Evolution

[Mister Agenda]

So by reading all of your comments it seems you ALL have taken the easy way out and not actually addressed the question I asked.

My question was: "If We Can Develop Light Without The Need of Creating A Star, Then Wouldn't It Be Possible For The Being That Created The Stars Could Also Create Light Without The Need For Creating A Star?"

Sure, an omnipotent being can do anything, that's why it can seem to explain anything while actually explaining nothing.

Their are only two possible answers to this question, of which none of you who chose to respond even approached. It seems when you all are faced with a simple obvious reasonable answer, you'd all rather opt of the question but still participate by attempting to trivialize and dismiss the comment that forces reasonable logical thought, rather than address you own folly for not seeing the obvious.

Some questions ARE stupid. If you're going to use evidence and reason and logic at all, why bring in magic? Sure, an omnipotent being could create light before sources of light, but to what purpose? Just to be inscrutable? Omnipotence stops the conversation by placing it outside the realm of reason.

If any of you had the stones to say yes or even no i would have pointed to scripture that says God Himself radiates light, and that would have concluded a Biblical perspective of a very legitimate question.

Genesis clearly isn't talking about any light God gives off, but light God created.

Why do you all hold me to a different standard than you hold yourselves? What if I had skirted one of your questions??

Yes, we do. We humor your made-up assertions much more than we would someone who claimed to be a rational skeptic.

Just look at how you all react when I simply ask you to define the parameters of the "evidence" you all seem to be looking for.

You mean when you dismiss examples of evidence that would interest us, like evidence that the Garden of Eden even existed?

This is a legitimate scientifically based question.

Only questions that can, in theory, be falsified, can be described as scientific.

(In order to define a variable, one must understand the standard in which it is measured.) Yet you all over look this fact when your arguments run out of spite and harp this point when i ask for something you should be able to provide. Yet when you have an opportunity to provide a direct answer you falter and fail even after I reduce the question to yes or no.(Completely defining the parameters for you again something you all have Failed to do for me) Again why am I held to a standard that you all fail to achieve yourselves?

Because you keep asking us to follow you down rabbit holes.

I am not preaching here as none of this pertains to anything religious.

You have a very unique perspective about what pertains to anything religious.

I am simply trying to force the bar of these conversations up a few notches to where you force me to play. May I humbly suggest if you can not participate on this level on a given topic, sit this one out and let those who can do.

We're still on the Thor vs. Hulk level, and you're the one keeping us there.

---

Did I say God created a light bulb?

Hey, it's your analogy.

We create light without bulbs as well..

Do we create light without any source?

So again if we have the wherewith all to create light with out the use of a "light bulb" or a star, then isn't it possible God did the same?

God who can do anything can do anything.

(Hint it is either a yes or no question, if you feel you need to explain your non yes or no answer, then know your answer is wrong no matter what the explanation.)

Your rules for how to determine if an answer is wrong differ from the ways reasonable people do it.

Plus did you not read the part where i said their is a verse that says God radiates light, that Heaven Radiates light??? Shouldn't this stop all light bulb related responses?

God said 'let there be light, and there was light'. It was an act of creation, not radiation.

---

For the one who said I should post this theory on a Christian site, know i took your advise and it's been a few days, but I am starting to see results. It took a while for them to start responding with deeper stuff than "that's blaspheme" but the theory is still biblically supported, and all questions/challenges from their side have been answered biblically. If you are interested in what the other side has to say PM me and I will e/m you a link. I do not want to get into any more trouble, or be accused of preaching on the Christian section of the web site again. (I don't know how many more times a Daniel will make it out of a lion's den unscathed )

AFAIK, it's not a violation to post the link. I hope you're persuasive, as rejection of evolution IS one of the things fundamentalist Christians do that puts us at odds. I prefer a Christianity that can accommodate science.