All sorts. Physical, forensic, documentary, testimonial, circumstantial, digital, etc etc etc.
But remember that people make mistakes and tell lies. Evidence about statements and beliefs is not necessarily evidence that those statements and beliefs are true.
Yes of course it doesnt mean its all true. For my part, i find the historical evidence for my faith reliable and robust. You may not. But it doesnt mean there isnt good evidence. It means both of us have different things that convince us.
Genetics neither promotes nor opposes Evolition.
DNA is often called the âBuilding bricksâ of life but Evolutionists refuse to cnosider that building bricks do not mean ancestry.
Comparative anatomy? Same thing. Compare what to what. Look at the cars on the road and decide at a glance who built them. Logos aside, the structure is primarily functional.
You have no evidence that any of the skeletons are ancestrally connected or that they were built , even in part âEx Niloâ. You were not there.
I do not promote âex Niloâ creation beyond the beginning but that still does not rule out that new organs or structures were not âbuiltâ or ID.
Common sense would suggest that
Why ex nilo if ancestral works?
But then, scientists do not normally use common sense.
IOW you are claiming beyond the evidence. So donât talk to me about having no evidence. I do not need it, but you do!
Richard
Lifeâs too short.
Maybe, but it is still a matter of perspective. TOE is rigid in its thinking
And so are you.
Richard
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.