[DannyTN]

"No one can disprove the Lord, therefore evolution is false? Hmm. :\"

No, that sounds like the arguments evolutionists make. "No one can disprove evolution, therefore creation is false."

But if you can prove the Lord, then evolution as purely the consequence of natural phenomenon is false. If you can prove the scripture is inspired, then macro-evolution is false.

[Dimensio]

No, that sounds like the arguments evolutionists make. "No one can disprove evolution, therefore creation is false."

Who has made this argument? Be specific.

[Liberal Classic]

No, that sounds like the arguments evolutionists make. "No one can disprove evolution, therefore creation is false."

But this is not what I, and others on this thread are saying about the theory of evolution. This is a mischaracterization. No one says "no one can disprove evolution." Scientific theories by definiton are designed to be testable. If a test proves the theory to be in error, the theory must be revised.

But if you can prove the Lord, then evolution as purely the consequence of natural phenomenon is false. If you can prove the scripture is inspired, then macro-evolution is false.

This does not follow. One can have faith in the Creator and yet believe in the validity of science. You are setting up a false dichotomy.

[general_re]

But if you can prove the Lord...

If you can prove the Lord, what do you need faith for?

[Ichneumon]

No, that sounds like the arguments evolutionists make. "No one can disprove evolution, therefore creation is false."

I don't know a *single* evolutionist who makes that argument -- or *would* make such a moronic argument.

If someone says something that you *think* is that, then you weren't listening closely enough.