Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
no edit summary
Line 83: Line 83:  
It is not relelvant to some poeple. Personally I believe in the evolution theory and God at the same time. I think that there is already enough evidence to support the evolution theory. But I follow God's teachings on life, not where life came from. Please do not be offended but there is no evidence of God's existence. It is only a matter of faith. But for "scientific" topics like evolution I think I'd rather believe in science. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Disagree?]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
 
It is not relelvant to some poeple. Personally I believe in the evolution theory and God at the same time. I think that there is already enough evidence to support the evolution theory. But I follow God's teachings on life, not where life came from. Please do not be offended but there is no evidence of God's existence. It is only a matter of faith. But for "scientific" topics like evolution I think I'd rather believe in science. [[User talk:Faizaguo|Disagree?]]--[[User:Faizaguo|Faizaguo]] 12:42, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
 
: I'd say that God's existence ''is'' relevant to everyone, although not of ''interest'' to some people.  Which "God" do you believe in?  It can't be the God of the Bible, as that God is inconsistent with evolution.  And if you don't believe what God said about where life came from, why believe His other teachings?  If He got one part wrong, why think that He got another part right?  As for no evidence for God's existence, don't be offended, but you are quite wrong.  The very fact that we exist is evidence for God's existence, as naturalism, the only alternative, has no coherent explanation for it (the Big Bang:  First there was nothing, then it exploded!).  Claiming that evolution is science is begging the question, as science is about observing, testing, and repeating, things, none of which can be done with molecules-to-man evolution.  Rather, evolution is a story about the ''past'', a claim about ''history'', not science.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
 
: I'd say that God's existence ''is'' relevant to everyone, although not of ''interest'' to some people.  Which "God" do you believe in?  It can't be the God of the Bible, as that God is inconsistent with evolution.  And if you don't believe what God said about where life came from, why believe His other teachings?  If He got one part wrong, why think that He got another part right?  As for no evidence for God's existence, don't be offended, but you are quite wrong.  The very fact that we exist is evidence for God's existence, as naturalism, the only alternative, has no coherent explanation for it (the Big Bang:  First there was nothing, then it exploded!).  Claiming that evolution is science is begging the question, as science is about observing, testing, and repeating, things, none of which can be done with molecules-to-man evolution.  Rather, evolution is a story about the ''past'', a claim about ''history'', not science.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:29, 18 June 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
I think it's just that the scientists who do not believe in God have the thinking that if you can't see it, then it can't be real, or that they lack the depth of thought to actually believe in something. It is almost like they are intimidated by something that they can not grasp or fully understand. Either that or they don't have the full facts on the Bible and the evidence supporting it. --[[User:IndigoiMac|IndigoiMac]] 12:33, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
29

edits

Navigation menu