Vast amounts of evidence from observable evidence suggests that they in fact did.



Unfortunately for you the scientific evidence flushes this particular assertion down the toilet.

This is the god that you would have us believe decided to make previously placid, herbivorous dinosaurs begin feeding on other dinosaurs in response to a species of ape eating an apple without his consent?

If the cap fits...



Seriously? That's your best argument? There is absolutely no evidence that heaven exists, much less that there is a physics-defying light source present there.



What? You mean he's just hidden this mysterious source of light to test our faith. Sneaky bugger.

Even if Kirstaller is on a big trolling mission, the worrying thing is, there are many many people who believe what he believes, and demand to be respected for it.

Species of ape? Death entered the world following man's rebellion against God.



There is conclusive evidence for those who accept the Holy Spirit.

[i"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." [/iMatthew 7:7



Why are you banging on about the source? God created light, HE is the source. No test of faith involved.

Good job too, we'd be standing on each others shoulders by now and some of us would be 2000 years old, I don't want to be walking around with someone standing on my shoulders when I'm 2000 years old.

But surely the plants would die when they were eaten by the dinosaurs?

You don't accept any of the evidence for evolution?


No mate, that's acceptance, not evidence.


I think I understand he what was saying... i.e. God created an animal that emits light, yet didn't create light itself until days later.
There's a chronological disrupt there.
But I guess you'd say that's no big problem for god, he can nip about the space/time continuum at will.
That could be fair enough, as we theorise that subatomic particles can cease to exist in one place and come into being again, immediately, in another place ... without actually travelling between the two places.
In which case, it's the chroniclers who got it wrong, framing the creation as a linear series of events in time.
... and that would lead me to ask if they can't get the basics right, why should I trust the arcane extrapolations of what blokes wandering the Med said, recorded in the same book?

The so-called Adam and Eve would have been around more than 2000 years ago surely?
I'm thinking tens of thousands of years ... in the Great Rift Valley.
But not both at the same time.
Unless all we have discovered about genes is wrong too.

Plant "death" is different than animal or human death. Plants eat, drink, grow and respond to stimuli, but they do not have a central nervous system. Nor do they have blood. According to scripture only organisms with blood in them are "alive".

[i“For the life of the flesh is in the blood…”[/i Leviticus 17:11

Plants do not die in the biblical sense of the word, because they are not "alive" in the biblical sense.

Humans and animals also posses a state of consciousness that plants can not. The Hebrew word "nephesh" is the word used in the Bible for consciousness. Nephesh is only used in application to man and animals. Plants are not conscious creatures.

Sin brought death to man and animals only. Plants do not truly die in the sense that humans and animals do.

I accept that some people believe there is evidence. However I believe that mankind was created in its present form.



It’s is evidence enough for me and millions of other believers. It’s your decision whether to accept God’s invitation or not and see the evidence for yourself.



But light can exist independent of our known sources of light, especially in the context of an all-powerful God.



Of course, God exists outside of time. The Alpha and the Omega.



I don’t understand what you are saying here. Can you clarify?



The creation of the world was linear and happened in 6 distinct days.



Again, clarify your above point and I’ll get back to you. I don’t think any ‘basic’ errors have been made.

Then sir, you are a barm pot. And I am putting it politely.