Lekcit

If you knew that this was man's way to discredit God, would you still argue it? There is no evidence, scriptural or otherwise, to suggest that this is true. In fact, scholars agree that when taken in a straightforward manner, scripture simply does not teach millions of years. Further, when taken purely on a Sola Scriptura basis, you come to an age ot the earth of about 8,000-10,000 years.

Keep in mind that the seven animals were not for eating but strictly for sacrifice. It wasn't until after the flood that God even allowed man to eat meat. Look to Genesis 9 for the allowance to eat meat after the flood. Further, there was a covenant established between God and Adam. It was for more than just clothing that God killed the two animals after the fall. He was showing that there was no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.

Wait, are you saying that Paul saw Jesus in physical form? Indeed.

The implication in Holy Scripture is that when faced with the opportunity Thomas had no need to do so. You are going to have to clarify this for me...

The problem with using Paul to say that is that Paul himself saw the risen Christ. Jessus appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus so Paul would have known that Jesus was in fact raised as a body. Also this argument fails to take into consideration the fact that all the disciples saw the risen Lord in a physical body, Mary, Martha, the two on the road to Emmaus, etc, etc. Thomas even put his hand in the wound in his side and touched his nail pierced hands (actually wrists but you understand). This was a common argument in Paul's time and he would have been very familiar with it. Hope this helps.

Someone please show me where I ever claim to be a Darwin fan or that I've made him my "god" as is claimed. I am against Darwin and his teaching. I do not agree with Darwin's claims. With that said, it was claimed by another poster here that Darwin eventually recanted, or said his position was wrong before he died. This point has been proven false. He never did this. Further, what difference does it make? Does it make evolution weaker and creation stronger? Or vice versa? No. It does nothing for either side. It doesn't matter. I've said it now four times and provided evidence to support the position. Have a great day.

damo, I never ignored your point. You said that Darwin said he was wrong. I've showed you where he never said he was wrong. Now clearly he was wrong but the fact is he never admitted it. And as I've said now for the third time, what difference does it make? As KeilanS stated, "Also, it really doesn't matter if Darwin recanted or not. It doesn't have the slightest effect on the validity of evolution. " That is the exact point I am making as well. I changes nothing if Darwin said he was wrong or not.

Forrest, Here we go again stating that the whole Creation movement is religion and evolution is science. Since you feel that evolution is science please show me how evolution fits within the scientific method. Based on my observation, it takes as much, if not more, faith to believe in evolution as creation. Please clarify.

damo, I can see nothing in that article that seems to suggest that Darwin recanted as you say. I pose the same question to you that you did to me. Did you bother to go to the link I provided? I also believe God's Word but that is not the issue at hand here. You claim that Darwin recanted his position in Origin of Species. I showed you evidence to the contrary and went a step further to show that it doesn't matter whether he recanted or not. It doesn't prove or disprove anything. What say you?

damo, This is untrue. His family members confirmed that Darwin did not recant before he died. Not only that, what does it change? Nothing. If I go my whole life and say that the earth is flat, and then on my deathbed recant and say I was wrong all along, what difference does it make? It doesn't change the fact that the earth was round the whole time, I just refused to see it. This point neither helps nor hinders the cause for Creation and is addressed in a very good article by Russel Grigg here: Did Darwin Recant? Hope this helps.

Such as what Myco?

Where? Show me, from Scripture where this is shown to be true. Because in all of my studies, there is no place in Scripture that would even begin to teach an old earth. In fact, if you do as Martin Luther and adopt the view of sola scriptura then you would eventually end up adopting a young earth view because Scripture taken alone always teaches a young earth.

Iryssa, While I suspect this may be true, at least in part; I don't think that it is the entire reason for kitty's statement.

kitty, In the Top 10 thread you mention that you don't like The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe or CS Lewis. I wish to understand this position clearer partially because CS Lewis is one of my favorites as well as the Narnia series. (I read them every year.) I wonder about your thought process and reasons behind how you feel. Let me know please...

I think Gia has offended me................. No seriously, Gia is a breath of fresh air when things go astray. She and I are co moderators on another message board local to where we live and she is always the one to bring civility and kindness back into focus. Everything she does is surrounded by that mood. Keep up the good work.