If you are a Christian, (this is a question for Christians only), do you think evolution occurs?

  • Yes, evolution occurs.

  • No, evolution does not occur.

  • I'm not sure.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Evolution is not fundaments of biology, you don't even need evolution to be good in that area, and its a lie, we have a soul and spirit compatible with our body that means God made us.
Yes, I believe that and I believe He used evolution to do it.
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes, I believe that and I believe He used evolution to do it.

But if our soul is made for our body or viceversa, then either our body was made for this, or our soul changed to fit our bodies, i don't believe God would put a soul and spirit into something made by chance, too much things that can go wrong, and i don't belive evolution has the power to make animals in the first place without his intervention. Theistic evolution is another thing completely different from the normal one, and it implies design by God.
 
Upvote 0

Tinker Grey

Wanderer
Supporter
Feb 6, 2002
11,213
5,604
Erewhon
Visit site
✟923,105.00
Faith
Atheist
But if our soul is made for our body or viceversa, then either our body was made for this, or our soul changed to fit our bodies, i don't believe God would put a soul and spirit into something made by chance, too much things that can go wrong, and i don't belive evolution has the power to make animals in the first place without his intervention. Theistic evolution is another thing completely different from the normal one, and it implies design by God.
Don't you think your god could put evolution in motion fully knowing how it would turn out? If so, your concerns about putting "a soul and spirit into something made by chance" is unfounded.
 
Upvote 0

Kylie

Defeater of Illogic
Nov 23, 2013
14,664
5,233
✟293,710.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Evolution is not fundaments of biology, you don't even need evolution to be good in that area, and its a lie, we have a soul and spirit compatible with our body that means God made us.

Evolution is not the fundamental concept of biology?

Biologists say otherwise, and they know a lot more about biology than you.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Evolution is not fundaments of biology

In a very real sense, Evolution is the "unified field theory" of all biological disciplines. From biogeography, to genetics, comparative anatomy, etc.

Evolution is the central idea that unifies them all under a single model. Very very successfully.

you don't even need evolution to be good in that area

You can't explain anything in biology, why things are the way they, without evolution.
Sure, you can learn the anatomy of species X by heart and then sum it up or use that knowledge to learn how to fix it as a surgeon etc.

But you won't be able to explain why this and not that.
And, I'ld add, that having knowledge of the evolutionary background of all those parts, will most definatly help you in finding out things.

, and its a lie, we have a soul and spirit compatible with our body that means God made us.

This is where you support that claim with objective evidence.
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But if our soul is made for our body or viceversa, then either our body was made for this, or our soul changed to fit our bodies, i don't believe God would put a soul and spirit into something made by chance, too much things that can go wrong, and i don't belive evolution has the power to make animals in the first place without his intervention. Theistic evolution is another thing completely different from the normal one, and it implies design by God.

From an third person perspective, the God @Speedwell believes in, seems a lot more powerfull, or impressive, then yours.

Take it into 21st century technology as an analogy.
Imagine 2 engineers who get commissioned to build a certain machine.

The first engineer completely designs the abstract into detail. He then fashions all the specific parts and puts them together. Boom, machine is created.

The second engineer doesn't do that.
Instead, he creates an environment and "sparks" a primitive thing into motion in it.
This primitive thing then pretty much self-assembles into the machine that the dude was commissioned to create.


So engineer 1 creates the machine fully and completely by hand.
Engineer 2 creates a self-assembling machine.


Personally, I'ld hire engineer 2.
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Hey hey "the iconoclast". You seem to be spending just as much time announcing your forthcoming answers as actually answering questions. Is there a point to that?

Hey hey

Hahaha :)

Well hang around and find out my dear. I hope i do not disappoint you

:wave:
 
Upvote 0

NBB

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 19, 2013
3,548
1,537
44
Uruguay
✟445,475.00
Country
Uruguay
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Don't you think your god could put evolution in motion fully knowing how it would turn out? If so, your concerns about putting "a soul and spirit into something made by chance" is unfounded.

I just don't accept that nature or evolution alone can create humans, one reason can be that we have souls and that i know God, the other is evolution just can't do designs, brains all the other things, it just can't. There is some evidence pointing to evolution but it can be because of a creator too. The weak part of evolution is that supposedly random mutation and death can do anything from ants to bananas and humans given how nature 'pressures' the living thing. Even given a 'generous' start with a fully formed primitive living being, i don't think evolution can advance much that animal, it is a dumb process that doesn't know anything, my position is reasonable, i like science but not in this one.

Scientists don't have all of them. Some people believing they are smart are actually fools.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
I'm not responsible for your education. Don't expect me to give you a biology course on an interwebs forum. Go do your own homework.
Hey hey tmoney you beautiful individual :) Im learning lots about your position and how you react to things. It is going very well so far and im loving this discussion. :)
non-random.
So its not intentional, it is not random and it is non-random. How can a process be non random?
I'll go along with it. Natural selection = a filtering method.
Filtering what?
Non-random.
So its not intentional, it is not random and it is non-random. How can a process be non random? Need nore from you?
/facepalm
Ouch! Are you ok?
It's an example to illustrate how "random" and "conscious decision" are not the only two options in the output of a process.
So why would you use a machine designed by human hand - created and designed to perform a task - as your example?
It's not an analogy to body plans.
Its an example to show non-random behaviour using a machine that was designed and created. Can you show me using an example of something which is non-random and not a created thing?
I can see that. But the problem doesn't seem to be the example...
Yes. The problem is your example. Have another try and get back to me?
I think you need to learn how analogies work.
Show me how to use an analogy for non-random behaviour that would satisfy a main concept of an analogy ie similarity?
Your mind certainly doesn't seem to be able to.
Your analogy so far cannot escape design ie a coin machine created by human hand and designed to perform a process. This is supposed to show a non random process by comparing it to a designed process?
That's kind of the problem with taking on theological obligations to argue against anything that disagrees with your theology.
Fascinating!
I'm not sure what you are asking here. It seems that you simply are having difficulty with understanding how gradually accumulating microchanges filtered by a process like natural selection, will result in seemingly optimised and complex body plans.
Well show me then? What have you got to prove your case?
Stuff like that is what you learn in introductory courses of evolutionary biology.
I was never taught evolution at school. You assume!
Again, it would help heaps if you would actually do your own homework first.
I love homework but I have you to show me what i need to know and you are showing it to me.
No. Homosexuality is factually common in the animal kingdom.
Why does your link suggest different? Who is correct you or the authority on the subject which contradicts what you say? - remember that link you sent me?

"Bagemihl adds, however, that this is "necessarily an account of human interpretations of these phenomena".[7] Simon LeVay introduced caveat that "

[a]lthough homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities."

"Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

"[8]One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[9][10] "About 10% of rams (males), refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."[10]"

I don't think anything in particular about individual scientist's statements and ideas and theories.
Im going to save this one for later. Remember, i record our conversations :)
I quoted the resource for the many examples therein where homosexual relations, including long term homosexual pairing, has been observed in species throughout the animal kingdom.
Why did you send me that link if it contradicts what you are saying? I refer you to the previous quotes from your page - you supplied me.
No matter what theories and ideas scientist's come up with - the facts are what they are and you can't argue the facts. Not reasonably anyway.
What are the facts? Show me, give me one example to chew on?
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Plenty of individuals never get to reproduce. Even more is the set if we also add those that do reproduce but of which the off spring never reaches sexual maturity. Some of them are gay, sure. So what? What is the problem?
Homosexual sex cannot result in reproduction show it is no use to the gene pool ie varitaions to pass on. Does that suggest from an evolutionary pov, homosexual is unnatural? Lets get into it? Give me details
No, actually. I don't plan on doing anything more then just bringing your ignorance to your attention and to advice you to first inform yourself on the subject you wish to argue against.
My dear that does not sound fair. You would leave me in the dark and not bring me to the light of your position. Im saddened!!!
This is why there is a meme that says: "Debating evolution with creationists, is like playing chess with a pidgeon. It knocks down all the pieces, craps all over the board and then flies away claiming victory".
You have played chess with pidgeons? What a story. How about this one for you :) Psalms 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. What you think?
As demonstrated every single day
Morality is made up of principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. To be ethical, it is relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. When we consider morality - which is the key word here - to reason right or wrong, a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning is needed. (.eg a statement or belief to compare an action to) Lets say i steal a small amount of money from you. You can reason to say i have made you a victim but i have not harmed you, i have not tricked you or injured you. We could suggest i have constructed a form of misfortune for you. We could suggest i took something from you without consent. How do you make a distinction for wrong behaviour and what principle serves for a chain of reasoning here? What is demonstrated everyday here?
The power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically. To use one's mind actively to form - interpret or view - considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions. Do you have no set principles or standard to compare a situation or behaviour to?
No. Rather: there is an equal amount of objective evidential support for unicorns and leprechauns, as there is for gods. I don't believe in leprechauns and unicorns because of the lack of evidence. I don't believe in gods, for the exact same reason.
What type or form of evidence would you require? Please be specific. So a comparison is still being made. There is an equal amount of objective evidence for both? I want you to show me how this is so? Give me an example of this?
If not having evidence is the reason not to believe in unicorns, then why would not having the evidence result in a different stance on gods?
Do you know how to recognize evidence for God when you encounter it? What evidence do expect?
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
I'm only interested if you have verifiable evidence. I've no use for your personal opinions, beliefs and unverifiable anecdotes.
You wanted proof. I gave you my personal experience with God which is authentic and happened to me. This was my experience and many have had their own. If i did not have this experience and it was false, i wouldnt be talking about it. Its like a comet, either you saw it or you didnt. Just because you did not see it does not mean it did not happen. I was once told a man with an experience is not at the mercy of a man who hasnt had one. You are only interested in evidence if you can make sure or demonstrate that (something) is true, accurate, or justified? For this ill have to demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument? Lets look at testing. I have an experiment which is going to be the rate of sugar cubes dissolving in water at different temperatures. Basically, I will drop sugar cubes into cups of water with different temperatures and time how long it takes the sugar cubes to "disappear" (dissolve). To perform part of this test i will need a range of tempered water and some ice cubes. If i were to test for God would i not have to follow a categorical method ie to perform the necessary actions and steps that are intregal? For example - using my sugar cube test - it would be no good for me to use a range of tempered sand or only cold water? To test for God should i not test using His prescribed way, to prove if it is genuine or false?
I say this is a meaningless unverifiable anecdote.
My dear it was not meaningless to me, in fact it effected me and changed me. Id say that it was important and worthwhile. What would you do if that happened to you?
Did you expect this was going to convince me?
I supplied it to see how you would react. Im seeing it now my dear :)
If I can't bring myself to "just believe" your religion, why do you think I would "just believe" you and by extension then "just believe" your religion?
Why cant you bring yourself around? What is stopping you?
"just believe" is exactly the issue I'm having.
Why do you have an issue with opening your heart to Jesus? What bad thing is going to happen to you?
So giving me even more things that I can only "just believe" (because it lacks evidence to justify reasonable belief), is only going to make it worse.
Why does it make it worse?
The more things I am expected to "just believe", the more impossible it becomes.
Why does it become more impossible?
You're just taking bare claims and piling on even more bare claims.
I have only so far, given you a personal experience - i had - that has effected me to my core. My heart is cut and the wound never heals. :) What claims are piling up?
This is not the way to convince me. At all. Au contraire.
Don't be shy. What do you need to be convinced to give yourself to Jesus?
Yes. Things work the way they work and not the way the don't work.
Excellent so we have an absolute certainty?
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Objects with mass are under the influence of gravity, the force of which can be calculated very precisely. We can do this, because things work the way they do and not the way they don't.
Excellent. So to perform this test we must choose materials according to what you want to prove ie classified into categories. To perform a test involving hydraulics i wouldn't use a method which is associated with brewing beer or an inert gas?
You made a bunch of claims. That's not evidence. Those are just claims.
Please correct me if im wrong. So far i have only made one claim, Jesus is real and you can know Him? What evidence do you need to justify or be convinced of this claim?
I can't give you what I don't have. As I said, I have zero rational reasons to believe in your religion. Zero.
Lets back track Connie - "How do you know God only exists in our imagination?" Tmoney - "For the same reason that you understand today that Poseidon only existed in the imagination of ancient peoples and that there is no god with a pitchfork ruling over the tides of the seas. " Connie - "What reason is that? I gave you my testimony - evidence - it would only be fair for you to give me yours?" Tmoney - "I can't give you what I don't have. As I said, I have zero rational reasons to believe in your religion. Zero." So poseidon exists in the imagination of peoples but you cannot give me a reason as to why this is so. You cannot give what you dont have, you just have an irrational, rational. So this is speculation rather than fact. What is it called when you accept as true - that poseidon only existed in the imagination of ancient peoples - without proof?
We know what thunder and lightning is. It doesn't require supernatural entities.
Please excuse my attention to detail. Lets back track, please remember this reply is relevant to the previous post. Connie - "How do you know God only exists in our imagination?" Tmoney - "For the same reason that you understand today that Poseidon only existed in the imagination of ancient peoples and that there is no god with a pitchfork ruling over the tides of the seas. Or that there is no Jupiter throwing lightning bolts during storms. Or that there is no Thor smashing his hammer to create thunder." Connie - "What reason is that? I gave you my testimony - evidence - it would only be fair for you to give me yours?" Tmoney - "We know what thunder and lightning is. It doesn't require supernatural entities." So God exists in my imagination because of what we know about thunder and lightning, it does not require supernatural entities? God exists in my imagination because "there is no Jupiter throwing lightning bolts during storms. Or that there is no Thor smashing his hammer to create thunder". So far it looks like you are suggesting that Jupiter and thor do not exist, therefore God does not exist?
I'm not giving you something that is supposed to explain anything.
Connie - "Please indulge me my dear. What data do you refer to or authority for this data and how did it prove gods are consistent with being imaginary?" Tmoney - "The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to. The data of the world. There is no data pointing to any gods. Hence all data is consistent with gods not existing." Connie - "My dear if i were to give you this answer that explains nothing, you would not accept it either." Tmoney - "I'm not giving you something that is supposed to explain anything." So you prefer to make statements rather than defend your position or arguements. Interesting. Ill give you another shot to redeem your self. Please indulge me my dear. What data do you refer to or what is you authority for this data? How did it prove gods are consistent with being imaginary? What lack of data? What do you expect to see that you do not?
The claim that a god exists, is the model that is supposed to explain something.
Dude it is such a laxed position. I dont need to expain everything, you do! You need to keep up to date and change when new evidence will be presented. You will never have rest!
I'm saying that there isn't any data in the world that suggests such a god exists. Hence, the "god model" has zero explanatory power.
What lack of data? What do you expect to see that you do not?
I didn't say it proves anything. Stop strawmanning.
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. Lets review this section of our conversation. Good thing i record all our discussions, it takes mins to see what the substance is. Tmoney - "The answer to your question is in the quote you are replying to. The data of the world. There is no data pointing to any gods. Hence all data is consistent with gods not existing." Connie - "What data do you refer to or authority for this data and how did it prove gods are consistent with being imaginary?" Tmoney - "I didn't say it proves anything. Stop strawmanning." My dear when we consider the context and the substance of our discussion, could you please show me how i committed this fallacy?
I said the data of the world is consistent with the idea of no gods existing.
And im asking what or who's data do you refer to. Show me?
Just like the data of the world is consistent with the idea that santa or unicorns do not exist.
So we have a consistent theme from you. Santa and unicorns do not exist, therefore God does not exist? Why is this agruement you frequently use - i suspect as a form of ridicule - not a category error? How is santa and unicorns related to God? Please give me as much detail as possible
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
No data supports these ideas. That means that the data we DO have is, is consistent with a model that does not include these ideas.
No data supports the idea of santa or unicorns. That means that the data we DO have is, is consistent with a model that does not include God. Did i get it right? Do i get an A? I want you to expand this answer. I want you to be more extensive. Show me what supports this evidence?
I don't know what is so hard for you to comprehend this basic concept.
Please excuse me, it may the case that you are smarter than me! Congratulations my dear. :) Its all good, i have you to help me grasp mentally - that is - to understand. Thank you for all your replies so far, lets not be shy, give me all that you have. As realitycheck01 said to me once "One reason that science is highly correct is because scientists are taught to distrust authority and reexamine the evidence". I distrust scientific authority and i want to examine your evidence!
If you have no data to support X, then by definition the data you DO have is consistent with not-X.
Please excuse my inability to learn fast. How does this relate to God?
I think the problem is rather you not knowing how to deal with a worldview that doesn't include your religious beliefs.
How do my religious beliefs and experiences - lets use my testimony as an example - conflict with this world view you speak of?
Humans have psychological problems with "not knowing" things. To the point that humans will just invent things and pretend them to be the answers to their unanswered questions for their own piece of mind.
Evolution is in fact a plurality of theories and suppositions. Why is the theory of evolution human psychological problems, an alternative to Creation for those who reject God?
Humans are also pattern seeking creatures. We are so obsessed with pattern seeking, that we will also see patterns where there really aren't any.
You know what coming next! Why is the evolution pattern exempted? Why do you not question evolution and why do you take it as 100% truth? Why is the case so strong for you? Please be genuine and give me more!
Humans are also very prone to the cognition error of the "false positive".
Excellant. You are in good company. "The human mind is extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning and making mistakes. We all suffer from that as we are all human" - dogmahunter, 2018. The scientific mind is a human mind. The conclusions of the scientific method are human reasoned. Why do you trust in evolution which is prone to error?
All these things together result in humans being very prone to be superstitious.
Hahaha nice! So why is your excessively belief in and reverence for the evolution not human error that we all are prone to?
This is why con-men such a sceance readers, tarrot card readers, fortune tellers, psychics, etc have such success. Even today, in just about every magazine you can read your "horoscope", as if the position of the stars and planets affect what will happen to you this week.
I never subscribed to the new age movement either.
All that together and humans are bound to invent religions.
So you disregard the spiritual world and believe it not to exist. What testing have you done to come to this conclusion?
We have even seen this within our lifetime, or the lifetime of our parents at least. Like scientology. Or a bit further back, Mormonism. Or Rastafari.
I disagree woth these things too.
We have actually very recently observed humans inventing religions. We know for a FACT that humans do that.
Do you believe scientist are not biased and do not invent things either? What have you observed that makes you reject Jesus?
You are more then welcome to provide us with objective verifiable evidence.
Would you consider the Holy Spirit objective verifiable evidence? If not, why? Detail will be needed?
But I know you don't have such.
What did you think about my previous answer re Holy Spirit?
Nobody has. If such evidence existed, it would be known by everybody.
It is known to millions of Christians and it can be known to you if you follow the formula ie 100% trust.
So I won't be holding my breath.
I would advise not to do this often!
I would prefer you to read with more attention and to not try and shift the burden of proof.
My dear im fascinated by you and your position. I merely ask you questions for more depth, i like for you to explain yourself.
If you think I'm wrong, all you would need to do is to provide us with examples of observations that objectively and verifiably points to gods. If you fail to provide us with even just one of such evidences, then the statement that all evidence at our disposal is consistent with no gods existing, is accurate.
We will be looking at the Holy Spirit as an example for evidence. I cannot wait to see how we go with this.
Human population size has never been below several thousand individuals. According to the bible, it was once just 2 and at another time it was reduced to 8. When the evidence of reality disagrees with a story in a book, then it is the story in the book that is incorrect.
Actaully the Bible doesnt suggest that adam and eve were the first 2. There appears to be evidence - in text - that they were a second creation and not the 6th day creation. Wanna discuss? Lets explore?
I'm not sure what budhism has to say about it. I thought certain versions believe in reincarnation. If they believe in reincarnation, that means that they believe that a "person" is something more then just the body and brain. If "you" can reincarnate as some other animal or person, then it implies that there is some "soul like" thing that defines personhood, rather then just the physical body and brain. I'll call that a "soul".
I have nothing to say about your anecdote. Bring me something that is actually verifiable and doesn't require me to "just believe" you.
Well i want you to explore and analyze it as a form of evidence - it happened. Why do you have nothing to say. This experience happened when you are suggesting such a thing cannot? Greetings.
IMO Buddhism teaches that there does exist a gestalt that many would identify as a "soul", e.g. consciousness, mind, will, volition, etc. However, in contrast to most other religions, we observe that this "soul" is something that is noteternal, and is therefore seen more as a "lifestream" than a "being". (If the soul is eternal, then it would not be subject to change; however, consciousness/mind/etc. does change, therefore it cannot be considered eternal.)
You made the statement that all religions make the same claims. Would you say this claim by a Buddhist is compatible with christianity?
To the evidence. As it stands, there seems to be the exact same kind of evidence for both. And that is "none". Evidence, is what makes the imaginary distinguishable from the real.
Lets consider my testimony, how do you show that it the same and how my testimony is useless? Need detail and depth, work at it my dear. Give me something good?
I'm not holding my breath.
I would hope so or else i could not have a discussion with you my friend :)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
Hey hey "the iconoclast". You seem to be spending just as much time announcing your forthcoming answers as actually answering questions. Is there a point to that?

Hey herman :)

What you think my dear :)
 
Upvote 0

the iconoclast

Atheism is weak. Yep, I said it
Feb 10, 2015
1,130
81
✟39,361.00
Country
Burkina Faso
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Private
I don't care if you disagree or not. I know what my argument was, and it is not what you seem to think it was.

Let me know if you want to discuss the argument I actually made, rather than the one you invented for me.

Hey 46and2 :)

Im waiting my dear :)

Just in case you forgot here is my last post to you

"Well... i disagree with much of what you said but hey im willing to be a fair sport. Lets start our own discussion and you can explain yourself in more detail. Would you like to start a fresh new discussion with me? How about you go on the offense? What have you got?"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

xianghua

Well-Known Member
Feb 14, 2017
5,215
554
43
tel aviv
✟111,545.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Single
I just don't accept that nature or evolution alone can create humans

its also true for any creature. we have no evidence that one kind of creature can evolve into something different. we only see variations of the same creature.
 
Upvote 0