Along your same point, should minorities drive a car with a Darwin fish on it after what he had to say about them?
It’s funny how they never want to give the full title of Darwin’s book as it originally appeared.
The book’s full title is: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. Later on in 1872 the title was changed to hide the last half, perhaps because of its racist overtones, to just “The Origin of Species.”
And it als ois very interesting to see the darwinists trying to equate the reluctance to accept their views with Christians. There have been many, many attempts over 2000 years trying to snuff out Christianity. So many that millions of people over the last 2000 years have been killed for their beliefs. THe killing goes on today, in Sudan, in China, in muslim countries. Show me the millions of people who have believed in Darwin so strongly they’d give their own lives defending that belief.
The truth is Darwin is junk science, it fails Darwin’s own tests due to lack of evidence. By his own words Darwin would have abandoned his own theory long ago. A hundred and fifty years beating a dead horse is the picture of the evolutionists. Today’s masquerading ‘science’ instead says lack of evidence is evidence for it - it just happened much differently than Darwin said it did.
If the Darwinists can use lack of evidence as evidence, then I guess we can too when they ask us to call forth God so that they can see Him.
The truth is that the theory of evolution is an origins theory, which requires faith to believe in because it cannot be scientifically proven. Anytime you discuss origins there’s belief and faith involved whether God is the creating source, or evolution. If one can’t be in the schools, neither should. Otherwise you are favoring one origins theory over another.
The other truth is that if there is no God then there are no moral absolutes, right and wrong do not exist. Morals are really just a fancy name for ‘preferences’. It’s just our personal perceptions of what we prefer or don’t. The reality of this is that maybe it is okay to kill other people if they don’t agree with you, because since there’s really no right and wrong, nothing is wrong, so everything is fair game. You may not agree, but since there is no absolute standard to which everyone is measured, it’s just one person’s preferences being different from another’s. Nobody’s wrong. Hopefully you don’t run into someone who thinks it’s okay to kill you for your tennis shoes because he liked the pair you were wearing when you walked by him on the street that day.
This would have to be true because if we evolved from animals the way it’s claimed, you don’t see anything in nature operating this way. The lion doesn’t have a moral issue about killing the gazelle. It’s all self preservation and ‘do what you will.’
Today in America we don’t eat people, but in other places of the world they do. Maybe one day our views will change and enough people will accept eating people again, especially if we have food shortages and because we’re using all our biocrops to fuel our cars. MMMM, soylent green....
And for those of you who think the ‘societal’ morals in our laws and such solve the problem, they just slow down the problem. But the societal morals drift and change as society changes. And good luck if half the time if they even want to enforce a law on the books, much less mete out a full punishment. And also good luck if soceital morals shift (since there are no absolutes) to where YOU become part of a legally persecuted class with the full force of government backing those who want ot come after you. (And I’m back to 2000 years of Christian persecution and millions of deaths of Christians by those who would persecute them.)
The truth is Darwin is junk science, it fails Darwin’s own tests due to lack of evidence. By his own words Darwin would have abandoned his own theory long ago.
You are probably referring to Darwin's statement that the lack of transitional fossils posed a serious problem for his theory, and that if they weren't found in the future his theory would be in trouble.
Guess what? Darwin was speaking of the fossil record as it existed prior to 1859.
There are lots of transitionals now, and more are found every year. There was just an announcement in the last week about a new whale transitional. And if you want to see living transitionals, just google "ring species" for examples of speciation with the transitional populations still intact and alive.
The problem seems to be that some folks with particular religious beliefs are unable to admit there are transitionals because that would contradict their beliefs. But denial won't make all of the transitionals magically go away.
Show me the millions of people who have believed in Darwin so strongly they’d give their own lives defending that belief.
Just for the sake of argument, say someone showed you what you request. What would that prove to you?