How do you define evolution?

[rational experiences]

God didn't do it either as a human man's consciousness is just bio owned by his bio body. As a human living inside of a pre existing Christ heavens CH gases.

What you theory is not even self owned.

You are not the cosmic nothing.
You are not cosmic radiation.
You are not O planet earth as the planet.
You are not any of the gases released out of planet earth as God science terms.

We live within water oxygenated by nature tree garden body. Pre existing body. Nature tree of life.

Nature garden also is not God.

Garden is rooted direct into gods ground the planet.

From planet to wood tree says God theists as theories itself.

Ends with the tree form from microbe ground bacterias body in stone to tree nature.

We said as humans we came as a pre owned living spirit form from the eternal body not God.

Said the eternal body was like a Mother whose space womb held created creation within it.

Man human said I came out of spirit first as a pre owned man then woman came out after.

Why I said the eternal being was a type of mother. The exact reasons. Inferred to the last spirit self who came into earths heavens at ground state.

As only a real human female body owns a real womb.

Science says...I want the eternal.

For science status from the beginning. Highest memory reasoned.

Answer an eternal body became a womb owning created creation.

So you cannot have it.

Scientist theist says spiritually I know bio life came out of the eternal body why I am experimenting on bio life trying to find it.

Human claim in the NDE suddenly I realise.

Science studying human NDE looking for the eternal. As a contact.

Answer the eternal never was in creation and it is not science.

Science claim I want contact is by machine conditions only.

 

[rational experiences]

The biological medical human theist status.

Medical advice only said by study of living self owned biological life bodies

Versus human scientific egotism

Cannot discuss a body inner workings unless the body physical exists argued against creationist God cosmic theists for natural life safety.

Actually.

As God status earth stone has to exist first to placate human form owning bio skeleton like stone.

The science argument natural God status was against all science theism human.

Spiritual natural human life argued against nuclear occult Satanists.

No science status at all factually.

Biology says the closest science statement human is a monkey parent by two had sex to a near human.

As a scientific observation.

Said by first seeing by human observation.

Science has categorically in human life no other fact status.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have realized, based upon reading your posts and others, including the scientific links sometimes offered backing up your suppositions, that your analysis of the evidence is based on faith, far moreso than my belief now in God, also based on faith. There is far more evidence in the Bible than I see in your theoretical viewpoints, and I thank you for teaching me these things, than there is for the theory of evolution. Anyway, I don't want to go further with this with you right now, because of your insulting attitude, so I will wish you a good enough evening. (P.S. There IS no evidence conclusively drawing to evolution of the Darwinian kind.)

What evidence is in the Bible? I am pretty sure that you do not understand the concept of evidence. We can over that if you like. The Bible is just the claim, it is not the evidence. The Bible is loaded with self contradictions that apologists cannot properly explain. (thinking of a barely possible excuse for an self contradiction does not make the self contradiction go away. The explanation has to be stronger than the contradiction and I have not see them accomplish that yet.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does mean, however, to those that know, that NYC exists, or at least existed maybe if it disappeared and Spiderman comic survived, perhaps in a time capsule under a rock. Or maybe they would question if NYC ever existed as Spiderman comics would have had it. Just as unearthed monuments demonstrate (oh, no, not prove, I suppose) that they existed. Meantime, it's been a long time since the collection of the scrolls were begun. And that in itself is an interesting examination.

What do you think that the scrolls prove?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, since you asked, Gotham did not disappear. Here it is.

View attachment 54813

The map location of the REAL Gotham City is a bit off. It is located in the center of the county in the largest nightclub in the center of Ann Arbor, Michigan, the Cavern Cave with black lights and an infinity mirror.

The other Gotham City is not real.

Let's not fight. Let's run a test. Whichever city has Batman in it is the real Gotham City.

 

[rational experiences]

What evidence is in the Bible? I am pretty sure that you do not understand the concept of evidence. We can over that if you like. The Bible is just the claim, it is not the evidence. The Bible is loaded with self contradictions that apologists cannot properly explain. (thinking of a barely possible excuse for an self contradiction does not make the self contradiction go away. The explanation has to be stronger than the contradiction and I have not see them accomplish that yet.)

The bible as evidence said science maths had destroyed God O earths body and heavens and human life as an answer.

Historic advice before new science was theoried and practiced. Books before Moses hence had been written.

By sin of man.

To destroy meant it consumed by man's cause natural heavenly sines.

The sine being owned personally by its state the heavenly body. Or gods heavens.

Man never owned the sines gods heavens did.

The sine values were in fact shapes like fruit.

For a human to own that claim fruit in nature had to exist. To do thinking theist comparisons. Scientist. Human applied reasoning making comparisons.

The contradiction is human comparisons.

Compare I son. Sion.

What God owned what man in science never owned.

If man said once fruit sines existed and only apple shaped were left it was said as evidence. By status I know I changed them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It does mean, however, to those that know, that NYC exists, or at least existed maybe if it disappeared and Spiderman comic survived, perhaps in a time capsule under a rock. Or maybe they would question if NYC ever existed as Spiderman comics would have had it. Just as unearthed monuments demonstrate (oh, no, not prove, I suppose) that they existed. Meantime, it's been a long time since the collection of the scrolls were begun. And that in itself is an interesting examination.

Suppose a spiderman comic is uncovered thousands of years into the future and NYC is long gone and forgotten.

Then suppose archeologists discover NYC and actually pinpoint certain specific places mentioned in the comic.

Do you think that this discovery would lend credence to the Spiderman claim?
This is a sincere question

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And really I see that the entire theory is, yes, conjectural, based on look-alikes and studies of genetic similarities

That's because you are incredibly shortsighted (probably because of those biblical blinders you insist on wearing) and categorically refuse to see and understand the significance of the PATTERN of matches (not just mere "similarities"). It forms the exact pattern that evolution (and ONLY evolution) predicts: the nested hierarchy. Aka, family tree.

This is not to say that genes do not change; they obviously do, such as when a male and female mates. It is too incredible now for me, now that I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, to imagine that it all came about by sheer circumstance. It's too incredibly complicated to begin with for it just to have happened.

A natural process which is one of the most established and widely supported models in all of science, is "too incredible" to you. But magical creation gods, talking snakes, talking burning bushes, physically impossible floods and boats, "miracles" (aka, more magic), living in a fish for 3 days and surviving to tell the story,................


All that is "believable"?

 

[YoursTrue]

That's because you are incredibly shortsighted (probably because of those biblical blinders you insist on wearing) and categorically refuse to see and understand the significance of the PATTERN of matches (not just mere "similarities"). It forms the exact pattern that evolution (and ONLY evolution) predicts: the nested hierarchy. Aka, family tree.




A natural process which is one of the most established and widely supported models in all of science, is "too incredible" to you. But magical creation gods, talking snakes, talking burning bushes, physically impossible floods and boats, "miracles" (aka, more magic), living in a fish for 3 days and surviving to tell the story,................


All that is "believable"?

That's because you are incredibly shortsighted (probably because of those biblical blinders you insist on wearing) and categorically refuse to see and understand the significance of the PATTERN of matches (not just mere "similarities"). It forms the exact pattern that evolution (and ONLY evolution) predicts: the nested hierarchy. Aka, family tree.




A natural process which is one of the most established and widely supported models in all of science, is "too incredible" to you. But magical creation gods, talking snakes, talking burning bushes, physically impossible floods and boats, "miracles" (aka, more magic), living in a fish for 3 days and surviving to tell the story,................


All that is "believable"?

1. the scientific proof of genetic sharing, as in the form of slow transference however you want to phrase it, between or among such branches somewhere as fish and humans is not there. It's made up, based on what looks like a gorilla, a plant, or a fish, etc.
2. I believe the Bible is more believable than evolution regarding creation. And life.
3. I believe there is a God who is the Creator, and has ultimate power.
4. I believe the miracles happened.
5. And will happen.
6. Those miracles are from a Source higher than the regular way of doing things (called existence), so we can get along (such as the "law" of gravity or other such circumstances).

Obviously these are not the beliefs of all men, and anyway, you might say that the earth is in pretty bad shape now, so I look forward to the future of mankind as well as what the Bible calls the "new heavens and new earth," where righteousness is to dwell. I've examined the subject of evolution here, wondering how and why believers in evolution believe in the theory, I thank some of you for your intellectual and sometimes polite offerings based on what you feel "proves" evolution, the theory, and I see that the evidence does not fit in with the theory because of gaps and lack of real-time proof. Lack, really, of evidence. To clarify, I believe genes are moved from one creature to another. That in itself is miraculous. The process and details of which man cannot invent. It takes a male and female to make another person. Therefore, genes are not static. It no longer means evolution of the Darwinian kind to me. I have decided that evolution as explained by the Darwinian model is not true. Thank you for your help in doing so.
There are "new heavens and a new earth" to come in which righteousness is - to dwell. (Or live, or be.)
"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." Isaiah 65:17.
2 Peter 3:13 - "But in keeping with God's promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have to know that is not true. It s based upon the scientific method and testing. You are now trying to make excuses for your belief that God is a liar.

The theory of evolution can be and has been tested countless times. Meanwhile the term "Creation scientist" is an oxymoron since creationists refuse to follow the scientific method. And if one refuses to follow the scientific method enjoying the fruits of that method does make them to be more than just a little bit hypocritical. Why don't you reject all science?

Youi probably do not even understand what evidence is. There are more than one types of evidence, but the Bible fails as a source of evidence when tested.

Even IF that is true, which I do not believe it is about the Bible, evolution fails exactly in any sort of confirmed evidence as if proving the theory. The evidence does not prove the theory, in fact, is not there in the proven sense. So we're going to disagree about this.
Dates of fossils may be there; lookalikes that are used by theoretical scientists to push into their theory are certainly used by evolutionists as a basis to prove their belief in the theory, but neither proves evolution. Which I know by now cannot be proved, although some would like to say so. So, based on choice which I believe is based on evidence, I have chosen the Bible and moreso (there's more to it, but it has to do with miracles) as the basis for my belief, or faith, in God. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

1. the scientific proof of genetic sharing, as in the form of slow transference however you want to phrase it, between or among such branches somewhere as fish and humans is not there. It's made up, based on what looks like a gorilla, a plant, or a fish, etc.

You can repeat this till you are blue in the face. It's not going to change the fact that you are simply wrong.
Nothing is made up. When you sequence a bunch of genomes of various species and plot out the matches and difference on a graph, you get a nested hierarchy / family tree.

It is what it is. You can continue to stay in denial, or you can accept reality.

2. I believe the Bible is more believable than evolution regarding creation. And life.

So much so that you consist on being wrong about evolution and in pure denial about the evidence.
Yes, we know that already.

3. I believe there is a God who is the Creator, and has ultimate power.

On faith.

4. I believe the miracles happened.

On faith.

5. And will happen.

On faith.

6. Those miracles are from a Source higher than the regular way of doing things (called existence), so we can get along (such as the "law" of gravity or other such circumstances).

Clearly, we can't get along, since your dogmatic religious beliefs force you into willful ignorance concerning plenty of science, and in pure denial of plenty of factual data.

I've examined the subject of evolution here

Please. You did no such thing.
After all these weeks and hundreds of posts, you still manage to get the most basic of the basics wrong. Almost as if you didn't read a single reply to all the word salad and mistakes you posted.

, wondering how and why believers in evolution believe in the theory,

Me personally, I accept evolution theory as the best possible explanation for the facts because of the perverse amount of evidence in support of it, with nothing to contradict it.

See, I don't see the point in being in denial about the facts and evidence of reality.
Nor do I have an incentive to do so. But you do, however... your incentive is to uphold your dogmatic and fundamentalist religious beliefs, to which you obviously have a very deep emotional attachment.

I see that the evidence does not fit in with the theory

Because you are in denial of it. Your last "reply", about how genetics falls into nested hierarchies, consisted of no more or less then "i don't believe that".

It's not that you don't see the evidence, it's rather that you are actively looking the other way instead.
Denial - not just a river in Egypt.

Lack, really, of evidence.

Meanwhile, over here in reality, evolution theory is among the best, if not THE best, supported theories in all of science.

I have decided that evolution as explained by the Darwinian model is not true

Yes. Indeed. You "just" decided this.

However, you don't get to "decide" how reality works.
Secondly, you wouldn't even be able to give an accurate explanation of the darwinian model if your life depended on it. That much is clear.

You do nothing but argue strawmen and remain in denial of the evidence and data of reality.
The "model" that you have decided to be wrong, is indeed wrong. It's also a strawmen.

Meanwhile, reality remains what it is, off course.

There are "new heavens and a new earth" to come in which righteousness is - to dwell. (Or live, or be.)
"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." Isaiah 65:17.
2 Peter 3:13 - "But in keeping with God's promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

I'm not interested in your religious preaching.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence does not prove the theory

Evidence NEVER proves a theory. It supports a theory.
This is true for all scientific theories. So once again, you are not complaining about evolution. You are complaining about ALL OF SCIENCE instead.

Dates of fossils may be there; lookalikes that are used by theoretical scientists to push into their theory are certainly used by evolutionists as a basis to prove their belief in the theory, but neither proves evolution.

Here's a question I asked you COUNTLESS times, and which you have ignored EVERY time:

How come paleontologists were able to find Tiktaalik by prediction?
The prediction is 110% dependend on evolution theory. If evolution theory is wrong, there would be exactly ZERO reasons for that fossil to have existed with those anatomical features in those specific rocks in that specific environment.

But it did exist. In the exact place and environment, with the exact anatomical features, dated to the exact period that it was predicted to be.

How is this possible, if evolution is false?

Which I know by now cannot be proved, although some would like to say so.

Here are some other scientific theories that can't be "proven":

- atomic theory
- plate tectonic theory
- theory of relativity
- germ theory of desease
- ...

So, I guess that means that reject them all?
What? Don't tell me you hold a double standard.....................................................?

So, based on choice which I believe is based on evidence, I have chosen the Bible and moreso (there's more to it, but it has to do with miracles) as the basis for my belief, or faith, in God. Thank you for the discussion.

So, pretty much the same dogmatic belief you held prior to this conversation.
How about that. How utterly unsurprising.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Once again -- upon reflection -- while the rift is big enough to determine that the lion and tiger cannot successfully mate in the long run, I wonder -- why? Now reasoning would say to someone, well, there were evidently groups of like animals that separated from one another and eventually had changing genes so ultimately the genetic change was so great there was no successful "intermixing." (my term.) But let me sum up my position (again) -- this does not mean that God did not enable changes like that to happen in these groups. Does that mean I believe in evolution of the Darwinian kind? No. It means so far to me that the mechanics for diversity / among certain types (such as mammals vs. fish) were enabled by God.

So God "enabled" genetic changes to happen but God didn't "enable" evolution?

You realize that doesn't make much sense, right?

I fear your cognitive dissonance on this subject is interfering with your ability to reason.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have been thinking about this (again). And really I see that the entire theory is, yes, conjectural, based on look-alikes and studies of genetic similarities. This is not to say that genes do not change; they obviously do, such as when a male and female mates. It is too incredible now for me, now that I believe that God created the heavens and the earth, to imagine that it all came about by sheer circumstance. It's too incredibly complicated to begin with for it just to have happened.

So you're already back to asserting that genetics don't tell us anything about lineage and ancestry. I.e. Just flat out denying reality.

Then you follow it with a another fallacious argument from incredulity.

No wonder this conversation never goes anywhere.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. the scientific proof of genetic sharing, as in the form of slow transference however you want to phrase it, between or among such branches somewhere as fish and humans is not there. It's made up, based on what looks like a gorilla, a plant, or a fish, etc.
2. I believe the Bible is more believable than evolution regarding creation. And life.
3. I believe there is a God who is the Creator, and has ultimate power.
4. I believe the miracles happened.
5. And will happen.
6. Those miracles are from a Source higher than the regular way of doing things (called existence), so we can get along (such as the "law" of gravity or other such circumstances).

Obviously these are not the beliefs of all men, and anyway, you might say that the earth is in pretty bad shape now, so I look forward to the future of mankind as well as what the Bible calls the "new heavens and new earth," where righteousness is to dwell. I've examined the subject of evolution here, wondering how and why believers in evolution believe in the theory, I thank some of you for your intellectual and sometimes polite offerings based on what you feel "proves" evolution, the theory, and I see that the evidence does not fit in with the theory because of gaps and lack of real-time proof. Lack, really, of evidence. To clarify, I believe genes are moved from one creature to another. That in itself is miraculous. The process and details of which man cannot invent. It takes a male and female to make another person. Therefore, genes are not static. It no longer means evolution of the Darwinian kind to me. I have decided that evolution as explained by the Darwinian model is not true. Thank you for your help in doing so.
There are "new heavens and a new earth" to come in which righteousness is - to dwell. (Or live, or be.)
"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." Isaiah 65:17.
2 Peter 3:13 - "But in keeping with God's promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

What reason do you have to believe the things you claim here? Where is any evidence of any of it?

 

[shunyadragon]

1. the scientific proof of genetic sharing, as in the form of slow transference however you want to phrase it, between or among such branches somewhere as fish and humans is not there. It's made up, based on what looks like a gorilla, a plant, or a fish, etc.
2. I believe the Bible is more believable than evolution regarding creation. And life.
3. I believe there is a God who is the Creator, and has ultimate power.
4. I believe the miracles happened.
5. And will happen.
6. Those miracles are from a Source higher than the regular way of doing things (called existence), so we can get along (such as the "law" of gravity or other such circumstances).

Obviously these are not the beliefs of all men, and anyway, you might say that the earth is in pretty bad shape now, so I look forward to the future of mankind as well as what the Bible calls the "new heavens and new earth," where righteousness is to dwell. I've examined the subject of evolution here, wondering how and why believers in evolution believe in the theory, I thank some of you for your intellectual and sometimes polite offerings based on what you feel "proves" evolution, the theory, and I see that the evidence does not fit in with the theory because of gaps and lack of real-time proof. Lack, really, of evidence. To clarify, I believe genes are moved from one creature to another. That in itself is miraculous. The process and details of which man cannot invent. It takes a male and female to make another person. Therefore, genes are not static. It no longer means evolution of the Darwinian kind to me. I have decided that evolution as explained by the Darwinian model is not true. Thank you for your help in doing so.
There are "new heavens and a new earth" to come in which righteousness is - to dwell. (Or live, or be.)
"See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind." Isaiah 65:17.
2 Peter 3:13 - "But in keeping with God's promise, we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.

None of the above reflects the science of evolution. It only addresses the fact that it is based only on your religious belief and anti-science agenda in terms of 'I believe . . . ' 'I believe . . .' is not a reliable source.

 

[Bear Wild]

1. the scientific proof of genetic sharing, as in the form of slow transference however you want to phrase it, between or among such branches somewhere as fish and humans is not there. It's made up, based on what looks like a gorilla, a plant, or a fish, etc.

You have been given the evidence that shows this statement as wrong. It clearly shows how divergent species can carry genetic sequences that are no longer active in later species or have been altered for new adaption. The bible has no explanation for this.

2. I believe the Bible is more believable than evolution regarding creation. And life.

I may be mistaken but I do not remember any verses mentioning genetics and how it works but I have not read the bible in several years. I also do not remember the bible giving any explanation about fossils either. For that matter I do not remember the bible discussing anything about ecology which is explained by evolutions. There is also that problem about the bibles interpretation of anatomy. The rib is not a reproductive organ that I am familiar with. And I can go on and on and on. The only reason I can see is that the bible does not explain anything relevant to our world an you have no desire to learn about our world as demonstrated by your arguments. The bible is full of myths that are impossible in our world and the fact they are impossible gives you some sort of comfort and reality frightens you from the posts you give.

3. I believe there is a God who is the Creator, and has ultimate power.

Since gods and goddesses were created by the universe and not the other way around this makes no sense. The ultimate power is the universe.

4. I believe the miracles happened.5. And will happen.

Do you have "proof". I mean if you keep asking for proof for evolution but can you give any proof of these statements. Can you even give any evidence. Your arguments all are about unquestionable evidence as in a video (which of course can be now be made with nothing that is real) so lets have your proof/evidence/or whatever you have.

6. Those miracles are from a Source higher than the regular way of doing things (called existence), so we can get along (such as the "law" of gravity or other such circumstances).

Name me a miracle more important than photosynthesis for humans and please provide you evidence and proof.

I look forward to the future of mankind as well as what the Bible calls the "new heavens and new earth,"

Give me the proof that there are new heavens and a new earth. We must have proof or some really good evidence and not just quotes out of a book. That is neither proof nor evidence just wishful thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even IF that is true, which I do not believe it is about the Bible, evolution fails exactly in any sort of confirmed evidence as if proving the theory. The evidence does not prove the theory, in fact, is not there in the proven sense. So we're going to disagree about this.
Dates of fossils may be there; lookalikes that are used by theoretical scientists to push into their theory are certainly used by evolutionists as a basis to prove their belief in the theory, but neither proves evolution. Which I know by now cannot be proved, although some would like to say so. So, based on choice which I believe is based on evidence, I have chosen the Bible and moreso (there's more to it, but it has to do with miracles) as the basis for my belief, or faith, in God. Thank you for the discussion.

Oh my you could not be more wrong. You should just admit that you do not like reality.

By your standards gravity is not proven since there is more and stronger evidence for evolution than gravity. Just because you do not understand something does not mean that it is not so. And sadly it appears that you will not let yourself understand. Some very bright people can have very serious cognitive dissonance when reality disagrees with their cherished beliefs. As a result when they oppose reality all they can do is to make claims so false that it appears that their education halted some time in elementary school.

Now you made a claim about evidence for your beliefs. You need to provide some. You may have just been spewing hot air. You may surprise us and provide some actual reliable evidence. But that would be a first.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh my you could not be more wrong. You should just admit that you do not like reality.

By your standards gravity is not proven since there is more and stronger evidence for evolution than gravity. Just because you do not understand something does not mean that it is not so. And sadly it appears that you will not let yourself understand. Some very bright people can have very serious cognitive dissonance when reality disagrees with their cherished beliefs. As a result when they oppose reality all they can do is to make claims so false that it appears that their education halted some time in elementary school.

Now you made a claim about evidence for your beliefs. You need to provide some. You may have just been spewing hot air. You may surprise us and provide some actual reliable evidence. But that would be a first.

I asked for evidence of evolution. Some of you provided what you consider incontrovertible evidence more or less proving the theory. I disagree because I don't believe it (life on earth) just happened to happen. As far as the Bible is concerned, you might want to look at different viewpoints about it at Bible - Wikipedia There are other articles and books about the Bible. Thanks, though, for your time.

 

[YoursTrue]

You have been given the evidence that shows this statement as wrong. It clearly shows how divergent species can carry genetic sequences that are no longer active in later species or have been altered for new adaption. The bible has no explanation for this.



I may be mistaken but I do not remember any verses mentioning genetics and how it works but I have not read the bible in several years. I also do not remember the bible giving any explanation about fossils either. For that matter I do not remember the bible discussing anything about ecology which is explained by evolutions. There is also that problem about the bibles interpretation of anatomy. The rib is not a reproductive organ that I am familiar with. And I can go on and on and on. The only reason I can see is that the bible does not explain anything relevant to our world an you have no desire to learn about our world as demonstrated by your arguments. The bible is full of myths that are impossible in our world and the fact they are impossible gives you some sort of comfort and reality frightens you from the posts you give.



Since gods and goddesses were created by the universe and not the other way around this makes no sense. The ultimate power is the universe.



Do you have "proof". I mean if you keep asking for proof for evolution but can you give any proof of these statements. Can you even give any evidence. Your arguments all are about unquestionable evidence as in a video (which of course can be now be made with nothing that is real) so lets have your proof/evidence/or whatever you have.



Name me a miracle more important than photosynthesis for humans and please provide you evidence and proof.



Give me the proof that there are new heavens and a new earth. We must have proof or some really good evidence and not just quotes out of a book. That is neither proof nor evidence just wishful thinking.

When I was questioning as you and a few others are, I was told by a religious person that faith is one of the "gifts of the spirit." And I not only did not believe in God at the time, but I had no faith. In God. I more or less told him that. He said that only God can give you this gift. It was difficult for me at the time to go any further with the conversation. Thank you for your consideration about evolution.