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.
I assume you would consider faith to be a virtue. Something to be rewarded for in the afterlife?Yup. In fact, it would require faith to accept it as a true story, in my opinion.
Yes. Faith is one of the three virtues.I assume you would consider faith to be a virtue.
And something to please God with in this life.stevil said:Something to be rewarded for in the afterlife?
The latter.stevil said:Would you consider contradictory evidence to be a test of your faith or perhaps an opportunity to show how faithful you are?
Yes.stevil said:Do you think a doubting Thomas is less virtuous than a person of strong faith?
So, in some way it could be considered as a gift from you to god?Yes. Faith is one of the three virtues.
And something to please God with in this life.
Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
So you would prefer to have faith than to see,I don't need to see some goofy shroud, or wheel at the bottom of the Red Sea, or an outline of Noah's Ark, or take a trip to the Promised Land to enhance my faith.
Personally, I see it as a fruitless exercise, to try and find evidence for god. In many circumstances it comes down to finding gaps in scientific knowledge and pointing out, "we don't know how this happened so it must have been god!" but this doesn't recognise that science is a method of discovery. It is because we have gaps in our knowledge that we employ scientific endeavors.We who walk by faith ... in my opinion ... are more blessed than even our brothers and sisters in Christ who need physical evidence to help them along.
I'm not an expert in the bible, in fact I haven't read it, but I personally don't see this passage as being an endorsement for faith over evidence. Perhaps it is saying that either path is fine with Jesus?John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
Those who haven't seen get a special blessing over those who have.
Call it a sixth sense, if it'll help; but as the Bible puts it ...If you don't have any evidence, how do you choose one religion over another?
We have a saying:stevil said:Doesn't it then come down to mere luck?
I have no sixth sense, not that I'm aware of.Call it a sixth sense, if it'll help; but as the Bible puts it ...
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
You admitted you haven't read the Bible, may I suggest you at least read the books of John & Romans?
I applaud your honesty.I have no sixth sense, not that I'm aware of.
Perhaps I'm slightly autistic or something, but I just can't make any sense of it.
For example, the phrase you posted above, I have no idea what is meant by that.
see my ferarri example above. making objects in order dont prove they evolved from each other. even if they were able to reproduce.
-_- organisms don't evolve with the purpose of helping humans. Especially not via NATURAL selection. Remember that organisms such as cows and dogs are the products of ARTIFICIAL selection by our species.why not? it can help in many situations for humans.
-_- even if it were possible, through artificial selection, to produce a living watch, why would our species bother when we already have machines to tell time with?for instance: a human can use this watch to meet someone.
Demonstrably wrong; we make cars, we make airplanes, we know flying cars do not predate airplanes, and we know airplanes didn't come from cars. Nothing about the design of an airplane would even suggest a shared design thought process with that of cars. No car or airplane has ever appeared independent of human intervention. The comparison of living organisms to cars is so bad that, even if humans and cars had the same inventor, you'd never be able to tell by comparing them. That is, even from an intelligent design perspective, the "design" of living organisms and cars are too dissimilar for design in both to become apparent via comparison.i can say the same thing to my car into airplane example.
if they were not then why the paper conclude it may be the result of convergent loss?
-_- even if it were possible, through artificial selection, to produce a living watch, why would our species bother when we already have machines to tell time with?
Demonstrably wrong; we make cars, we make airplanes, we know flying cars do not predate airplanes,
and we know airplanes didn't come from cars.
if the paper conclude that it's possible by a convergent evolution then they should be homologous. so or so: your claim about hierarchy have been flasified.
and the evidence is a theory?
Each nation had a primary deity, usually with the deity coupled with man in some way; and the scientific community is no exception.Humans did come from fish.
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?