[stultorum]

"OK, so Astronomy is anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture?"

Nope.

"Geology is anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture?"

Nope.

"Archeaology is anti God, anti Christians and anti Western Culture?"

Nope.

The above are sciences.

The anti's you mentioned above pertain to evolution, which is not considered a science. It's more a phylosophy, or faith/belief. Iow, pseudo science.

[Jaguarbhzrd]

The above are sciences. The anti's you mentioned above pertain to evolution, which is not considered a science. It's more a phylosophy, or faith/belief. Iow, pseudo science.

I hate to break it to you, but 99% of all scientists understand that evolution is science, so I hope you will forgive me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt, and some 80 proof alchohol.

[donh]

The anti's you mentioned above pertain to evolution, which is not considered a science. It's more a phylosophy, or faith/belief. Iow, pseudo science.

Unless you ask a scientist.

[Dimensio]

The anti's you mentioned above pertain to evolution, which is not considered a science.

You are incorrect. The vast majority of biologists do in fact consider the theory of evolution to be science.

It's more a phylosophy, or faith/belief. Iow, pseudo science.

Please support your claim with evidence.

[presently no screen name]

evolution, which is not considered a science. It's more a phylosophy, or faith/belief. Iow, pseudo science

EXACTLY! It's faith based in 'man's belief that is in direct opposition to what The Creator of all says in His Word.

It's not a good position to be in. This thread w/the 'what difference does it make' God can be God and the evolutionists can still can be right demonstrates their need to erase the obvious link that Darwin's philosophy and God's Word are in total opposition.

Hence, the uproar about being on the religion forum; they need the disconnect to be considered 'science'.