Jump to content

Sparks

Worthy Ministers
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,159

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Sparks

  1. Sparks
    How does 100,000 years rule out YE? Trillions of years would rule it out, but 100,000 years is young and is surely not enough time to 'evolve' man. What things did God say about evolution?
  2. Sparks
    I guess it has never occurred to you that God was the light. If you fast forward to Revelation, you will see that God will be the literal light again for us all (well those saved), and there will be no sun nor moon required for the new Earth. Realize that not everything in the Bible symbolism.
  3. Sparks
    So, there is no possibility that the creationists are right about days meaning literal days? If not, why not?
  4. Sparks
    You seem to make stuff up as fact. I cannot take your arguments seriously.
  5. Sparks
    What have they added? I think you mean Evolution was added.
  6. Sparks
    How does it rule YE out? We don't know how long we (as humans) were in Eden, but we do know how long people lasted when they left Eden; about 6,000 years because of the length of time people survived after leaving, by generations listed in the Bible (death was introduced by Adam's sin).
  7. Sparks
    I did read it; the original, and the revamped. The revamped came along because of so much whining from the evolution community that they had to re-release it with a disclaimer. Why put a disclaimer if it is so clear?
  8. Sparks
    I don't doubt the Bible or what God said he did.
  9. Sparks
    You might look into something called Irreducible Complexity. It would prevent what you are suggesting.
  10. Sparks
    Yeah, you put a twist on it to arrive at your conclusion. There was no evolution of man, he just showed up on the scene. But that is how evolution theory works, bad science backed by lies.
  11. Sparks
    Creationism is what God said he did. He told us plainly what he did. Why do you doubt Him?
  12. Sparks
    You have to do a lot of misinterpretation of scripture to arrive at evolution theory, so you might as well also misunderstand that DNA barcoding shows an arrival of fully functional animals and man at the same time. This does not mean they merely arrived from evolution on the scene at the same time, but BOOM, they arrived because God created them at the same time, likely minutes apart by counting iterations of mDNA.
  13. Sparks
    I think DNA Barcoding is evidence of God breathing life into Adam, but Adam didn't show up first though evolution.
  14. Sparks
    Well, no. Man didn't morph from primordial soup is the point, he just showed up, you know ... whole ... BOOM ... already alive and walking around. As if God did what he said He did. I would say the other 10% did, too. Do you notice how you casually fill in the blanks about Coelacanths, as if you were there to see it, and it is simply fact? That's how this dumb theory got started, as a rumor like that which, when told enough, people believe. As I have said, 'Trillions of Years" is something that might as well be since it is all bad science, backed by lies.
  15. Sparks
    Exactly. It didn't happen. Incidentally, you should check out DNA barcoding which suggests virtually everything showed up at the same time, no more than 100,000 years ago. That puts a huge dent into the Trillions of Years theory. I can point you to the white paper if you have an interest. I found it interesting that the white paper had to be re-released with a disclaimer that said the authors believed in evolution theory, you know, because the paper implied that the whole theory was garbage.
  16. Sparks
    Yeah. And? In the Catechism, the Catholics have removed a commandment, and split another to fill in the missing one. The real 10 are on the left in the material I posted, in Exodus 20, and repeated in Deuteronomy (middle). The Catechism is listed on the right which is greatly missing material. I am suggesting you both get on the same page about which set of commandments you plan to debate. You are talking about Exodus, and he is talking about their Catechism. They don't agree.
  17. Sparks
    You are debating a Catholic. They have rewritten the 10 commandments. You can see the fact in their Catechism: The Ten Commandments
  18. Sparks
    The specific narratives of the Bible are: Genesis Exodus Numbers Joshua Judges Samuel Kings Chronicles Ruth Ester Ezra Nehemiah The Gospels ... and Acts A parable is a story, but it is not one of the Biblical narratives, and Jesus is the only one who used parables. Genesis was not one of His parables. Go check out Matthew 13 to see the explanation of parables, by Jesus. Have we ever agreed on anything, ever? P.S. I am not a Catholic, and I don't adhere to their teachings.
  19. Sparks
    So birds can produce bats? Sorry, but they cannot.
  20. Sparks
    Where does it say that? If you mean a misinterpretation of the material suggests it, a misinterpretation does not count. Jesus spoke in parables for specific reasons he described in Matthew 13. You misunderstand what is meant by narratives, which is a Biblical style. There is another style called poetic form, another called legal material, and another called prophetic, and another called wisdom literature, another called apocalyptic, and another called epistle. Each style has to be read with the rules that govern that particular genre. They are not read in the same way, and a parable is not the same as a Biblical narrative.
  21. Sparks
    Creation is not a parable, it's a narrative.
  22. Sparks
    There is none of that, but a lot of people who don't want God in the picture want to believe all that. Why side with them as a believer, especially when they have not observed any of it? Now there is microevolution, which is real and happens at every birth, but it is very limited within a kind and so I suggest you not try to stretch it into something it isn't like the evolutionists do.
  23. Sparks
    I can see you solidly believe in this religion and fairy tale. Good luck with it! I still cannot understand why you believe it. There is zero evidence to support the theory, but you believe you see the evidence, everywhere.
  24. Sparks
    We don't see kinds producing other kinds, at all, today. And to suggest it is happening slowly over trillions of years to is merely to obfuscate the failed evolution theory. To say so would be to ignore the problems of Irreducible Complexity. What I see is that evolutionists mistake speciation for new kinds. You know the 1,400+ species of bats are still bats. They won't ever become anything else except bats, and that is their limitations. God mentioned that you know, that animals come from their own kind. This means a zebra, and a donkey, an ass, mules, horses and more that can reproduce together are the same kind, and came from the same kind of common ancestor ... a horse. Horses will never produce another kind, such as a whale or a corn stalk no matter how much time you give to the problem, but I hope you know your theory would have to work that way if it worked, at all. Kinds would have to reproduce new kinds that were fully functional, at birth, plus a spouse to reproduce with or the line would die off immediately.
  25. Sparks
    I mean no offense, but it appears you misinterpret the evidence. For a moment, put down the cut/paste mouse button and look around you. What evidence do you see for Darwinian Evolution? None. You have never seen one kind of animal produce any other kind of animal, though after trillions of years some should have ripened up by now. So, if all the fossils did it, why did it stop happening?
×
×
  • Create New...