Creation Vs Evolution

Sado wrote:

quater wrote:

Sado wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

spyke543 wrote:Bush isn't as bad as everyone says he is. Ok, maybe he is. idk, I don't pay for gas or taxes. But no way on Earth Kerry was going to win.

He's not. The Gas taxes are lower because of him.

I agree Titan it was funny. And to Amaterasu, if you don't care then you don't need to worry about our leaders. By the way still waiting on the Mark and the Economy to fall.

Biblically yes, 7 does have a special meaning. It's called 7 days, and like I said, possibly 7 parts of God. But no, God didn't "Pull strings" To make it happen because God is God why not just do it in 7 days and start our first week system? He's the man I say if he said he did it in 7, why believe he lied? It's really strange. I actually did not know so many people had bought into the God's a liar who used Evolution theory.

Lot's of numbers have Biblical secrets. 12, 7, 3, 666, 40 to name a few.

it's not lying, it's a metaphor

\

God Said 7 days. Why would he waste his time? When he made the Israelites lost in the desert for 40 years it wasn't a metaphor. Nor when he flooded the Earth was it a metaphor. God doesn't use metaphors with the things he does. If he says it, he means it. He Poured out 12 plagues on the Egyptians, no Metaphor.

Etc. There are tons of instances when he says things, but I have yet to see it be a metaphor. With something as tremendously important as the Creation of Earth why would he lie? Besides, Science says the Earth is between 15 and 8 thousand years old.

I'm gonna have to ask here Q, and don't take it as a personal slight to you or your God, but where is this Science saying that the Earth is only between 15 and 8 thousand years old? Everything I've seen, read, and researched on the subject says that it's believed to be in the billions, (Approximately 4.5 billion of those things called years.)

Take a slight? Sado my friend, it's a debate, that's what we are here to do. Discuss. I can tell you that you probably are not looking in the right places, if everything you've seen and read says 4.5 billion years, since I have seen hundreds of writings against this belief.

I will stay away from the Fossil Record, though strong evidence, you asked specifically for the creation of the Earth and that is what I will restrain myself too. For starters, there is a decrease that has been observed in our atmosphere of today. There is indeed, a magnetic change in the atmosphere, with a 7% decay. When we work backwards against this decay, it is clearly visible that the atmosphere can be no more then 15000 years old and still be able to support life with what we have. This includes geomagnetic reversals and similar phenemon. Another example is the neutron stars. They emit large amounts of radiation and even recently our galaxy was invaded by a large amount of Gamma rays from one of these stars. They are called Magnetars. The one that we felt these rays from, has at most 10,000 years left of gamma ray emissions, and this is felt to be the same with most Magnetars. So their is a problem, if most Magnetars run out at around the same time, they must have also formed around the same time, and since they dissipate huge amounts of these rays it is safe to say that they themselves are incredibly young otherwise they should have long burned out.

Another example is creation. According to Baryon's number, it says that to create something from energy (Which is what the Big Bang Proposes) That an equal amount of Matter and Antimatter must be concieved. However, in our universe Matter greatly overwhelms and practically swallows out the anti matter counterpart. This does not bode well for the Big Bang, because if it was supposed to be created equally and there is no known reason not for it, this thus goes to say that something is desperately wrong with that model. The biggest "Detriment" To creation is supposed Radioisotope dating which says that half lives, which have only been measured for a hundred years, support the belief that the universe has to be years old. However creationists have raised points that if Potassium or argon were present before when the elements were created (the elements being the sediments these rocks are found in) Then the age could very well be supported as 15,000 years.

This is just a handful of evidences that the Earth cannot be logically 4.5 Billion years.

My friend, if you will be so kind as to allow me some slack as I am not the quickest of wits and far from an expert on science as I have previously stated. So I shall attempt to deal with your arguments and questions as best I can.

I should like to see the formula which you have used to arrive at 15,000 years old by magnetism. Because the formula which you speak of seems like it would not take into account the variances in Earth's magnetic field. As although you mentioned the 7% decay rate, that rate has not been a constant over the years. It is similar to me claiming to have lost 10 pounds this year, that does not mean I lost 10 pounds every year. Though it is wholly possible I'm confused, perhaps you could explain it to me at such a level that even I can fully comprehend your drift if I am indeed wrong in my assumptions.

I shall move to the second point after I have eaten, for my bodily health is of the foremost priority at this moment.

NinjaPleez wrote:The sad thing is that neither side of this arguement can prove itself correct, nor can we give near enough evidence to prove the other side wrong. It's an infinite paradox that has no point other than to provoke hatred and war between the two sides, which is exactly what is has done for millenia. Jews persecuted in Egypt. Jesus being crucified. The Crusades. The German Holocaust.

All have no point other than to attempt to win the arguement of religion versus religion or religion versus theoretical science, by anhialating the other side.

Now riddle me this.

Is it really worth debating?

quater wrote:

NinjaPleez wrote:The sad thing is that neither side of this arguement can prove itself correct, nor can we give near enough evidence to prove the other side wrong. It's an infinite paradox that has no point other than to provoke hatred and war between the two sides, which is exactly what is has done for millenia. Jews persecuted in Egypt. Jesus being crucified. The Crusades. The German Holocaust.

All have no point other than to attempt to win the arguement of religion versus religion or religion versus theoretical science, by anhialating the other side.

Now riddle me this.

Is it really worth debating?

It's totally different. What we are debating is nothing like the Holocaust, it's not even in the slightest radical because we are putting logic and evidence verse logic and evidence. The fact that you put this as religion verse religion isn't a good thing. This is clearly a battle between scientific beliefs, it's not even moral. Feelings should be discluded.

And this isn't provoking hatred. If you are honestly so weak that this debate about facts would provoke hatred for someone, that is just from your own ignorance and prejudices, and has nothing to do with the science we are doing here. A more accurate comparison would be if we were sitting here before Christopher Colombus sailed in arguing whether the World is round or flat. We don't know for sure and each side is pretty sure what in we believe in and we have our assetted facts but it will only end when Christopher comes back and says hey it was round. But that doesn't mean we quit either.

Yes, it's worth debating. As long as people are here asking about Creationism, I will answer, as long as people are saying that 7 days is a metaphor, I will reply, and as long as people tell me across this forum and anywhere that Evolution is fact, I will refute them. I am not the type to be told something and just lay over and take it. I have researched both sides, and have found Evolution lacking. And it is important, because this debate for me can have eternal consequences.

Sado wrote:

quater wrote:

NinjaPleez wrote:The sad thing is that neither side of this arguement can prove itself correct, nor can we give near enough evidence to prove the other side wrong. It's an infinite paradox that has no point other than to provoke hatred and war between the two sides, which is exactly what is has done for millenia. Jews persecuted in Egypt. Jesus being crucified. The Crusades. The German Holocaust.

All have no point other than to attempt to win the arguement of religion versus religion or religion versus theoretical science, by anhialating the other side.

Now riddle me this.

Is it really worth debating?

It's totally different. What we are debating is nothing like the Holocaust, it's not even in the slightest radical because we are putting logic and evidence verse logic and evidence. The fact that you put this as religion verse religion isn't a good thing. This is clearly a battle between scientific beliefs, it's not even moral. Feelings should be discluded.

And this isn't provoking hatred. If you are honestly so weak that this debate about facts would provoke hatred for someone, that is just from your own ignorance and prejudices, and has nothing to do with the science we are doing here. A more accurate comparison would be if we were sitting here before Christopher Colombus sailed in arguing whether the World is round or flat. We don't know for sure and each side is pretty sure what in we believe in and we have our assetted facts but it will only end when Christopher comes back and says hey it was round. But that doesn't mean we quit either.

Yes, it's worth debating. As long as people are here asking about Creationism, I will answer, as long as people are saying that 7 days is a metaphor, I will reply, and as long as people tell me across this forum and anywhere that Evolution is fact, I will refute them. I am not the type to be told something and just lay over and take it. I have researched both sides, and have found Evolution lacking. And it is important, because this debate for me can have eternal consequences.

More than that, I have a great respect for Q and his ideas, and as long as he gives me the same respect which he has never failed to do, what harm can this debate have. We may find new ideas or new arguments for ourselves, and similarly may comprehend the other's position more clearly. Though I don't believe in the eternal consequences and I am far from the ideal champion of the ideas I espouse, I'm here and willing to bring an alternative view point to the table.
This is an attempt at attaining knowledge, as Plato once said "Knowledge is the food of the soul," and I wouldn't wish my soul to starve, would you?

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

is it a metaphor? is it literal? who knows?
7 days? 4 million years? I just say what i think
but doesn't the majority of the bible have a deeper meaning?

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

is it a metaphor? is it literal? who knows?
7 days? 4 million years? I just say what i think
but doesn't the majority of the bible have a deeper meaning?

Amaterasu wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

is it a metaphor? is it literal? who knows?
7 days? 4 million years? I just say what i think
but doesn't the majority of the bible have a deeper meaning?

um sabaku
do you get a book thats too hard to understand?
something that has lots of metaphors?
isn't it hard to get the message?
well the bible is the total opposite. The message it has is certainly clear and easy to understand. Meaning that metaphors were not used.

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

is it a metaphor? is it literal? who knows?
7 days? 4 million years? I just say what i think
but doesn't the majority of the bible have a deeper meaning?

um sabaku
do you get a book thats too hard to understand?
something that has lots of metaphors?
isn't it hard to get the message?
well the bible is the total opposite. The message it has is certainly clear and easy to understand. Meaning that metaphors were not used.

On behalf of Sabaku, now you guys are just teaming up.

Amaterasu wrote:

Titaniumxvx wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

sabaku no ketsueki wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:

quater wrote:

Amaterasu wrote:i was gonna answer one of these, but Q seems to be able to handle this all by himself.
SO i'll just say this. The theory of evolution has proven to contradict itself with its own science.
the theory of evolution says that we became better, stronger, more adapt, and universally smarter and so on.
Well the law of thermodinamics (ok, i think its this one, but correct me if i'm wrong with the name k?) states that all matter decomposes over time/ And we can see this law in action over many years, thiungs break down not build up.

No actually Amaterasu I'd love to get some back up from someone it gets lonely sitting out as the creationist by himself from time to time. And like you just did, you can whip out things that I forget to mention or didn't know to help stabilize my argument.

Well look whose back. Hey kurokumo calmed down some? ^_^

oh, ok then
i'll try and help out more often then

Sweet ^_^

Plus you get better the more you get in there.

And to you Sabaku: I said Creationist, as in a 6 day creation of the Universe by God. And you are, in fact an evolutionist. You're a Theistic Evolutionist.

Theistic Evolutionist, which takes the creation side more than the evolution....i think
I still lack a lot of information on that, but what I've heard so far makes sense
BUT if I had to choose one or the other, no in between,it'd be creation

There isn't a lot of information on Theistic Evolution. Basically in the old days there was no creation science, just like today there isn't much, because the Government refuses to give money to Intelligent Designers. So they had no way of studying it. So they made up Theistic Evolution so as to keep their faith solid in the light of Evolution.

But today, we can prove Creationism because Scientists are uniting and Evolution is starting to fumble. We are in the second half of the game with a ready team and Evolution is getting weary. So a 7 day Creation no longer needs to be "A metaphor" but we can take our Lord seriously and believe what he said.

is it a metaphor? is it literal? who knows?
7 days? 4 million years? I just say what i think
but doesn't the majority of the bible have a deeper meaning?

um sabaku
do you get a book thats too hard to understand?
something that has lots of metaphors?
isn't it hard to get the message?
well the bible is the total opposite. The message it has is certainly clear and easy to understand. Meaning that metaphors were not used.

On behalf of Sabaku, now you guys are just teaming up.

um, no not really,
its a debate.
Q and I are on the creation side and she is on the evolution side. Nothing more

neon kun wrote:It has never even came into my mind that the bible's passages were metaphors. Jesus did what He wanted, what He should. He preached, told people of God's word. Now, why would He use metaphors when He speak to people in general? Wouldn't that stir confusion? And that's something Jesus never did, confuse people. He told them straight, and in parables as examples. But never metaphors.

darkflame5019 wrote:i say eveolution not creation