Evidence that only satisfies 'you' doesn't count.Examples of such evidence have been provided to you countless times.
Sticking your head in the sand, won't change that.
No, it's like saying you can take one step but not walk to the other side of the galaxy.
How about you explain to us using which ever theory of evolution you are defending to explain the origin of life.
Evidence that only satisfies 'you' doesn't count.
The theory of evolution, as I noted, only deals with the diversity of extant life on earth.How about you explain to us using which ever theory of evolution you are defending to explain the origin of life.
Assuming you believe that the impossible flood happened a few thousand years ago...
No, I'm arguing God exists and anything 'making an attempt to compromise that' is false.I would like to point out a few issues with your argument, you appear to be arguing on the premise that God exists, and therefore anything else is false.
Simply put, you're taking a misinterpretation and running with it. This verse is simply contrasting the believer and unbeliever. Unbelievers (natural men vs. spiritual) don't have access, nor do they have the Spirit-brought truth and insight through Christ to understand adequately and make judgments concerning why believers think the way they do. You should join a good bible-study group that correctly interprets the sricpture.In addition to that 1 Corinthians 2:15 states that spiritual men cannot be judged, implying that all priests, no matter what bad things they do, should not be punished. Do you want priests to kill people and get away with it? The bible can not be true, in addition to the fact the bible states clearly the earth is flat, which it clearly is not, it is impossible and therefore god cannot exist.
This is a real problem... trusting in yourself. Trust in God, you'll see things in a new way.To conclude this fairly long post, I would ask you a simple question, what can you believe in if you can't believe your observations?
I'm not crazy about that definition, the definition I use is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. That should not be confused with the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent. Two very different things.I am curious if any Christians believe that evolution occurs (take careful note of the phrase, "evolution occurs" it means if it has happened or will happen, regardless of whether or not humans evolved from other primates). Please take the time to answer, thanks for any responses.
(For full disclosure I am atheist)
** Convenient definition of evolution for those unsure: Evolution is changes in a life form due to mutations in their genetic code, leading to the success or failure (or neither) of the mutation, leading to the mutated creature having more success mating, therefore passing on the improved gene or no success, leading to the gene not being passed on. Or to put it simply, changes in a life form over time. **
Again, science is a wonderful thing... until it is used to usurp God's glory. Therein lies the hoax and yes it is rooted deeply.Evidence that satisfy biologists, paleontologists, geneticists,...
In other words, evidence that satisfies those who actually understand what they are talking about.
True, scripture, information and even evidence is often misinterpreted by everyone, including biologists and the more educated Christians (thanks for reminding me of my lack thereof, and the reason I need to put my trust in God instead of myself).Flat earthers disagree.
Just like you disagree with biologists and more educated christians about evolution.
Yes, I understand... evolutionists continually misinterpret the former and come up empty on the latter.Do you understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof"?
It sounds like you don't.
Yes, an a priori assumption of universal common descent would be unwarranted--if any scientist made such an egregious assumption.I'm not crazy about that definition, the definition I use is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time. That should not be confused with the a priori (without prior) assumption of universal common descent. Two very different things.
Again, science is a wonderful thing... until it is used to usurp God's glory. Therein lies the hoax and yes it is rooted deeply.
When they have to appeal to a massive, world-wide conspiracy encompassing literally millions of scientists, then they have already lost the argument and aren't worthy of serious consideration.
Also worth noting, that the people who make the "hoax" claim can never actually discuss the science.
It's not off topic at all.Your worldview is impossible, DogmaHunter. But, this is off topic and for another discussion.
Again, science is a wonderful thing... until it is used to usurp God's glory. Therein lies the hoax and yes it is rooted deeply.
True, scripture, information and even evidence is often misinterpreted by everyone, including biologists and the more educated Christians (thanks for reminding me of my lack thereof, and the reason I need to put my trust in God instead of myself).
Yes, I understand... evolutionists continually misinterpret the former and come up empty on the latter.