omega2xx

It is obvious that you can't offer any real evidence to support natural selection, so you had to move the goal post in order to try and hide your lack of knowledge on the subject. If you gave a definition, I missed it, but definitions are not evidence. I guess you consider asking, not demanding, evidence is harassing, but don't tell me what to do. If you say something I will always ask for the evidence. Those who have it , or think they do will provide it without moving the goal post. if you don't like the way I do things you have a solution. IMO I have made my point---you have no evidence supporting natural selection. You would if you could, but YOU CAN'T. Love, peace, joy

I know what the answer is. The definition is not evidence of it being accurate. I am asking for proof that proves the definition. It would take you less tan 10 minuets to post your evidence Since you can't do what you said you could, let's drop it.

Obvious excuses are obvious---You would if you could, but you can't. Love, peace, joy

Right. We know which came first, the chicken or the egg. Love, peace, joy

IYO, all who reject your view have a poor argument. That is the usual comment of those who reject a literal view of Genesis, but have no evidence to support their poor argument. You said you could prove "natural selection," I said you could not and you never did. To try and hide that fact, and be shown wrong, you had to move the goal post. I will give you another problem for evolutionists that has never been solved---How did plant life survive million of years without the sun? Love, peace, joy

https://creation.com/spurgeon-on-evolution As For Charles Spurgeon, From what I can tell about his beliefs reading his commentary on Genesis 1 Is that he believed in a long first day, which is the realm of what we Know as Gap Theory. He believed in the six days of creation. By The Above Quote, He obviously did not believe in the theory of Evolution. Here is the link to the commentary. So I think it is safe to remove him off your list of Pro evolution theologians, and he was no Theistic evolutionist either. https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/spe/genesis-1.html The Point of all of this is to show that you all are just spouting evolutionist talking points based on misinformation that has infiltrated the WWW. Go to the original sources, and the Truth will come to light. For example, I doubt whoever promoted the Quotes of Spurgeon ever wen and looked at the Original documents, and instead passed along the Quote without reading the entirety of the document. They probably do not even know what Gap theory is, and that despite this allowing for a long earth, still promotes the Biblical creation, a conjecture at best, One that I do not agree with, but one that does not defy the literal Scriptural account. So Another so called theologian who denounces evolution, and not a supporter as you all have claimed. So That is now two points of yours I have debunked. These things take time so bear with me as there are more likely coming. I am sure you know but most Christians are not familiar with the "Gap Theory." When the TOE was gaining popularity, some theologians were afraid science would show the Bible to be wrong, so they invented the "Gap "theory." To do this they had to change a word in Gen 1:2. They changed "was" to "became". If it is necessary for man change a word in God's word, what they are trying to prove can automatically be dismissed as being true. Love, peace, joy

Heb 1:14

I wont continue as long as you move the goal post. The truth is you can't prove natural selection so you beat around the bush to avoid revealing it. Last response. Love, peace, joy

Amen brother. When they have no evidence, the only thing they have left is to duck and dodge. Love, peace, joy