(April 8, 2016 at 8:59 pm)AJW333 Wrote:(April 7, 2016 at 10:11 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: So the type of evidence that you require to accept the scripture as reliable is different than the kind of evidence you require to accept the theory of evolution as reliable? Again...you don't see a major contradiction here? Which type of evidence do you employ when evaluating other supernatural claims like say...ghosts, or poltergeists? Science? Or the other?When making scientific claims, they need to be verifiable. When making statements of faith, they do not because they don't fit the scientific model and are not subject to the same rigorous proofs required by science. I am quite comfortable having a scientific viewpoint on certain matters and at the same time, having faith in God.
Either way, as Rob mentioned somewhere, attempting (and failing) to poke holes in evolutionary science is not positive evidence for a designer. It never will be.
One of the reasons I discount evolution is the fact that DNA has a great many constraints against errors being retained and therefore limits the chances that one organism could morph into a completely new organism. I would very much appreciate an evolutionary timeline for human beings, from now, back 5 stages to whatever it is we are supposed to have evolved from. Can you give me that?
So, "God exists" is a scientific claim, but his identity isn't?
Oh, no wait, that's right. You think you can conclude a non-science answer by picking on a scientific one. It doesn't work like that. Personal incredulity. How many times must we say that?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.