- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,285
- 52,674
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Such an animal would overturn the whole of biology.
Have you found such a creature? A pre-cambrian rabbit, perhaps?
Jesus' life isn't a scientific theory.
Bring them on! I'd be as excited as anyone.
Good point! You solved your imagined issue with ToEBut He was a real man backed by evidence.
No true. It's a matter for historians.
So much for Post 90 then.
Because my belief changed because of other conflicting evidence. It's the arguments that had me question ToE so I'll choose to say I don't know.Why do you keep claiming that evolution is a belief, when it is supported by science?
I'm sure you meant "so true".
Because my belief changed because of other conflicting evidence. It's the arguments that had me question ToE so I'll choose to say I don't know.
Trying to prove is impossible.My beliefs have evolved depending on the evidence or lack of it and not just on this subject or others and I'm not smart enough to debate something I read about 30 years ago. As long as there are unanswered questions about it I'll carry my own belief about the beginning of mankind. Trying to prove or disprove is futile.
TOE is a real theory backed by a million times more evidence than the life of Jesus.
No, I missed the comma between 'No' and 'true'.
Conflicting evidence!!??Because my belief changed because of other conflicting evidence. It's the arguments that had me question ToE so I'll choose to say I don't know.
Like Ray Comfort you have it backward.So a crocoduck wouldn't disprove evolution, since the Theory of Evolution doesn't imply a bi-genus animal?
The existence of one would disprove evolution.
Science and God (nature's creator) are complimentary.God beliefs and science are opposite.
The belief that science and God are opposites is likewise emotional. Faith means trust. Although trust can sometimes have an emotional component, this does not imply that trust is inherently misplaced. I trust my friends, I have faith that my house won't collapse when I walk to the kitchen. I believe that when I click "Post reply" my reply will appear in this thread.Belief has faith, it's emotional in nature
Yes, but like auto mechanics the car has a creator. So does nature. "God" is what we call the creator of nature.Science is fact based. Objective in nature.
Like auto mechanics.
Auto mechanics are the same regardless of " belief sysyem".
Why should we want to or need to disprove evolution? It isn't a salvific matter, and last I checked it is a natural process. Because evolution is a natural process, it was therefore created by God (the creator of nature).The thread though is about disproof of evolution.
I know your desire to take certain words literally may make this difficult for you to understand, but the 'duck-billed' platypus does not have the bill of a duck.No, it wouldn't.
Or evolution would have admitted it already.
Fossil recordsJust one will do. Conflicting evidence is exactly
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?