pajarito

Me either. That's the one I cited. It's a good one.

Intellectual boredom, really. He didn't present anything new.

Something came from nothing, exploded, and became an organized everything. ................Absurd? Uh huh...

How did the animals fit on Noah’s Ark?

Rationale for the existence of our soul, by C.S. Lewis, with reference to the conscience and the inherent knowledge of right & wrong:

Are you Good?

Your guilt and condemnation is different from God’s saving grace described in your quote. You are guilty and under sentence of death because you’ve broken the Law. Primarily, that is why you will end up in hell if you die in your sins. You know right from wrong. The Law is imprinted on your conscience just like everyone else. If you were good, there would be no need for a Savior. You are under the weight of the Law and hell is your only option without your debt having been paid. “We are not saved by the law; we are saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The law doesn’t help us; it just leaves us helpless. It doesn’t justify us; it just leaves us guilty before a holy God and sends us to the cross.” If you are concerned about those who have never “heard” of Jesus then you should be willing to take the message to them.

One will not go to hell because he/she’s not heard of Jesus. One goes to hell because they’ve lied, stolen, blasphemed, committed adultery, murdered, coveted, created false idols, not kept God first in their lives, etc. (e.g. broken God’s moral law which is imprinted on everyone’s heart). Sin is not failing to hear the Gospel. Rather, “sin is the transgression of the Law.” (1 John 3:4).

Being "created in God's image" has nothing to do with our physical being. It has to do with our eternal soul. However (without absolute proof, I admit), I'm certain Jesus had nipples. So, in answer to your question and for a period of about 33 years, yes. To confound those who think they are wise and who are arrogant & self-righteous. (1 Corinthians 1:27)

Rapid speciation (Founder Effect), Natural Selection, Genetic Drift, etc. resulting in many species originating from a specific created kind.

No.

You'd be correct if you had to take two of each species existing today onto the ark.

Why would He not exercise economy in design? It wouldn't make sense to me otherwise. Anyway, would that do it for you? If the mystery of "male nipples" would be revealed, you might believe in God?

A whole lot of faith in a religion masquerading as good science.

Yes. That is what I meant.

Be careful that what you ask for is for God’s purposes and not your own. Selfish desires can be easily confused with what God desires of or for you. I’m not trying to come down on you. Just something to think about. The Greek word used for “imagination” is logismos and, according to Vine’s Expository Dictionary, is “suggestive of evil intent, not of mere reasonings. --Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, “Thanks a Million”

Why would Noah need to take more than one kind of each animal onto the ark as it says he did in the Bible?

So you believe in evolution. Check! (BTW, the entire field of geology is good evidence against a global flood.) I can see that natural selection occurs. That is not "evolution" in the sense that New Darwinian Theorists would like it to be.

There are fish today which can adapt to changing salinity of water. Those that cannot withstand changes in salinity, temperature, turbidity, etc. have become more specialized over time through natural selection. They would have died and mass extinctions would have occurred then just as they would now. There is no reason, however, to believe that surviving fish (those able to adapt) couldn't repopulate. That is certainly not a good argument against the global flood.

I agree. If it's sold to further the ministery, why not? They also have to pay their employees. That's just reasonable.

Adding new sequencing to a genome is still working with a pre-existing finite instruction set. You can only come up with variations of the same basic thing. Gills aren’t going to develop or “evolve” into lungs without adding “new” instruction. Duplication or recombining the same information isn’t coming up with something new in the basic sense. It’s just coming up with more of the same. Number of chromosomes is unimportant. The chromosome is simply the packaging and not a good indicator of quantity of information. Some amoebas have more chromosomes than we do. All natural selection does is create more specialized groups lacking information that was previously naturally selected out for survival.

Who can give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen (observable/demonstratable) to increase the information in the genome? If not, then there is no mechanism for the large-scale evolutionary processes required in New Darwinian Theory. Natural Selection is observable but it can only eliminate information. It cannot be used to explain anything other than variation within species (e.g. different sequencing of a limited set of information).

Absolutely not.

Ravi Zacharias is really good. I also really like John MacArthur. Here is a good sermon by him titled The Doctrine of Inspiration Explained.