- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,744
- 52,542
- 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.
And you live in a trailer.I don't believe it just happened by itself. Apparently that means I'm ignorant dangerous and reject all science.
And you live in a ... oh, nevermind.If it's that simple then who doesn't believe it? I don't believe it happened on its own accord. Apparently that means I'm ignorant dangerous and reject all science
And ... [skip it].Why do you equate the two? If someone questions evolution does that mean they reject all science? I don't. But from what I'm getting on this forum if you question evolution you are ignorant dangerous and reject all science
You don't have to accept it at all to avoid ridicule.a you just have to stop saaying it's false without being ble to tell us exactly why.Do I have to accept all of the TOE as a fact to avoid ridicule?
Either that, or He used miracles.If there is a God, he used very defined processes in his creation.
Good luck with that.Belk said:Science is simply the search for those processes.
I don't remember saying it's false I do remember saying evolution happens just not molecules to man evolution which you pointed out actually refers to abiogenesis. What I said was there were some things I would have a hard time believing even if I stopped believing in God. I repeated something that Darwin said and then I was "poisoning the well and confirming the OP"You don't have to accept it at all to avoid ridicule.a you just have to stop saaying it's false without being ble to tell us exactly why.
But even if you accepted all of it, you wouldn't be accepting it as "fact." You would be accepting it merely as the best available explanation for the evidence now in hand, no more.
Either that, or He used miracles.Good luck with that.
2 Kings 2:17 And when they urged him till he was ashamed, he said, Send. They sent therefore fifty men; and they sought three days, but found him not.
So if I believe, as you suggested, that "He used very defined processes in his creation," rather than "miracles," as I suggested -- that will be the correct infallible interpretation?That you believe your interpretation of scripture infallible does not negate the data the rest of mankind had managed to acquire.
So if I believe, as you suggested, that "He used very defined processes in his creation," rather than "miracles," as I suggested -- that will be the correct infallible interpretation?
Well, for the record, I don't think creatio ex nihilo even generated any evidence.No, that would be what the data shows. You know, like how the data showed the earth is not flat or the center of the universe as some Christians believed.
Well, for the record, I don't think creatio ex nihilo even generated any evidence.
That's why God put in writing what He did.
No one needs to be an evolutionary biologist if they have actual data and evidence to support their claim... but when it's a request for people to just take their word for it and they are not even an expert, then it's a different matter.Oh. It seemed like you were saying only an evolutionary biologist could have a valid argument for or against evolution
Either that, or He used miracles.
Ya -- why use matches, when you can just rub two sticks together?Well that would just be lazy, wouldn't it?
It's ironic that you guys think we should live in caves, yet you'll balk when God uses methods that are so far above science, they aren't even natural.Well that would just be lazy, wouldn't it?
It's ironic that you guys think we should live in caves, yet you'll balk when God uses methods that are so far above science, they aren't even natural.
Romans 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Ya -- why use matches, when you can just rub two sticks together?
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?