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.
Then why do you "scientists" here call the things of God "myths", and use words like "poof" and "magic"?It makes no assumptions either for or against God's existence.
You mean none in your computers --- right?"NO! You're wrong, there is no evidence of God's existence."
That's right --- and God intends for us to walk by faith --- not sight.Ever considered that direct empirical proof of God would destroy any notion of faith?
That's right --- and God intends for us to walk by faith --- not sight.
That's real cute --- and that's why you guys don't understand anything, either.So if you sees Faith standing there, you are supposed to walk by.
That aintt very friendly.
Then why do you "scientists" here call the things of God "myths", and use words like "poof" and "magic"?
(I have my own idea why, but I want to hear it from someone with an education. That's why I'm asking you.)
That's real cute --- and that's why you guys don't understand anything, either.
That's right --- and God intends for us to walk by faith --- not sight.
Then why do you "scientists" here call the things of God "myths", and use words like "poof" and "magic"?
(I have my own idea why, but I want to hear it from someone with an education. That's why I'm asking you.)
Mod hat on
Please stick with the issue at hand. This is not GA and the isssue is evolution not God. Stick with the OP please or this thread will be closed.
Mod hat off
Of course.You mean none in your computers --- right?
1000 years ago, if they made the same claim about Element 100, would they be right?
Yes they would, in my opinion.
Yes, and until the evidence is recognised, everyone has every right to doubt the claim. I don't believe this analogy serves your causeThe evidence would be there, just not recognized as yet.
Yes, it does.Of course.
Yes, and until the evidence is recognised, everyone has every right to doubt the claim. I don't believe this analogy serves your cause
You mean none in your computers --- right?
1000 years ago, if they made the same claim about Element 100, would they be right?
Yes they would, in my opinion.
The evidence would be there, just not recognized as yet.
Of course it wouldn't.Evolution "wouldn't even be a matter of consideration --- on paper or otherwise" back when Genesis 1 was written down.
Of course it wouldn't.
Evolution was never really an alternative to Genesis 1 until Darwin had The Preservation of Favoured Races published 24 Nov 1859.
Element 100 is real though, and as I pointed out (or should have), anyone claiming in 1009 that Element 100 didn't exist would have been wrong.What I meant was, just like noone would have been able to conceptualise what "element 100" was 1000 years ago (definitely not 6000 years ago), neither would they be able to the same with the concepts of evolution, cosmology etc.
Hence a creation analogy.
Of course it wouldn't.
Evolution was never really an alternative to Genesis 1 until Darwin had The Preservation of Favoured Species published 24 Nov 1859.
Element 100 is real though, and as I pointed out (or should have), anyone claiming in 1009 that Element 100 didn't exist would have been wrong.
ETA: Way to go, me.
I just looked it up, and Element 100 is artifically produced --- go figure.
But I'm sure you see my point.
That is correct.People came along with "alternate ideas" long long after evolution had made them what they were.
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?