10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer

[Godscreated]

 First I'm not whining nor being bitchy, I'm the one who will be living with God for eternity, so I have no reason to be either in this conversation. It does appear that you have slid off coarse and gotten a bit upset. You've given me no reason to quote scripture and if I did knowing how you react .... well it would be no different than how you are reacting now. The scriptures are for those who want to know God, to the casual reader they want have much meaning, if you were to ever change your mind an seek after God you would find the scriptures read very differently to you. If I'm stupid and God is who I believe Him to be then what does that make you.

GC

Basically, you keep saying that you won't quote scripture to me nor give me evidence because you don't think I'll accept it.

I haven't said that, i said in the state of mind you have now you would ignore them. Here's one, probably the most important one in the Bible, John 3:16. Here are some more, Luke 1:68-69, Luke 2:30, Acts 4:12, 2nd Corinthians 6:2.

I've told you before, show me the evidence and I'll believe. The only reason I reject your claim of a god is because I've received no evidence of his existence from you or from him. I've already told him that I'll listen whenever he's ready to show himself to me, so now I offer you the same. Give me the evidence and I'll consider it. Continue dancing around the issue, and I'll just have to assume you don't actually have it.

 You are demanding something from God and like I told Jesster it doesn't work that way. Isaiah 66:2 and Isaiah 57:15 this is the attitude you need to hear from God, the attitude you have now blocks your spirit from hearing God. Works will never save anyone but we must put forward an effort and seek. As I've said before I can't give you evidence that will suit your closed heart.

GC

---

Since I take Genesis as literal I can't accept evolution of any kind, now I do believe change within a kind. With the fall came death and some death could have been environmental, and adaptation would have been a must for some kinds to survive. the same would apply for the post flood era. People say including most scientist that when a donkey and horse mate the offspring is sterile, not so in some cases. It has been documented that a mule mating with a donkey has produce offspring. I have been wondering what to call it a mulkey or a donule.

GC

"Change within a kind" is evolution by another name.  Adaptation to changing environmental conditions is natural selection.  Hybrid infertility is an issue of disparate genetics.  Looks like you accept modern synth after all, you just think that it started significantly later than all available evidence demonstrates, when god decided to play around in the dirt.  Guess you've got some repenting to do, heretic.  Do your fundy literalist friends know that you accept evilution?

 They know I despise evolution, and they also understand that changes in a kind to adapt to the environment doesn't bring about a whole sale change in a kind. Your statement is just another song and dance to get around the failed theory of evolution.

GC