My Stupid Challenge

[AV1611VET]

Which one is stupider?

1. Denying Adam (4004-3074 BC)

2. Denying Darwin (AD 1809-1882)

Please comment.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since Darwin was an actual living person, of whom we have actual records of having existed, choice number 2.

Challenge over.

 

[dlamberth]

Which one is stupider?

1. Denying Adam (4004-3074 BC)

2. Denying Darwin (AD 1809-1882)

Please comment.

Since the denial of Darwin is directly related to the over all denial of scientific discoveries of the natural world which is married to the anti-intellectual effect that is part of that world view and which has contributed directly to the dumbing down of America, I have to say that denying Darwin is way, way stupider.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which one is stupider?

1. Denying Adam (4004-3074 BC)

2. Denying Darwin (AD 1809-1882)

Please comment.

I'll go with Denis O. Lamoureux's position on that question, AV.

 

[Paul Finch]

Which one is stupider?

1. Denying Adam (4004-3074 BC)

2. Denying Darwin (AD 1809-1882)

Please comment.

Do you really need to ask?

 

[Chesterton]

Please comment.

Does the comment need to respond to the question or can I just verbally assault you for this?

 

[AV1611VET]

Does the comment need to respond to the question or can I just verbally assault you for this?

 

[TaylorSexton]

As a Christian, I would say to deny either is unwise.

EDIT: Upon further reflection, I believe you were asking this: "Is it better to deny the reality of Adam or the theories of Darwin?" That was not very clear in the OP. My statement above answers the question assuming you were referring to denying the reality of either.

 

[-57]

Which one is stupider?

1. Denying Adam (4004-3074 BC)

2. Denying Darwin (AD 1809-1882)

Please comment.

If you deny Adam...you deny the bible.
If you deny Chucky D...you deny evolutionism.

...The wse choice, deny Chucky D.

 

[blackribbon]

What do you need to deny?

Adam either exist or he didn't. What you believe is a subset of your faith.

Darwin was a man. He had some theories. Some good. Some bad. How do you deny him? He existed and was real. You would do better to just study his writings and research and judge each work based on it's merit than believe or deny in this man. He wasn't infallible.

 

[Paul Finch]

If you deny Adam...you deny the bible.
If you deny Chucky D...you deny evolutionism.
...The wse choice, deny Chucky D.

Denying reality is always wise if you want to remain religious.

 

[-57]

Denying reality is always wise if you want to remain religious.

Chucky D's descent with modification is impossible.

 

[Chesterton]

...Chucky D.

Fear Of a Modified Planet.

 

[-57]

Fear Of a Modified Planet.

I don't understand your point.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't understand your point.

Me neither.

 

[Chesterton]

I don't understand your point.

Chuck D was a rapper (Public Enemy) who made an album called Fear Of A Black Planet. I think you have a fear of descent with modification.

 

[Nithavela]

It is better to deny reality than to deny the one who created that reality.

Is that the answer you're looking for?

 

[MrSpikey]

My Stupid Challenge

Well, who saw that coming?

 

[Kylie]

Which one is stupider?

1. Denying Adam (4004-3074 BC)

2. Denying Darwin (AD 1809-1882)

Please comment.

It is stupider to deny Darwin, since we have actual records of him (including living relatives), and the only thing that supports Adam's existence is an old book.

When Adam has the same amount of support that Darwin has, I'll be happy to accept him as well. (See? I'm willing to change my mind based on new evidence. Are you?)

 

[Kylie]

Chucky D's descent with modification is impossible.

Citation required.