The thing is, the argument doesn't follow a logical form. We don't understand how early life began, therefore only the Creator Christ could make life. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise - it is a non sequitur. Very tough for Creationists to gain traction using arguments such as these.
@jkohoutster The thing is, both creatin and evolution are based on faith. the very thing that you accuse creationists of being is exactly what evolutionsits are also. But, if you start with a nuetral position, neither favoring creation or evolution, when you observe what science shows, and science ONLY, and then look at the Bible, science agrees with what the Bible tells us. there is no scientific reason to believe in evolution except to take God out of our lives.
The thing is, the argument doesn't follow a logical form. We don't understand how early life began, therefore only the Creator Christ could make life. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise - it is a non sequitur. Very tough for Creationists to gain traction using arguments such as these.
jkohoutster 4 weeks ago
@jkohoutster The thing is, both creatin and evolution are based on faith. the very thing that you accuse creationists of being is exactly what evolutionsits are also. But, if you start with a nuetral position, neither favoring creation or evolution, when you observe what science shows, and science ONLY, and then look at the Bible, science agrees with what the Bible tells us. there is no scientific reason to believe in evolution except to take God out of our lives.
AndyG792 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@AndyG792 How do you define 'science', 'faith', and 'evolution'.
jkohoutster 3 weeks ago
No wonder Mr Dawkins and his fellow believers want don't the Creationists to debate with him publicly.
MrFlatroofer 2 months ago