it; though by it we see other things, and are sure that it is, yet we know not its nature, nor can describe what it is, or by what way the light is parted, Job. 38:19, Job. 38:24 . By the sight of it let us be led to, and assisted in, the believing contemplation of him who is **light, infinite and eternal light **(1 Jn. 1:5 ), and the Father of lights (Jam. 1:17 ), and who dwells in inaccessible light, 1 Tim. 6:16 . In the new creation, the first thing wrought in the soul is light: the blessed Spirit captives the will and affections by enlightening the understanding, so coming into the heart by the door, like the good shepherd whose own the sheep are, while sin and Satan, like thieves and robbers, climb up some other way. Those that by sin were darkness by grace become light in the world. That the light was made by the word of God’s power. He said, Let there be light; he willed and appointed it, and it was done immediately: there was light, such a copy as exactly answered the original idea in the Eternal Mind. O the power of the word of God! He spoke, and it was done, done really, effectually, and for perpetuity, not in show only, and to serve a present turn, for he commanded, and it stood fast: with him it was dictum, factum—a word, and a world. The world of God (that is, his will and the good pleasure of it) is quick and powerful. Christ is the Word, the essential eternal Word, and by him the light was produced, for in him was light, and he is the true light, the light of the world, Jn. 1:9 Jn. 9:5 . The divine light which shines in sanctified souls is wrought by the power of God, the power of his word and of the Spirit of wisdom and revelation, opening the understanding, scattering the mists of ignorance and mistake, and giving the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ, as at first, God commanded the light to shine out of darkness, 2 Co. 4:6 . Darkness would have been perpetually upon the face of fallen man if the Son of God had not come, and given us an understanding, 1 Jn. 5:20 . That the light which God willed, when it was produced, he approved of: God saw the light that it was good. It was exactly as he designed it, and it was fit to answer the end for which he designed it. It was useful and profitable; the world, which now is a palace, would have been a dungeon without it. It was amiable and pleasant. Truly the light is sweet (Eccl. 11:7 ); it rejoiceth the heart, Prov. 15:30 . What God commands he will approve and graciously accept; he will be well pleased with the work of his own hands. That is good indeed which is so in the sight of God, for he sees not as man sees. If the light is good, how good is he that is the fountain of light, from whom we receive it, and to whom we owe all praise for it and all the services we do by it! 4. That God divided the light from the darkness, so put them asunder as that they could never be joined together, or reconciled; for what fellowship has light with darkness? 2 Co. 6:14 . And yet he divided time between them, the day for light and the night for darkness, in a constant and regular succession to each other. Though the darkness was now scattered by the light, yet it was not condemned to a perpetual banishment, but takes its turn with the light, and has its place, because it has its use; for, as the light of the morning befriends the business of the day, so the shadows of the evening befriend the repose of the night, and draw the curtains about us, that we may sleep the better. See Job. 7:2 . God has thus divided time between light and darkness, because he would daily remind us that this is a world of mixtures and changes. In heaven there is perfect and perpetual light, and no darkness at all; in hell, utter darkness, and no gleam of light. In that world between these two there is a great gulf fixed; but, in this world, they are counterchanged, and we pass daily from one to another, that we may learn to expect the like vicissitudes in the providence of God, peace and trouble, joy and sorrow, and may set the one over-against the other, accommodating ourselves to both as we do to the light and darkness, bidding both welcome, and making the best of both. 5. That God divided them from each other by distinguishing names: He called the light day, and the darkness he called night. He gave them names, as the Lord of both; for the day is his, the night also is his, Ps. 74:16 . He is the Lord of time, and will be so, till day and night shall come to an end, and the stream of time be swallowed up in the ocean of eternity. Let us acknowledge God in the constant succession of day and night, and consecrate both to his honour, by working for him every day and resting in him every night, and meditating in his law day and night. 6. That this was the first day’s work, and a good day’s work it was. The evening and the morning were the first day. The darkness of the evening was before the light of the morning, that it might serve for a foil to it, to set it off, and make it shine the brighter. This was not only the first day of the world, but the first day of the week. I observe it to the honour of that day, because the new world began on the first day of the week likewise, in the resurrection of Christ, as the light of the world, early in the morning. In him the day-spring from on high has visited the world; and happy are we, for ever happy, if that day-star arise in our hearts. ’
Commentary
def
- Opinion.
Observed in the fossil record. How do you propose observing their ancestors today?
What do you think the limits of evolution are. Even creationists have been forced to accept what they call microevolution, since we see it happening. We’ve seen speciation happening also - I don’t know if creationists accept this. In my experience they seem to work with “kinds” which were on the ark. What mechanism do you propose keeps species which can no longer interbreed from drifting further and further apart with time?
Not oil drillers, but petroleum geologists can find oil using the methods they learned at good universities. Maybe he can give us some top universities that teach the young earth model.