And therein lies the rub.
This has been the most informative, restrained, polite Evo/Crea thread I have seen in weeks but as long as moonbats are going to condemn half of Christians and 90% of Jews as "God Haters" for denying a literal interpretation creation we get no where.
Translation: Half the Christians don't really care about doctrine, don't really believe Scriptures, will eagerly latch-on to a philosophy of death and misery, and are really Deists at heart. (Jews deny the gospel, so deconstructing Genesis is par for the course)
And thanks for the hypocrisy by praising "restrained and polite" then procede straight to the insults. Since materialists must insert insults into a comment directed to wards people who actually believe the Bible, is it correct to assume that you are of that group of evolved beings that truly believe that your distant relatives can be found in cages at the zoo?
Afterall, it requires one to be "willfully ignorant" (2 Peter 3:5) about the matter. For instance, I don't know how many times it has been presented, but the Hebrew grammar can not be more explicit about a literal six day creation. There are words and phrases to denote long periods of time, yet these words are not found in the narrative, rather the word "day" is tied to a number (which always means literal "day"), and is associated to "evening and morning" (which always means literal "day"). If people wish to willfully ignore grammar, they also have to willfuly ignore the Ten Commandments which spells out six literal days which makes for the foundation of our hebdomodal cycles.
It has also been presented many times that scientifically the days could not be "long periods of time", particularly because the sun doesn't appear until "day" four, or the next "long period of time after plants. Even so, how would the water that covered the earth manage to not freeze up without a sun?
It has been presented countless times that anything other than a literal interpretation does great violence to the gospel message. It is certainly not possible that a person can be a Christian and not believe the gospel. For since death comes from sin, and sin by Adam, then it is not possible that death existed before Adam. To say that death preceded Adam is to deny the gospel. Those who deny the gospel cannot be Christians.
Furthermore, it has been presented countless times that to believe that one needs long periods of time before Adam in order to account for the "apperance of age", a person must willfully deny the global flood which completely changed the earth and the environment several thousand years ago. Since Jesus Christ refered to the global flood, to say that there was no global flood is to call Jesus Christ a liar. Those who gladly call Jesus Christ a liar are by definition God haters.
Then we have people who are A.D.D. or something and skip over genealogies because they think that they are boring. In doing so, they jump over important doctrine and evidence for a young earth. These same people wish to say that Genesis 1-11 is pure fiction, but two of the four gospels trace Jesus Christ's lineage all the way to Adam which includes a couple thousand years and several generations of "fictional" men. I undestand that materialists are quite eager to discover that their ancestors were lizards and bugs, so it is particularly odd that materialists, who would believe a "scientist" if they said that a distant ancestor was a goat or a dung beetle, would somehow not believe a faithfully recorded geneaology of real human flesh and bone. This takes true willfull ignorance to be at ease with this.
Therefore, my justification in identifying those who deny the six day creation deny the flood and claim that Jesus Christ's lineage included worms and bugs as God haters is justified. What is your justification for calling me a "moonbat"? Is it because insults are your only way to defend the undefendable?