I see good Zedd is not the only close-minded one here. First, to reply to your statements, SO. Let's begin with a definition of dogma: "An
authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." If you read the posts of ZZZ, he
put forth his opinions as absolutely true, AS YOU JUST HAVE AS WELL. So dogma applies to you, too.
Secondly, the theory of evolution is NOT universally accept by those trained in science by any means. It has been and continues to be one of the most
debated models ever proposed. It has been accepted by media, and by the education system. But that's another matter entirely. Rather than regurgitate
the dogma of others, educate yourself in a broad range of sciences. I would recommend biology, genetics, physics, and astronomy as good places to
start. Learn the hard facts first, then use critical thinking to examine popular theories and come to your own conclusions. Had you backed up your
statement about evolution with your own knowledge and points, I would have respected your reply. However, to say "they told me so, so it must be
true" isnt likely to garner much respect from anyone on this board.
As for the time over which things may have adapted/evolved...firstly, its quite juvenile to begin your arguement for that with an insult, and it shows
that your first attack against what I said to be personal, rather than debating any statements I have made. Secondly, I understand the theory of
evolution completely, and the amount of time purported for evolution. But YOU seemed to have missed what I put forth, or ignored it because you do not
have an answer; namely, that there is NO PROOF of any one creature becoming a completely different creature. Sure, all the whales in the sea probably
came from one whale. Thats not too hard to believe, or see, or give solid circumstancial proof for. However, to say that all land creatures came from
a fish? Well, where's the links? Where is even one link? I judge things on evidences, and evolution is just another religion, and I'm not one for
religion. It's a bloated theory based on more theory and faith, and on manipulating evidence to support a theory, rather than taking the evidence and
creating a theory that is based solely on fact. I am not putting forth a different model, I am just rejecting the model put forth as immutable on the
basis of lack of evidence for and increasing evidence to the contrary. In other words, thinking for myself. Novel concept, that.
Finally, a short definition of faith for you: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that
does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 3. The body of dogma of a religion. So, tell me how the statements of ZZZ, and those of yourself,
as well, are not defined as faith?
I am not here to stir up trouble, or to argue anything. I am here to share thoughts and ideas in OPEN MINDEDNESS, entertaining idea based on their
merit as determined by the logic, reason, science or evidence behind them. If I reject something, but someone else supports it, I expect them to tell
me, IN A CIVIL AND INTELLIGENT MANNER, "Here's why I think you're wrong." Then it comes back to me to debate their points with them, etc. We all
wil never agree, but open-minded debate fosters intelligence, learning, and innovating thinking. The very concepts this board purports to support.