Well, as far as I can see, Darwinism is rejected by any Christian who is faithful. I am not a practicing Christian, furthermore I am an ateist, but all I see whereever I go, is that the validity of Darwinism is fought with tooth and nail by Christians. I can't see into the mind of each Christian, so I take their commonly accepted and agreed-upon tenets, which are Christian tenets.

To wit, the RC church and the pope insist that the world is approx. 6 (or 8?) thousand years old, and so do the Evangelists in America. This is a given, as stated in the Bible, it is a Christian tenet. To go against this, is blasphemy.

And six thousand years of a world in existence does not allow for any evoltuion to take place, in its sense of species separation, and selected survival due to environmental changes. This does not happen in 6 or 8 thousand years.

This is what I meant when I said that to accept Darwinism is anti-Christian.

To me this means that anyone who says Darwinism has worked, is blaspheming the bible.

In other words, you can't play for both teams, as they say in England.

You have to choose a side, you are either a Christian, or a Darwinist. Darwin's theory irrevokably necessitates that the world is much older than 6 or 8 thousand years. Christians, who must by definition believe that the bible is truth, because it's god's word, irrevokably and necessarily must believe that the world is only six or eigh thousand years old, not a moment older.

One team says it's definitely more than 8 thousand, if Darwinism is to be believed, the other team says it's definetely at most eight thousand, which is the age of the world, so Darwinism can't be believed. No way. (Again, age could be six thousand, not eight thousand.)

You can't say that the world is more than eight thousand years old and at the same time and in the same respect it is eight thousand years old or less. (or six.) Therefore you can't say you are both a Darwinist AND a Christian at the same time and in the same respect, because those would need that you beleive tha the world is both older AND not older or equal to six (or eight) thousands of years.

Therefore you must choose a side, to avoid contradicting the oldest philsophical argument-cruncher and falshood proof, the law of reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity, which is that the world is both older and younger, categorically, than a certain age.)

as far as admitting to being wrong, I have done it often and will continue to do so,, when shown an error

in the above, I jsut have not been shown any,,,

the presumption comes from the fact that I Mention evolving ,,I said nothing about the age of the earth and dont plan to

That's the clincher, right there.

You can't say races evolved due to adaptive selection to different environments. That did not happen in six thousand years. Yet you said exactly that.

So if you say races evolved due to adaptive selection... you can`t say that without the world being older than 6 or 8 thousand years.

To say nothing about the age of the world and to not plan to, but accepting Christianity as such, you can't say that the earth and the world is older than 6 or 8 thousand years.

Because you don`t say something, the ramifications are still there.

I don't care if you are wrong or right. I care, however, if I am wrong or right.

Unfortunately here your insisting on that you are not wrong, is equivalent to your insisting on that I am wrong.

And that is inescapable.

Ok. I got to thinking. I know the comment "White Devil" came up earlier in this thread. So, I am wondering.....Do we really know that the devil is white? What if he is mixed? Or maybe he is like Michael Jackson (at the time of his death0....which was clear? Just throwing it out there.

msharmony, a question:

My ancestors are from Sweden and Germany. While I recognize this I never consider myself A Swedish American or German American. I'm American.

Since most blacks families have been in this country for at least two hundred years why continue to call themself African Americans?

Why not just Black Americans? In a way it puts a divide or distinction between us.

Inquiring minds want to know.

msharmony, a question:

My ancestors are from Sweden and Germany. While I recognize this I never consider myself A Swedish American or German American. I'm American.

Since most blacks families have been in this country for at least two hundred years why continue to call themself African Americans?

Why not just Black Americans? In a way it puts a divide or distinction between us.

Inquiring minds want to know.

I think that I know the answer to that question.

The USA has been a melting pot for immigrants from predominantly Caucasian nations, but that was not the case with natives of Africa. They were forced to be segregated from mainstream American society. So, their descendants developed their own subculture in the USA.

Now that involuntary segregation has ended, and all Americans have equal rights, African-Americans have been becoming more culturally diverse. However, it take several generations before such cultural diversification to take place.

I have no objection to msharmony calling herself an African-American. That is what I call my daughter Radiance. I call myself a Scottish American because I have embraced my Scottish heritage.

msharmony, a question:

My ancestors are from Sweden and Germany. While I recognize this I never consider myself A Swedish American or German American. I'm American.

Since most blacks families have been in this country for at least two hundred years why continue to call themself African Americans?

Why not just Black Americans? In a way it puts a divide or distinction between us.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Great question.
Why not just call themselves American.

One lady called the Afro-Ameri term segregationist.

The only time I called my self a white American was when I turned 21.

I said, I'm American, free, white and 21!

While we may have different ancestors and countries of origin we are all Americans.

Any Gov applications list Scottish American as being an option?

The negro is voluntarily keeping themselves segregated.

They could sue to have that entitlement badge eliminated.

Statistically the largest group of people who receive Welfare and such are white people. Has the term White Trash come up?