betsy

There's a reason why I say the age of the earth is not a real issue. You can't argue when you obviously lack knowledge of the Bible. 2 Peter 3 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. Now, that thousand years could also be a figure of speech - meaning that God's day is not the same as human day.

Read my response to Hydraboss. The age of the earth is not an issue. Heavens, can mean the universe. It's the view that we see from earth when we look up! I cannot debate with just your opinion, DOP. So....if you've got nothing substantial to say, I suppose we're done here?

You're simply giving your opinion, DOP - without any support at all. You've got this fixed "idea" that you've nurtured in your mind about the message in the Bible....and they're not accurate at all. At least, for all my alleged "bias" with my arguments - I do support my statements! And I asked you pointed question about the Bible, that you're ignoring now. Furthermore....your rambling about metallicity shows you don't even know what you're arguing about!

What is the "heavens?" 1. often heavens The sky or universe as seen from the earth; the firmament. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/heavens "Heavens" can be the universe. How do we know if His description of creation in Genesis, is simply focused on earth, since He'll be dealing with humans. So, everything in Genesis is earth-related. How do we know there aren't other creations in other parts of the universe? Does it say anywhere in the Bible that we are the only creation in the universe?

Doesn't matter even if no humans intervened with the breeding. It may be a new breed....but they're still of the same kind! DOP, I don't think you understand what you're arguing for. No offense, but your responses are dead give-aways.

http://www.jmtour.com/personal-topics/evolution-creation/

Adaptation.

Who said we're the first? Does this look like I consider science as the "enemy?"

"Thou shalt not murder."

Animals will have the same "instinct" for right and wrong, if it is! They would have a conscience as we do. And we know that they don't! You can't know if animals feel love for their young the same way we do. One thing we know though, many animals cast out their young at a certain age to fend for themselves. There's hardly any animals who support their offsprings even in adulthood. There's no such thing as support for those who "failed to launch." Furthermore, Dawkin's own statement refuted him! He proved that we didn't come from evolution. Considering that there are evidences that support the possibility of a God-created world .......why can't it be from Creation?

What else is new? Of course you didn't watch it. You didn't even read articles that rebutted your claim.....and yet you keep rehashing the same lame cliche! Like as if by repeating your claim in different ways, somehow the answer will magically change. Heck....I'll be ignoring you.

I suppose the key phrase would be " according to its KIND." That specification is repeated 10 times in Genesis. What does God mean when He said, "according to its kind?" We don't know exactly. The designation of "kind" might even be broader than species (there are about 400 dog breeds belonging to one species). Maybe, "kind" refers to genus. The Bible referred to "sea serpent", "behemoth," and "leviathan." Were they dinosaurs? We don't know for sure. If they were.......could it be that God had sent infant animals in pairs? We don't know if the 7 creation days are to be taken literally, or not. Genesis' emphasis is not on how old earth or the universe is. We don't even know when the beginning began. There was no space or time prior to that. Genesis' emphasis is on creation by God. God did not say when in time exactly did He create earth. My view: God does not tell us to believe that everything was created in 7 human days, or that earth is this old or that. He tells us to believe that He is the Creator.

DOP, you're not saying anything about the argument you'd given. I gave you an explanation of metallicity from wikipedia. It had nothing to do about debunking the beginning! If that's not the "metallicity" you meant, why don't you explain?

Here's your metallicity. It's not the way you explained it! Furthermore, it's still nothing but a theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity It has nothing to do with the beginning of the universe! They're talking about stellar evolution - meaning, there were already heavenly bodies to evolve!

Where did those other stars that had to die come from? Cite your source please. Which actually supports the Bible! Imagine that. They had no clue, as well as no modern instruments to use.....and yet, they were able to say that the universe has a beginning.....and described that the heavens is stretching (which science had recently discovered btw, and "stretching" is the accurate word to describe it).

Why? What's that got to do with contradictions? Explain.

Why don't you explain it. What's metallicity got to do with the Bible? Where's the contradiction?

They are consistent! You better read my explanation again, Michael.

Why?

Yes, it is correct. However, it doesn't say if the days are to be taken literally or not.

And? What's new stars got to do with it? Explain. How is that a contradiction in the Bible?

How is that a contradiction in the Bible? What Biblical verse is contradicted? Explain.

Why the obsession and emphasis on finding water on far-distant planets, or stars or asteroids........when the presence of any yet-unknown chemicals is possible? Because, evolutionists have this persistent hope that the presence of water might accomodate the origin and evolution of life elsewhere.

If you want to discuss about land grabbing in Africa, feel free to create your own thread for it.