Isn't it fair to say that science dosen't contradict any of our beliefs? (Evolutionist/Naturalist/Creationist) That only based on our assumptions with the data in front of us we draw different conclusions and asssumptions of what happened in the past. When we cannot historically prove any of it, we are left to assume what happened based upon "evidence" which can support/deny a theory but it cannot prove it to be wrong or right.
Can we agree that our "evidence" is motivated by our assumtion of what happened?
I just don't see how any intelligent naturalist can logically say there is not God and that our world has evolved period. I understand that some may believe there is no way to know, I'm speaking to the people who asert the obscurity that there is no God, when logically it dosent hold up.
2006-08-09
03:39:45
·
5 answers
·
asked by
ESPforlife
2