Search results

Tom, Do you really want to discuss apostolic progression of doctrine in consideration of all the Catholic doctrines that the apostles never even mentioned? Also, why would you count Ignatius as someone who could tell the church what is lawful or not? That's why we have scripture.

I don't follow what you are saying. "Seeing the light" in my post refers to her using the term "let" in the book of Genesis to mean "allow" by natural processes of chance. It simply doesn't work in the scripture I referenced. I think once you deny to Word of God based on man's science, it...

It's interesting that River has not returned to quote mine and straw man this thread. Perhaps she sees the light.

Angelina, You missed the point I think. If "let the earth bring forth" means what Rjver is interpreting it to mean, then she has to also interpret this verse the same way. So, "us" created man. Who is us? How did us create man?

Genesis 1:26 Let us make man According to River, "us" made man. Who is this us? River should probably refrain from discussing scripture and just keep to science falsely so-called.

Yes. Fascinating. I'm shocked. I really thought that they would come to just the opposite conclusion. I guess that settles it.

Yes, only the church is flawed. Science is the last true bastion of human integrity.

You won't. The second he writes "intelligent design" without criticizing it, the paper is dead.

If you're going to quote 1:11 as truth, you have to go with 1:20-21 as well.

What are you saying? Ken Ham is a bully? I've said that on here at least once. Are you saying because several universities (Baptist mostly) are against academic freedom, then they all are? The organization I'm affiliated with has many universities where the faculty is mixed old earth/young...

So now it's ok with you to teach your own way regardless of your employer. How many pairs of flip flops do you own?

Trekson Prepare to be "quote-mined" to death with illogical and close-minded arguments. River is an expert on every subject and when she isn't, she uses the fallacy of appealing to authority. This is not a personal attack, I'm sure she cried when Harambe died.

well we've reached the point where River pretends she doesn't know what subject we're on. That means it's time to check out. I'll be back.

Without life, Darwinism is untenable. "The origin of species" Really? With no foundation? This is the logical fallacy of complete stupidity. "You don't know the first thing about science." Attack the man fallacy.

How do evolutionists lie? That is the question. If evolution as a paradigm is settled science, then there simply can't be an "unanswered" first cell. You can't scream from the roof tops that "this is not a theory, this is fact" if you have no foundation. That's what I mean by "can't...

Coming. The tease is always paid.

How many logical fallacies is one allowed in a single response? I think River just went over the limit.

How convenient for science to be able to arbitrarily decide what is simply "unanswered" even when that unanswered question makes their entire position untenable. Starting with the supposition that Darwinian theory is objective truth and labeling all dissent as crazy creationists, while using a...

The fact that scientific naturalism cannot account for the first cell is certainly a problem. I know, I know, wait another ten years. Maybe we really are just a computer simulation. Lol at Neil.

From which side would you like me to begin? Theistic evolution or the other Godless kind?