• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes, but that's not my choice. I'm for freedom of religion & if someone wants to have a belief about the perpetual virginity of Mary, then that's their business or whatever. Having a "belief in" evolution is like having a "belief in" 1+1=2; if someone wants to do that, then I suppose I have to be consistent if that's something they're doing as a religion and be for freedom of religion - it's their business or whatever to have a "belief in" those things. For me, it's not a "belief in" evolution or 1+1=2; it's a matter of science.

Do you actually know of anyone who has a belief in evolution, as though it's some sort of religious thing, rather than a matter of science?

If not, then this discussion is moot anyways, and may even be a strawman argument.
It's OBVIOUSLY the choice of those who follow that line of thinking...If a leader of a religion like the Pope says he believes in evolution and also the perpetual virginity of Mary, do you think those are rather conflicting, unless of course -- one supersedes the other? Obviously there's a conflict there insofar as the "natural birth process" goes. So that you don't believe it doesn't mean the Pope and millions of Catholics plus more probably don't believe it. Doesn't matter if the two don't mix scientifically according to you. I personally do not believe in the "perpetual virginity of Mary," but some will vociferously defend the belief. There's more, but I'll try to get back to this later. Thanks.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
Why is that? If you can't explain, that's ok, I understand. But since you said it, you might want to consider explaining your viewpoint in detail as to how and what scientists found out. Thanks. And have a good evening.
You will understand it as soon as you aquire a basic understanding of thermodynamics, something more complicated than evolution which 3+ years of explanation has not yet dented your lack of understanding. That my basic explanation was not sufficient already indicates that you have even less understanding of it than the idiot who made the original statement. but if you really want to know, get a dictionary and probably at least another science based High School education. Until then, it is over your head as quantum physics is to a five year old.
 

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
Why is that? If you can't explain, that's ok, I understand. But since you said it, you might want to consider explaining your viewpoint in detail as to how and what scientists found out. Thanks. And have a good evening.
I believe he explained it very well. You just need to look up the basic physics of Thermodynamics;
 
Last edited:

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
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.
Since your intentionally ignorant of science I do not expect you have any KNOWLEDGE of the sciences of evolution or even Methodological Naturalism. You are stuck in ancient mythology over 2,000 years old.
 
Top