Suppose someone who is skeptical of evolution theory encounters the attached items. There are observable differences and similarities between these two items. How would they know whether these two items do or do not belong to the category called "church"? What would their definition of "church" even be? Is the definition of "church" whatever they want it to be? At what point does a "church" change into something else? If they don't believe in evolution then "church" is an essence that can not become something else. A "human" who is blended into a soup still has the essential thus unchanged quality of being "human" so a pile of dust is essentially still a "church" therefore a "church" can not become something else.Skeptics of evolution might also be tempted to think that one "church" is "ruined", but notice how that thought sneaks in the unjustified idea of change. They assume that a "whole" object becomes a "ruined" object rather than two similar objects existing in the same location at different times which begs the question what their justification is for why one assumption is more true than another. Also notice the false equation between "church" and "ruined". They assert that a "church" is an essential thus unchanging quality so by their own assertion a "church" can not become "ruined".This is how MadeByJimbob and similar skeptics of evolution theory sound.
>>542849049>How would they know whether these two items do or do not belong to the category called "church"?records.
Lourdes = goated
