Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Evolution doesn't require a supernatural agent to work. That's why it's science and not religion.
Evolution requires just the say-so of the high priests of evolution. And it needs people to blindly follow them.
It's kind of like a snake oil salesman. They come to town and get people to buy these great elixirs only to find out they've been duped after the salesman leaves.
Referring to marriage as an institution is overlooking God making a marriage covenent in joining the two as one for all generations to follow after the first couple was made.
That may be true, but seeing how we can never know, I doubt we can get any verification outside of His words in the scripture.
It's like the language thing. If mankind had to develop language in the first place, he would never develop it. The same goes for marriage. The language and marriage had to be something that God had given at the start. Of course, that is my belief. I do not expect you to be convinced by me on that point.
It is obvious that we do not agree on these issues and nothing wrong with that as long as each other's beliefs do not impact the other.
Evolution requires just the say-so of the high priests of evolution. And it needs people to blindly follow them.
It's kind of like a snake oil salesman. They come to town and get people to buy these great elixirs only to find out they've been duped after the salesman leaves.
You're describing religion, not the theory of evolution.
There has been lots of changes to how we knew how evolution works since Darwin wrote his book or Wallace came up with the same theory studying in a different part of the world. If scientists workshipped the book puncutated equilibrum would never have arose as Darwin did not mention it. But again you just change a comment 180 degrees and thinks it applies. No one workships The Origin of Species, have you actually read it?
It is obvious that we do not agree on these issues and nothing wrong with that as long as each other's beliefs do not impact the other.
Well, oppositions of science so falsely called which I apply as towards the evolution theory is why I disagree with it wholeheartedly.
People need to differentiate theoritical science from practical science; and the theory of evolution is in the abstract and thus nowhere nearly credible as the atomic theory or the theory of gravity as much as those in opposition would like it to be.
Thank you for sharing your point of view, but Jesus Christ will be appearing soon to expose the evolution theory and everything else not of Him as a lie that has crept into the churches and in any christian's way of thinking since He is the Truth.
Well, oppositions of science so falsely called which I apply as towards the evolution theory is why I disagree with it wholeheartedly.
People need to differentiate theoritical science from practical science; and the theory of evolution is in the abstract and thus nowhere nearly credible as the atomic theory or the theory of gravity as much as those in opposition would like it to be.
Thank you for sharing your point of view, but Jesus Christ will be appearing soon to expose the evolution theory and everything else not of Him as a lie that has crept into the churches and in any christian's way of thinking since He is the Truth.
Darwin(and Wallace! Seriously, he musta been a cool guy and deserves a lot more credit)'s theory still stands, but unlike a Holy Book people were free to pick apart the Origin of Species. Some claims we now know to be quite incorrect.
My favorite is that Darwin supposed that domestic dogs were NOT descended from a single species, that perhaps several different species of wild canine led to the several different groups of domestic dogs we see today(pigeon breeders of the day had the same thoughts about pigeon breeds-though these Darwin understood were all Columbia livida). If Darwin new what we know now about domestic dogs it would only prove him wrong in that respect and strengthen his theory!
Many of his other predictions have been shown correct-of note his prediction of mankinds African origins and the potentially for discovery of fossils there.
I haven't read the works of too many other naturalists from that particular era but Darwin is a naturalist par excellence and superbly well rounded which is fairly rare today. Darwin is likely a much better naturalist than many "modern" people criticizing his theory.
Well, oppositions of science so falsely called which I apply as towards the evolution theory is why I disagree with it wholeheartedly.
People need to differentiate theoritical science from practical science; and the theory of evolution is in the abstract and thus nowhere nearly credible as the atomic theory or the theory of gravity as much as those in opposition would like it to be.
Thank you for sharing your point of view, but Jesus Christ will be appearing soon to expose the evolution theory and everything else not of Him as a lie that has crept into the churches and in any christian's way of thinking since He is the Truth.
Oh, I remember that. I recall that was referring to Gnosticism. I wouldn't want you to ever be accused of misapplying some scripture that was very specific in meaning and turn it to suit an unrelated agenda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
