Reverend Blair said:
Just leave behind a hundred extra bucks and see if the family will not try to grab it!
My kids are already hinting about what "they" want!
I am dedicated to spending my children's inheritance as quickly as possible!
University of Idaho affirms evolution
- Thread starter unclepercy
- Start date
Just leave behind a hundred extra bucks and see if the family will not try to grab it!
My kids are already hinting about what "they" want!
I am dedicated to spending my children's inheritance as quickly as possible!
I'm surprised to hear Nascar James say that the Catholic Church is neutral on the issue of evolution. To my knowledge, that is not the case. It's true that every issue surrounding evolution has not been worked out from a theological perspective by the Church, but the Church has no quarrel with evolution.
The Catholic Church has long been a bastion of an allegorical reading of the Bible. Catholics distinguish between a literal truth in the Bible, that can be found in some places, and an allegorical one where things may not literally be as described in the Bible, but they do nevertheless teach some moral or explain some aspect of God.
Catholics are not the proponents of Intelligent Design, nor do they rail against evolution in the classrooms. This conflict is confined to Protestants, and largely evangelical Protestants at that.
For a clearer view of the Catholic church's view on evolution, refer to this Catholic website, and see the following (an excerpt, though I must point out that the position is more developed in the full article):
The Catholic Church has long been a bastion of an allegorical reading of the Bible. Catholics distinguish between a literal truth in the Bible, that can be found in some places, and an allegorical one where things may not literally be as described in the Bible, but they do nevertheless teach some moral or explain some aspect of God.
Catholics are not the proponents of Intelligent Design, nor do they rail against evolution in the classrooms. This conflict is confined to Protestants, and largely evangelical Protestants at that.
For a clearer view of the Catholic church's view on evolution, refer to this Catholic website, and see the following (an excerpt, though I must point out that the position is more developed in the full article):
Martin Le Acadien said:
Yeah, way to go Martin. The purpose of life, whatever it is, certainly should not be to enrich your children, they have to make their own way or they'll be useless human beings. Paris Hilton comes to mind...
I like Errol Flynn's dictum. For those of you under 40, Errol Flynn was a 20th century American actor who lived hard and fast and died young. He said that anyone who dies with more than $1000 left is a failure.
RE: University of Idaho a
Of course Errol Flynn's son died working as a photojournalist in Asia...I think he lived through Vietnam and died in Cambodia.
Your purpose in life should not be to create little Paris Hilton's though. Spend their inheritance, just keep them from volunteering to go to war zones.
Of course Errol Flynn's son died working as a photojournalist in Asia...I think he lived through Vietnam and died in Cambodia.
Your purpose in life should not be to create little Paris Hilton's though. Spend their inheritance, just keep them from volunteering to go to war zones.
Unfortunately
I'm not a Hilton or a Getty but I see nothing wrong with leaving my offspring a little better off. I don't believe in creating Paris Hiltons who never have to work a day in their lives but if I can help my kids retire a bit earlier I will.
I'm not a Hilton or a Getty but I see nothing wrong with leaving my offspring a little better off. I don't believe in creating Paris Hiltons who never have to work a day in their lives but if I can help my kids retire a bit earlier I will.
Another scientist challenges Darwin’s theory
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/another_scientist_challenges_darwins_theory.html
No such thing as consensus in science.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/11/another_scientist_challenges_darwins_theory.html
No such thing as consensus in science.
shrugs. Darwin had a lot of things wrong, but he had the general idea that we change according to our environments. Seeing as our changes are internal and not brought about by external forces, just triggered by external forces, gods are irrelevant and redundant.
To the author of Walter's link, it LOOKS like there was thought and intent behind nature. Things are not always as they seem. His hypothesis is known as "argument from irreducible complexity" which states that since certain things in nature appear very complex, they must have been designed.
It's been debunked many times. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
To the author of Walter's link, it LOOKS like there was thought and intent behind nature. Things are not always as they seem. His hypothesis is known as "argument from irreducible complexity" which states that since certain things in nature appear very complex, they must have been designed.
It's been debunked many times. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
He was born into an illustrious family was Charles - he's not the family's only famous member.
His grandfather was Josiah Wedgwood - of the world famous Wedgwood pottery fame - and it was he who made the Staffordshire city of Stoke-on-Trent a huge pottery manufacturer.
Darwin's uncle Thomas Wedgwood invented photography.
A young Darwin in 1842 with his son William
His grandfather was Josiah Wedgwood - of the world famous Wedgwood pottery fame - and it was he who made the Staffordshire city of Stoke-on-Trent a huge pottery manufacturer.
Darwin's uncle Thomas Wedgwood invented photography.
A young Darwin in 1842 with his son William
To illustrate what Dr. Marcos Eberlin's hypothesis says, here's a metaphor: a mudpuddle's water thinks the pothole was made just to perfectly fit it.
Darwin? Please.
He did great observational work. But all of the significant work in evolution in the last half century has been with DNA.
Arguing evolution using Darwin is like arguing cosmology using Galileo.
He did great observational work. But all of the significant work in evolution in the last half century has been with DNA.
Arguing evolution using Darwin is like arguing cosmology using Galileo.
Yep, genes and the genetic code are where all the proof of evolution is. Mapping different genomes has provided a LOT of information. Some of it is kind of mind-blowing. Like the hippo's closest living relatives are the cetaceans. Or that cephalopod eyes evolved independently of all the other animal species' eyes. Their eyes have their own separate evolutionary heritage.
And then I start thinking about bot flies and zombie fungi and think, why would some "god" dream up those nightmarish reproductive methods? That shit is just nasty and creepy.