- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,131
- 52,414
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Darwin was from England. He married his first cousin way back in 1839. Things were different back than in England. Moving forward to today, even today in England it is still legal to marry ones first cousin.
Maybe she was hot.
Yup -- science can take a hike, can't it?
While I don't agree with Darwin's theory of evolution, I have to ask you which of those 24 states he lived in. I always believed he was British.What Darwin did is prohibited in 24 states.
While I don't agree with Darwin's theory of evolution, I have to ask you which of those 24 states he lived in. I always believed he was British.
I didn't know that AV lived there, but it explains a lot. Clearly, @AV1611VET is experiencing the angst brought on by "taxation without representation".It's legal where AV lives too, on Guam.
Science has nothing to do with the fact that in the 1800s, it was the cultural norm for cousin marriage.
And Darwin marrying his cousin does nothing to disprove or falsify the validity of the theory of evolution.
Why do you keep bringing it up like it somehow does?
While I don't agree with Darwin's theory of evolution, I have to ask you which of those 24 states he lived in. I always believed he was British.
It's legal where AV lives too, on Guam.
People don't accept the theory of evolution just because Darwin said so. Scientists just verified his work and moved on.When did science intervene and ban it "for good eugenic reasons"?
If the Father of Evolution married his first cousin, then I'm sure at least some others had no qualms with marrying their first cousins.
Kinda like, if women in Europe are taking Thalidomide, I'm sure it's okay for women in America to take it.
Yes, it has nothing to do with the mechanics of evolution.
But hey, if dad's doing it, it can't be bad ... can it?
Sorry @AV1611VET I am losing your thread here. How exactly did marrying cousins cause the thalidomide disaster, the de-planeting of Pluto, or the Challenger catastrophe. Were the doctors, astronomers and engineers involved in these, all the product of cosanguinious relationships?
People don't accept the theory of evolution just because Darwin said so. Scientists just verified his work and moved on.
When did science intervene and ban it "for good eugenic reasons"?
If the Father of Evolution married his first cousin, then I'm sure at least some others had no qualms with marrying their first cousins.
Kinda like, if women in Europe are taking Thalidomide, I'm sure it's okay for women in America to take it.
Yes, it has nothing to do with the mechanics of evolution.
But hey, if dad's doing it, it can't be bad ... can it?
Hey ... if it's legal, then it must be scientifically sound -- right?
After all, scientists know what's best for us, don't they?
Some of it was right and some of it was wrong. Scientists aren't in the business of sanctifying books, They want actual evidence.Verified it as right; or verified it as wrong?
Around the 1800s, though it wasn't banned by science it was banned by politicians. Though of course, the regular person at the time wouldn't really care, especially since over half of the US states still allow cousin marriage.
And you've still do nothing to explain why Darwin marrying his cousin somehow invalidates the theory of evolution.
And you've still do nothing to explain why Darwin marrying his cousin somehow invalidates the theory of evolution.
Darwin doesn't have to marry his cousin to invalidate the theory of evolution.
The theory of evolution invalidates itself with missing links.
You sure as heck have been seeming to treat it like it does, otherwise why else would you bring it up?
In POST 35, Darwin was used to attack Lee Strobel.
I'm now calling Darwin out as either a hypocrite, or as an ignorant scientist.
(I could use Bible terminology to describe him, but I won't. Especially since I believe he went to Heaven when he died.)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?