Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8739 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-29-2017 1:32 PM
396 online now:
Chiroptera, Coyote, edge, RAZD, ringo, Tanypteryx, vimesey, xongsmith (8 members, 388 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,737 Year: 10,343/21,208 Month: 3,430/2,674 Week: 846/961 Day: 49/109 Hour: 1/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345Next
Author Topic:   A question about evolution
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2730
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(2)
Message 16 of 70 (798316)
02-01-2017 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Micah8294
02-01-2017 4:55 PM


Forum Orientation:

To reply to a message, click on the Reply button in the lower right-hand corner of the message. When you post your reply, it will have a link in the upper right-hand corner back to the message you replied to. Far better for everybody than using the general reply.

The forum uses both HTML and dBCodes, a mark-up language which is very similar to HTML in concept. There's a reference somewhere on the forum. In the meantime, if you see something in a message and you want to know how they did it, then click on the Peek button in the lower right-hand corner of that message. That will open another browser tab displaying that message with all its mark-up tags. In addition, one of the members here will greet each newcomer with a quick reference explaining the common tags.

Thank you for the honest response and thanks for not bashing my faith like most atheist have in the past.

It's never my intention to bash someone's faith, though if the believer is doing something very questionable, especially if it goes against what he claims to believe, I will address it.

Please note that my creation/evolution website is dedicated to keeping "creation science" from destroying Christians' faith. I don't want to destroy your faith, but rather to keep it from being destroyed. I recommend that you follow those links to Dr. Allan Harvey's essays, because he addresses those same things -- he is also a practicing Christian.

What do most people in the evolutionist community accept as the most "solid proof" for evolution and against creation?

It's never a question of "against creation", but rather against the false claims of "creation science". Part and parcel of those false claims is how "creation science" misrepresents evolution, so a more basic question to start with would be what do you mean by "evolution"? And also what do you mean by "creation"? Does it have to be only YEC (young-earth creationism)? The problem with YEC is that the evidence disproves it. But there is no evidence disproving creation itself. Also, there is no conflict between evolution and creation, so long as "evolution" mean actual evolution and not the YEC misrepresentations and "creation" means actual Divine Creation and not YEC's misrepresentation of it.

I'm sure you all know who Kent hovind is, he has a lot to do with my faith in God

So sorry to hear that, because you have built your house upon quicksand. To give you an idea how bad he is, back in 2002 Answers in Genesis, a YEC organization, published an article listing claims that they wish creationists would stop using because those claims are wrong and using them only does damage. Hovind replied in their feedback section with a nasty letter attacking them; turns out that some of the claims that Hovind would use were on that list. Dr. Sarfati replied to Hovind's attack; I quote from it on my quotes page (http://cre-ev.dwise1.net/quotes.html#AiG -- that is a link).

Mr. Hovind's "PhD" is phony, bought from a diploma mill, as was his masters degree. His bachelor's is from an unaccredited Baptist college. The degrees in ascending order are in BA Religion, MA Religious Education, PhD Religious Education. Before the college, he had attended a community college for two years which is where he got almost all his schooling in science. Then for about 13 years he taught science and math in a Christian high school that he operated and I think owned.

Hovind is a convicted felon having served 10 years in federal prison for tax fraud. He just got out about a year ago; there's a topic on this forum that followed that. His shenanigans also got his wife arrested, though I think she just got probation and then a divorce. His son took possession of their operations while Dad was locked up and I think that he's not letting the old man back in.

I've tried to request information from Hovind about one of his claims. He proved to be dishonest and very evasive. He uses the worst claims which have been refuted thousands of times (PRATT means "point refuted a thousand times"; we use that acronym a lot here).

Are you familiar with Hovind's claim about the earth's rotation slowing down? That a million years ago it would be spinning extremely fast. In the time of the dinosaurs, impossibly fast. Here's the text from a transcription:

quote:
Another factor. The earth is spinning—we are turning around. How many knew that already? We are turning around. You know the earth is going a little over 1,000 miles an hour at the equator, but the earth is slowing down. It is actually slowing down 1000th of a second everyday. Pensacola News Journal, 1990, said on December 6, "Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June will be one second longer than normal. The earth is slowing down 1000th of a second every day." Astronomy magazine announced, 1992 in the June edition, "Earth’s rotation is slowing down, June is going to be one second longer than normal." We will have to have a "leap second." A leap second? Most people have heard of leap year, but lots of folks have never heard of leap second. Did you know we have a leap second about every year and a half now because the earth is slowing down? Now kids this is going to be kind of complicated so listen carefully. The earth is spinning but it is slowing down. So that means that it used to be going faster. How many can figure that out with no help? Okay several. Well, now if the earth is only 6,000 years old that is not a problem. It was probably spinning a little faster when Adam was here. Maybe they had 23 and 1/2 hours in a day. They would not notice, they did not have a watch anyway. Some of these folks want you to believe that the earth is billions of years old. Now that would make a problem. If you go back a few billion years, the earth was spinning real fast. Your days and nights would be pretty quick! Get up, go to bed! Get up, go to bed! Get up, go to bed! You would never get anything done. And a centrifugal force would have been enormous, would have flattened the earth like a pancake. The winds would have been 5,000 miles an hour from the Coriolis effect. You think the dinosaurs lived 70 million years ago? I know what happened to them? I know what happened to them... they got blown off! No they did not live 70 million years ago, folks; it simply cannot possibly be true.

What do you think of that claim?

Are you familiar with his claim about the sun losing mass as it "burns its fuel" at the rate of 5 million tons per second? That the sun 5 billion years ago would have been so massive and huge and its gravity would have been so great that it would have sucked the earth in. Transcription from a seminar video downloaded in 2003:

quote:
All you got to do is step outside and look up. Obviously the Sun is burning. It's losing 5 million tons every second. You can't just keep losing 5 million tons a second, pretty soon you start to lose weight. And so the Sun is losing this mass -- 5 million tons every second -- which means it used to be larger. And it used to be more massive. If you increase the mass of the Sun, going backwards in time for several billion years, you start to create a problem with the gravitational balance between the earth and the Sun. It's going to suck the earth in and destroy everything.

What do you think of that claim?

But the bottom line is that you really need to base your faith and support your faith with something solid and true, not with Kent Hovind and not with YEC, for therein lies spiritual death.

Edited by dwise1, : Added text of Hovind claims.
removed some ambiguity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Micah8294, posted 02-01-2017 4:55 PM Micah8294 has not yet responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4240
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 17 of 70 (798317)
02-01-2017 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Micah8294
02-01-2017 5:15 PM


Hi Micah8294 and welcome.

I am a committed Christian and I would suggest to you that the truth about evolutionary theory is absolutely immaterial to the Christian faith. Yes, there are immense truths to be learned form Genesis but one of them is not to answer scientific questions about how God created the world.

The belief in an inerrant Bible is a form of idol worship. As the writer of the Gospel of John says; "The Word became flesh", he did not say that the Word became a book or more precisely a collection of books. As I have said to others on this forum, it is Christianity and not Biblianity. Yes, God does reach out to us through the Bible, but if we try and read it as inerrant, and with a 21st century mindset, we will never understand what God might be trying to tell us.

I suggest that you focus of what Jesus has to say and read the Bible through that lens. You might notice in the "Sermon on the Mount" alone the number times Jesus corrects what is written in the OT. You will also notice Him saying things like; Moses told you this but I tell you this. He doesn't say that God told you this.

Our ability to reason is a gift from God. It says in Leviticus that anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be stoned to death by the community. You use reason to say that we probably shouldn't be doing that. We should use that gift of reason to approach all of the Bible. Certainly we aren't going to agree on all sorts of things, but if we believe that because it says something in the Bible it is to be taken as having been dictated by God, then we have sidelined our gift of reason and that belief will likely cause us to badly misconstrue the true nature and message of God.

Edited by GDR, : typo


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Micah8294, posted 02-01-2017 5:15 PM Micah8294 has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15798
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


(2)
Message 18 of 70 (798321)
02-01-2017 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Micah8294
02-01-2017 4:19 PM


Contrarily, why is it that a people that have been living in a hot climate for many generations (like Africa) developed black skin instead of something more helpful like white or more reflective skin to help cool them off?

Your idea of what is helpful may not be accurate. Consider the fact that even white people tan in sunny weather.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Micah8294, posted 02-01-2017 4:19 PM Micah8294 has not yet responded

  
CRR
Member
Posts: 140
From: Australia
Joined: 10-19-2016
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 19 of 70 (798357)
02-01-2017 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Micah8294
02-01-2017 4:19 PM


The worldwide uniformity of humans indicates a relatively recent radiation which hasn't allowed time for some features to develop. Also humans have the ability to wear clothes and find or make shelter which helps alleviate the pressure of natural selection.

It's not necessarily the case that Africans developed black skin, it could be that Europeans developed white skin. It could have a lot to do with the founder effect if the original groups to move into different countries already had a propensity to lighter or darker skin. Technically we are all different shades of brown so it's not really that big a difference.

Black skin might absorb more heat but it also radiates more heat and the higher levels of melanin help to reduce effects of higher ultraviolet radiation so black is not necessarily a disadvantage compared to white skin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Micah8294, posted 02-01-2017 4:19 PM Micah8294 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2017 11:38 PM CRR has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5665
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 20 of 70 (798358)
02-01-2017 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by CRR
02-01-2017 11:27 PM


Black skin might absorb more heat but it also radiates more heat and the higher levels of melanin help to reduce effects of higher ultraviolet radiation so black is not necessarily a disadvantage compared to white skin.

Each was well-adapted to the climate in which it was found.

Read the Stanley Garn book I mentioned a few posts upthread.

Skin color is an adaptation primarily to solar intensity--dark skin protects from UV, while light skin allows production of Vitamin D.

Eskimos have relatively dark skin because no matter how much nude sun bathing they did they couldn't get Vitamin D from the sun--they had to get Vitamin D from their environment, so skin color didn't matter.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by CRR, posted 02-01-2017 11:27 PM CRR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by caffeine, posted 02-02-2017 2:43 PM Coyote has responded
 Message 32 by CRR, posted 02-03-2017 4:44 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18260
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 21 of 70 (798379)
02-02-2017 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Micah8294
02-01-2017 4:19 PM


Hi Micah8294.

I posted this on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 482:

Welcome to the fray Micah8294,

in your proposed thread Some questions for atheists... you ask

2. how do evolutionists overcome the issues about the age of the earth (i'm sure you've heard the arguments)

This thread (written in 2007) is about the many ways that we determine age from objective empirical evidence, starting with simple system where layers can be counted. Please read Message 1 and Message 2 to get started.

You can see a proposed newer version at The Age of the Earth. This new thread would update and add information that has become available since 2007, when this thread was written. If you are interested in debate on this newer thread (you won't be able to reply to that thread until it is promoted), please message me or ADMIN.

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Why is it that certain animals have evolved features for cold weather (such as thick fur) but humans like Eskimos have not? Contrarily, why is it that a people that have been living in a hot climate for many generations (like Africa) developed black skin instead of something more helpful like white or more reflective skin to help cool them off?

Several people have responded with people developing clothes to have the ability to fit their clothing to the seasons and to the different climate zones on earth.

But there has also been some adaptation, see Denesovan genes in Greenland and Tibet, Message 1, and IIRC (if I recall correctly) the Inuit have a thicker fat layer than most people, providing added insulation.

Message 9: However, I've been born into a Christian household and raised a Christian. So that "God exists in the back of my head" feeling will never go away I'm sure of it, I will always think someone is watching. And for now I have decided to keep my faith. (I'm sure you all know who Kent hovind is, he has a lot to do with my faith in God)

With a little looking you can find that many scientists have religious beliefs, many of them Christians. See Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective byDr. Roger C. Wiens.

If you want to debate about Hovind, there is an open thread at Kent Hovind Debate

(ibid): What do most people in the evolutionist community accept as the most "solid proof" for evolution and against creation?

There is no "solid proof" for anything. What we understand about "life, the universe, and everything" (Douglas Adams Hitchhiker) is through testing concepts about reality by the scientific method:

Hypothesis becomes scientific theory when it is tested and not invalidated, and you will hear people say that scientific theory is the best explanation of the evidence. Theories get modified or discarded when new information\evidence is found (often through the process of testing and actually one of the goals of testing - to look for predictions that would falsify the theory).

When a theory passes a test it isn't considered proven, but new tests are developed to try and falsify the theory, and a theory that has been tested many times and not invalidated is accepted as the best understanding (approximation) of reality that we know.

Message 14: Yes, I am looking for a debate. But as far as my question goes it's pretty reasonably been anwered.
I just think that human interaction and dialogue helps me understand better than a Google search. That's the whole reason I joined the forum.
I don't mean to flaunt my beliefs around, but I want to be honest upfront and let everyone know what I believe in beforehand as not to try to sneak up on anyone
Thank you all for your answers

Keep an open mind but don't discard skepticism, be willing to treat your personal beliefs skeptically -- you learn the most when you challenge yourself.

Again, welcome to the fray.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Micah8294, posted 02-01-2017 4:19 PM Micah8294 has not yet responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1252
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 22 of 70 (798443)
02-02-2017 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Coyote
02-01-2017 11:38 PM


Eskimos have relatively dark skin because no matter how much nude sun bathing they did they couldn't get Vitamin D from the sun--they had to get Vitamin D from their environment, so skin color didn't matter.

I heard a different hypothesis for this one - basically that the Inuit's vitamin D requirements are amply met by their diet, so there is no selection pressure on skin colour. Arctic peoples tend to eat diets full of fatty meat and fish; since there is not much else to eat in the Arctic. Blubber and fish are both rich in vitamin D; so there's little need to synthesise your own; unlike someone living in temperate Europe eating a lot more plant food.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2017 11:38 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2017 7:26 PM caffeine has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1252
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 23 of 70 (798444)
02-02-2017 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Theodoric
02-01-2017 4:37 PM


A little bit hairy
That took 3 minutes.

3 minutes that would be have been better spent asking a question in a forum, since this:

quote:
Mongoloids evolved hairlessness to keep clean while wearing heavy garments for months without bathing during the Ice Age.

is nothing but unevidenced speculation that does little to address the question. European populations are some of the most hirsute in the world; so any explanation that relies on evolution at high latitudes is incomplete at best. I've no idea why Europeans are hairier than east Asians, but I don't think it necessarily needs an adaptive explanation.

If it does, then asking why Asians have less hair than Europeans seems to be approaching the question backwards. Looking at human diversity as a whole; it seems that east Asians are more likely to be closer to the plesiomorphic condition - the hairiness of European and Semitic men is the outlier. If this is adaptive; and not just the result of drift; it seems more plausible that this is due to sexual selection; or is a side effect of selection on hormone production for some other reason - since an explanation based on response to cold or somesuch doesn't explain the enormous difference between men and women.

The first answer you find through Google or Bing is usually not going to be a good one unless your question is very simple.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Theodoric, posted 02-01-2017 4:37 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2017 4:22 PM caffeine has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5762
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 24 of 70 (798447)
02-02-2017 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by caffeine
02-02-2017 3:06 PM


Re: A little bit hairy
The ability to follow the sources is always there. The point is that the original post was intended as a gotcha against atheists(see the original attempt at an OP).

I agree the first thing you find is not necessarily the correct or only answer. It is a start. People posing questions to a forum like this should at least do basic background and legwork. It would have been different if the question had been presented and then the author of the OP had said that these are possible answers lets explore them. Instead it was presented as it was and that was a vast improvement at the OP writers attempt to get in a pissing match with atheists. Why was the first question titled "Some questions for Atheists"? The implication is anyone that believes in and follows science is an atheist? Anyone of any faith or no faith that understands scientific principals should be offended by the premise.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by caffeine, posted 02-02-2017 3:06 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by caffeine, posted 02-02-2017 5:09 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 26 by NoNukes, posted 02-02-2017 6:34 PM Theodoric has not yet responded
 Message 31 by dwise1, posted 02-03-2017 1:24 AM Theodoric has responded

    
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1252
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 25 of 70 (798459)
02-02-2017 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Theodoric
02-02-2017 4:22 PM


Re: A little bit hairy
The ability to follow the sources is always there.

The ability, yes, but not the will to pay in order to read a chapter of an obscure 20-year-old anthropology book in order to find out if it says the same thing a wikipedia editor claims it does and, if so, whether their argument is any good.

The point is that the original post was intended as a gotcha against atheists

But if you think someone's trying to 'getcha'; then why not either a) ignore them; or b) subvert their attempt by starting an interesting discussion about the evolution of pigment and hair variation in humans. Unless you get enjoyment out of calling out those whose motives you find dubious, I can't see the point. It just looks a bit petulant.

Pigment variation is a much more interesting topic than why creationists argue the way they do. The below is actually not the image I'm looking for, but it's the closest I could find for now. The one I wanted shows the correlation between average melanin levels and insolation - because there are a few bits of the world where the insolation level differs from what you'd expect from the latitude, for reasons I dont know. The correlation is strikingly close; and the bits that don't match all fit with large migrations either historically attested or hypothesised for different reasons (like the Bantu and Austronesian expansions).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2017 4:22 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9452
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 26 of 70 (798466)
02-02-2017 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Theodoric
02-02-2017 4:22 PM


Re: A little bit hairy
The point is that the original post was intended as a gotcha against atheists(see the original attempt at an OP).

I think the poster did think he had a solid argument against evolution, which, by the way, is not the same thing as an argument against atheists. However, it seems that after receiving a few answers he was quickly disabused of that notion. I have not detected any attempts by the poster to dispute any of the answers. In fact, the poster appears to have learned something even if he has not changed his overall opinion regarding Creationism.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson

Seems to me if its clear that certain things that require ancient dates couldn't possibly be true, we are on our way to throwing out all those ancient dates on the basis of the actual evidence. -- Faith

Some of us are worried about just how much damage he will do in his last couple of weeks as president, to make it easier for the NY Times and Washington post to try to destroy Trump's presidency. -- marc9000


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Theodoric, posted 02-02-2017 4:22 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 27 of 70 (798472)
02-02-2017 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Micah8294
02-01-2017 4:55 PM


However, I've been born into a Christian household and raised a Christian. So that "God exists in the back of my head" feeling will never go away I'm sure of it

I was born into a Christian household and similarly raised. Many atheists were.

And for now I have decided to keep my faith.

It's strange that you have to employ willpower to keep it, don't you think? Are your beliefs about furniture or music sustained this way?

(I'm sure you all know who Kent hovind is, he has a lot to do with my faith in God)

Unfortunately he has proven to be a liar and cheat who serves Mammon not God. Does this not give you pause?

What do most people in the evolutionist community accept as the most "solid proof" for evolution and against creation?

I created a thread just for the purposes of answering this very question, more or less:
Confidence in evolutionary science


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Micah8294, posted 02-01-2017 4:55 PM Micah8294 has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5665
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 28 of 70 (798474)
02-02-2017 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by caffeine
02-02-2017 2:43 PM


Caffeine--You said essentially the same thing I did.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by caffeine, posted 02-02-2017 2:43 PM caffeine has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by dwise1, posted 02-03-2017 12:23 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 35 by caffeine, posted 02-03-2017 11:44 AM Coyote has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 28692
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 29 of 70 (798476)
02-02-2017 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Micah8294
02-01-2017 4:55 PM


Raised and educated as a Christian and today an active Christian
Remember that the vast majority of Christians support both the fact of Evolution and that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for what we see both today and in reality. It is only a very small minority of Christianity that opposes those things or supports Creationism. Most Christian sects, all the major Christian sects oppose the concept of Creationism.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Micah8294, posted 02-01-2017 4:55 PM Micah8294 has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2730
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 30 of 70 (798516)
02-03-2017 12:23 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Coyote
02-02-2017 7:26 PM


Caffeine--You said essentially the same thing I did.

So it must have been good enough to bear repeating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Coyote, posted 02-02-2017 7:26 PM Coyote has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
345Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017