Cactus,Cactus wrote:When was evolution a 'science' anyway? Evolution is a theory, not a science.
It's a scientific theory.
Cactus,Cactus wrote:When was evolution a 'science' anyway? Evolution is a theory, not a science.
Evolution isn't theological, even though theists may believe in it. It's not based on 'luck and chance', it's based on change and adaption.Evolution is a theory of theology based on luck and chance that young students are forced to adopt if they want to pass into the materialistic world of worldly education.
I'll see you there, champ.Do start a new THREAD Bro on Evolution, so we don't get off the topic onto the theology of evolution. Or maybe I shall, as it much needed.
It wouldn't be a 'theory' without facts to support it. It is a factual theory.I just clarified the remarks that evolution was a mere theory not fact.
I don't believe in 'luck', Evolution still happens to this very day, and I'd rather have chance instead of no chance.Evolution is just a theory of those that believe in luck and chance over billions of years.
Wrong. There is no 'wild hope' unless it's focused on the future, there are no 'dreams' except those to continue advancing humanity and other species to survive elsewhere in the universe, there is no 'imagination' in Evolution. There is factual evidence, because you haven't found anyIt is based on wild hope and dreams and imaginations rather than any factual evidence.
It's not based around any sort of faith, there is no 'priesthood' in the scientific community, and what 'biological circles' are you referring to?It is a FAITH that has to be protected by force from its white coated priesthood that control biological circles.
Science is not dogmatic. A student who fails in certain challenges (tests about evolution?), does not mean they are incapable of embracing another field of science (further studying with the necessary occupation requirements being met).If acceptance is not repeated dogma by dogma, then they fail students via prescribed evolutionary courses.
The education system wouldn't be 'theological' if most of the population wasn't Christian (or theist). Correct?This is a fact of life of the materialistic worldly and yet theological education system.
Evolution isn't a religion, and it isn't based around any faith. I'm not a zealot because I recognize Evolution, and I'm not wrecking anything.We mustn't digress into the insanity of evolutionionary FAITH, so that the zealots of the religion wreck this good TOPIC.
First, 'trillion' is out of the question. Earth isn't that old.it doesn't take billions or trillions of years to progress as the progressive evolutionists say.
That's just blatant idiocy, and you know it. Light is not a biological organism, of course it didn't evolve like a multi-cellular entity (although it is capable of changing). 'Trial and error', 'luck and chance' have nothing to do with light. Experiments have been done with light's wavelengths and such, the fact that the spectrum can be more defined by using a prism is a change that happened by understanding the properties of light. It can obviously be shortened or expanded, red shift serves a good example for this. Neither the universe or light is relatively 'young'.Light did not evolve or progress or change via SED (Slow evolutionary design) via trial and error and luck and chance.
It's not a religion, David.As for the religion of evolution, you can start that one, Confused Saint.
It has no dogma.its a rather heated topic for the sensitive ones who are into its dogma so much.
there is no congregation or faith in science.it has to be dealt with very very softly and gently, even though it has to be strong enough to give them a chance to come out of their congregational hold of group FAITH.
There's nothing wrong with it. For obvious reasons, it's consistent with my confused condition.All the best, have you ever thought of changing your name away from what you have? Just a thought for obvious reasons.
Do me a favor and don't tell me what I'm thinking, that's certainly not it. I have no faith in a 'million billion years ago time warp'.SEE the direction of time and don't be caught with your faith in a million billion years ago time warp.
No one has stated that history is by 'chance or luck' except for you.Because History is not by chance or luck.
Not according to the Bible.'Free will' doesn't exist.Individually we have choice, as to what side we work for and with.
Can you demonstrate that without words? more show, less tell. Absence of evidence, isn't evidence of absence.the major points of history and their timing and what will happen was by design and by Plan and done by the Creator from the Start.
No one has said it was 'by chance or luck' and 'design' is out of the question.~SCIt is not by chance or luck but by design.
Why is everyone so harsh against me being an atheist?Are you a confused saint or just an atheist?
I'm not sure either, but I'm not here to cause problems. I do apologize though, very sorry. ~SCI'm not sure why you are here on this forum.
I've read it repetitively. I don't think it should be forced down my throat, I'd like to share my own opinion and stuff like everyone else.If you are an atheist, I think the point is simply to refer you back to the board purpose.
I do still have questions, some of which still remain without answers. I maybe an Atheist, I can't really decide anything right now - but I have no problem being skeptical. Trust me, I'm still confused about a lot of things. There's a lot I don't like about Atheism, but I can also say the same about Christianity. More or less, I'm Agnostic. I haven't found confidence in Atheism, but at the same time, it's not all bad. I just really don't know,It seems at first that you were more of a questioning seeker (or based on your name, less confident about atheism) whereas now it seems more clear that you really aren't that confused and that you are clearly an atheist.
of course not. I'm just have more trouble with understanding the 'NT'.~SCEither way, it isn't bad to clarify one's position, right?