Why would holding an unpopular opinion demonstrate that the opinion is nonsensical? Do you mean to imply that if people understood what megaman125 was saying, they would be more likely to reply ot it? I usually find megaman125's posts to be very clear, even though they are usually mean-spirited and often dishonest.
Science Disproves Evolution
- Thread starter Pahu
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
People seem to forget that the old Mosaic laws
were given and commanded by the same God
that us Christians worship today. Don't be
ashamed and try to suppress the truth.
The video points out the irony of quoting a
verse about murder, for example, and the
Christian says ''out of context!'' However,
when someone quotes John 3:16, no
context is required. Why is that?
were given and commanded by the same God
that us Christians worship today. Don't be
ashamed and try to suppress the truth.
The video points out the irony of quoting a
verse about murder, for example, and the
Christian says ''out of context!'' However,
when someone quotes John 3:16, no
context is required. Why is that?
No, I just noticed that megaman125 is the only repeat
poster on this thread in opposition to what scientists
study in labs all day long. He seems to have a big
problem with evolution but most people on this forum
don't and that is evident due to the lack of replies from
other people.
Pahu's basically spammed the entire Internet with
his copy pastes and they're universally rejected. It's
quite funny to read the replies on Topix.
poster on this thread in opposition to what scientists
study in labs all day long. He seems to have a big
problem with evolution but most people on this forum
don't and that is evident due to the lack of replies from
other people.
Pahu's basically spammed the entire Internet with
his copy pastes and they're universally rejected. It's
quite funny to read the replies on Topix.
D
Again, because a person frequently posts, does not make them a spammer.. A spammer is one who floods with emails or advertisements. A spammer (your words) is not one who posts frequently on a topic. You seem to want to somehow discredit him by slandering his character with an ad hominem attack.
If you don't like how his posts, you can find someplace else to stir the pot and bash the bible.
If you don't like how his posts, you can find someplace else to stir the pot and bash the bible.
This is my standard of evidence.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
Pahu's standard is already assuming the answer before going into the lab.
He also ignores the contradicting evidence, which is abundant. Do you do
the same?
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method
Pahu's standard is already assuming the answer before going into the lab.
He also ignores the contradicting evidence, which is abundant. Do you do
the same?
M
Or maybe other Christians are just wise enough that when they see a 66 page thread that has a topic title about how someone is declaring they don't believe evolution, they are wise enough to stay away because they know that with 66 pages the thread must be filled with typical evolutionists who's beliefs are threatened by people who say they don't believe evolution, and know that those typical evolutionists can't be reasoned with and thus don't waste their time. I should join that group soon.
Well then, in my opinion, your standard of evidence is pretty low. (That's what evolutionists tell me all the time about evidence for the Bible, so I'm going to pull one of their typical one-liners.)
Well then, in my opinion, your standard of evidence is pretty low. (That's what evolutionists tell me all the time about evidence for the Bible, so I'm going to pull one of their typical one-liners.)
How is the standard of evidence used by the top scientists of today considered low?
I have made no mention of the Bible whatsoever.
Well, if you can explain them please pick JUST ONE
evidence from here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
and show why it's not valid. That's not asking for too much is it?
I have made no mention of the Bible whatsoever.
Well, if you can explain them please pick JUST ONE
evidence from here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
and show why it's not valid. That's not asking for too much is it?