Replies

"It is a p*ssing match when you refuse to move from point A to point B, and instead, continue in repeating something that's already been dealt with."

But it hadn't been dealt with. He says that point A is the same as point B.

"How so?"

Because saying the Bible is not literally true on all counts is not the same as saying a God doesn't exist.

"The God of the Bible says He wrote the Bible and that it is absolutely true."

Where does God say that?

"No, it would be saying whatever gods the majority of the world's population believes in are not the God of the Bible."

And not believing in the God of the Bible is not the same, at all, with not believing in a God. That being said, most people who accept evolution are also Christians.

"... would have similarly looked at Adam a minute after he was created, "discovered" him to have been a fully-grown adult, and overestimated his age."

Look, if you want to accept a literal Genesis, go ahead. But science, ALL of it, has moved passed that. Evolution was not the first science to do so.

He says that point A is the same as point B.

No, as I've pointed out too many times now, he qualified his earlier statement. Saying there is "no God" (his earlier statement) is not the same as denying the God of the Bible (his later one). Evolutionists may believe in some god of their own or someone else's making, but that god would not be the God of the Bible. I hope that is now finally clear.

Where does [the God of the Bible] say [He wrote the Bible and that it is absolutely true]?

In the Bible. Therefore, by definition, anyone who does not believe every word of the Bible, although he may believe in some god, does not believe in the God of the Bible. It's really very simple.

most people who accept evolution are also Christians.

They may claim to be Christians—and some of them may very well be Christians—but, merely claiming His name doesn't make them Christians. Lots of people who claim to be Christians are not. Jesus said so Himself... in the Bible.

if you want to accept a literal Genesis, go ahead. But science, ALL of it, has moved passed that.

Anyone who dismisses a literal Genesis denies the God of the Bible, based on a set of assumptions no more valid than mine.