It's certainly a choice...let me put it this way...if a person says he believes in evolution (the theory of) and also the perpetual virginity of Mary, that's his choice to say he believes that, wouldn't you think so?
I do not deny your reasons to believe it as it stands. That does not mean that I go along with it. I used to go along with whatever I read by scientists. Until I began to realize so much of it was based on conjectural reasoning. There is so much left up to the scientific imagination. That is...
Do you agree that "Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs are considered the earliest true writing systems, both having gradually evolved from proto-writing between 3400 and 3100 BCE. The Proto-Elamite script is also believed to have been in use during this period."?
since you bring this up, how do you feel about the Perpetual Virginity of Mary? Do you think that's true, even though the Pope says evolution is how things happened? Could then Mary be also said without question to be a virgin in perpetuity despite it said that she gave birth to Jesus?
Well, the point someone made is that the theory is "OK" with the Pope. But then so is the eternal virginity of Mary, plus other things. So that the Pope puts his stamp of approval on the theory of evolution doesn't count for much in the way of logical thinking since he also asserts the perpetual...
It's like true in the unassailable scientific sense. You believe the theory of evolution, don't you? If the Pope says evolution is true, one must come to terms that he also says the eternal virginity of Mary is true beyond question. Although the theory of evolution is not, I suppose many might...
I'm beginning to think based on your comments that the theory of evolution is about on the same level as the dogma of the eternal virginity of Mary. Among other things.
I accept that the earth was not filled with flowers, etc., and lions, tigers and humans a long time ago. Since you ask as to what I accept. That seems reasonable and logical. Do I accept what you say? Not just because you or scientists may say that. To reiterate, I believe very much that the...
The reality is that despite the Pope's declaration that evolution is the way organisms came about on the earth, it is nevertheless within his vocabulary to say as the Pope and dogma the absolute certainty that Mary is the "eternal virgin." That's just one thing.
Greetings!
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/science-top-10-erroneous-results-mistakes#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20mistakes%20are%20fairly,have%20it%20any%20other%20way.
"Science" ain't always right, no matter which genius says it is. Carry on...:-)
It doesn't matter how many times scientists...
Actually, that is not what you initially said, so I commend you for changing your remarks to an extent. At any rate, the theory of evolution is still undemonstrable, unprovable. As far as evidence goes I realize many put their trust in the evidence of the morphing of various entities, such as...
You have already said the theory of evolution is undemonstrable and unprovable. What you and others often do in response is continue to insult and attack verbally those who do not agree with your concepts. I realize you firmly do not believe that there is a Higher Intelligent Power that enables...
I think you misunderstand once again, Pogo. You already said anyway that evolution is a theory. And you also say there is no proof of a theory. So whether you believe in God or not, once again -- you do say there is no proof in a theory, and it's not demonstrable.
@Pogo -- Here is your answer in a previous post, once again -- "Another non-sequitur fail showing again that you understand nothing presented to you in the last three years. For the umpteenth time, evolution is a scientific theory, it does not deal with anyone's god at all, and it does not prove...
Of what? Certainly you do not have KNOWLEDGE of how the so-called first cells multiplied. Only conjecture. Furthermore, there is absolutely no basis of knowledge to rest the idea that finches change/evolve/morph to anything but finches.
My opinion rests on reality. Science does not and cannot explain how it is that the first cells formed. And how they seemingly by scientific opinion multiplied. Other than saying yes, they did. No proof. No demonstrable experiment showing how it happened either. Miller Urey constructed the...