The man really comes from monkeys?
Can a scientific theory that has become an axiom of civilization only be a lie magnified? This is what now argues some American scientists who insist on questioning the theory of “one of the greatest minds in history”. To support their thesis, the discovery in Atapuerca in Spain, of the fossil of a man endowed in all respects with the characteristics of man sapiens sapiens (the one who is currently reading the article), dating back to “alone” 780 thousand years ago, quindi predecessore del meno evoluto uomo di Neanderthal estinto solo gives 25 thousand years. E’ curious the fact that, the bold supporters of Darwinian evolutionism, have invented a category specifically for him called Homo Antecessor.
E’ also note, the presence, nell’ organism of living beings, of so-called enzymes “repairers” which prevent changes in the structure of DNA. When the latter fail to do their work, they give life to organisms that they have, always, less attitudes to life. Evolutionism therefore, claiming that continuous accidental mutations occur in deoxyribonucleic acid, he does nothing but attack the work of this one “poor working class without a union”.
Finally, many living species could never have survived evolutions, as in the case of the Woodpecker, whose tongue rotates around the skull and then returns to the beak. One’ evolution of this step by step, he could never allow his great-grandfather to swallow food.
It would be unwise to rush to conclusions, giving a light judgment on the veracity or otherwise of evolutionism, it is however easy to understand why the theory in question has been so successful: it is enough to focus on the historical context in which it was born. Coincidentally, it took hold precisely during the years accompanying the revolutionary uprisings of '48, who overthrew the Orléanist monarchy and established a republican government. In this time, to the great maneuvers of the masses, they only had to gain from the fall of the monarchical regime, it could prove very useful to attack the Church by undermining its foundations with theories capable of questioning it “word of the Lord”. We recall that the investiture of the sovereign took place at the hands of the Pope, highest representative of God on earth.
However, there are documents, “currently” considered a false historian, which hint at the artificial success of Darwin's theories and their devastating impact on society.
One thing is certain the information was, it is and will always be manipulated, whether you are in a totalitarian or democratic regime, it is up to each individual to go beyond the beauty of the colors of a television or the majesty of the words of newspapers, mobilizing for the search for truth.
Roberto Marchina
Dear Roberto and dear owner of the site,
but why do you spread, you and not evolutionists!, these lying attacks on a theory, that of evolution, which is not solely Darwinian, and that is in front of you and everyone every day: everything evolves in nature. The mountains are transformed, the houses age, the lakes dry up, the rocks wear out, new rivers are formed, etc. It is time that requires the concept of evolution, and this concept was not epistemologically invented by Darwin; Darwin just applied it, with intelligence, to the dynamics of biological speciation. Moreover, I personally believe that evolution also uses mechanisms other than simple “case plus natural selection” wanted by Darwin: how to explain in fact that one type of orchid exactly mimics the rear of a hornet to attract another, eager to mate? Difficult that it is just the work of chance. However, there must have been an evolution, Roberto, with or without Darwinian or Lamarckian schemes.
You cannot expect to throw mud on the intellectual work of hundreds of people, anthropology, genetisti, geology, etc., only because you want to bear at all costs that God came with a magic wand and created man out of nothing, already well done, with little birds and little fish around. The existence of an intelligent Creator is already worthy of serious doubts, but even if that were the case, I don't deny it a priori, God will have used evolution to bring history to gradually conceive man; although this formulation seems to me very anthropocentric… A 21st century Catholic cannot seriously discredit scientists, because he wants to restore the biblical literal dictation, that now, the same Church, he had considered it as a metaphor, in the twentieth century. You are receding like shrimp, only because about ten years ago a group of ultra-Orthodox and ultra-ignorant American Jews forcefully reopened the Creationism case.
Come on ladies and gentlemen, let's not fool ourselves, let's not self-boycott the culture among us human beings: it is precious. The Bible is only a very small part of human culture, other than a source of science!
Be mature, open your minds to reasoning, instead of leaving your eyes glued to the pages of that respectable but old book that is the Bible. Who wrote the Bible, he knew nothing of genetics, biochemistry or amino acids… If only he lived today, and was educated, he would be a fervent anthropologist!
A kiss, ciao.
Marco Cosentino
Oh I forgot: your forum title is wrong. No one says today that man is descended from the ape but from a common ancestor, extinct today, with tailless monkeys: orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee and bonobo.
Furthermore, the paleoanthropological distinction between the genus is not absolutely clear and unanimous “Homo” and what is not. But then, you have seen how anthropomorphic monkeys are?
So start by asking the right questions, even if you pretend to know the answer, please; it seems to me the least. Ciao.
Marco Cosentino
Dear Marco Cosentino,
thanks for the comment but, assuming that I totally respect your point of view, I just can't believe the human being that evolves from the monkey and the monkey in turn derives from that? From some amphibian? The amphibian from what? from a mosquito? It would take I don't know how many billions and billions of years to allow evolution, if it's true as you say, (the earth is not that old), e, whereas we have no remains, fossils and evidence of some human being that evolved and of the intermediate stages, I'm sorry but science has failed! Those who are found? Simple: either they are apes or humans! I was an advocate of science and studied it before I found faith, It may seem strange to you but since reading the Bible I have found answers to all my questions of logic, so it is logic that leads me to have faith.
The concept of evolution does not add up, good for butterflies and adaptations to the environment, but it's not okay at all that we evolved as human beings and come from I don't know what. They are just baseless theories. I believe that everything is a plan of God, also adaptations to the environment and I consider science to be nothing more than the explanation of God's creation. You are wrong to say that those who wrote it did not know anything in the Bible, because they knew things that were discovered later, such as the roundness of the earth. And there is only one explanation… which is inspired! But there is still more that people who reject it a priori cannot understand.
As someone said: “It takes more faith to be an atheist than a believer”
ciao 🙂
You will mean the title of the post? Because the title of the blog is absolutely right: “Christian Faith”.
However, the blog is mine and that's it, I'm the only one who writes, I get the articles online, the ones I like, there is no Roberto reading you 🙂
PS: Do not be angry that it is bad for your health 🙂
ciao
Caro ChristianFaith (English is now everywhere, Oh Mama!),
I do not get angry, calm, but thanks for the advice (right). Yup, I was obviously referring to the title of the post. For charity, it takes much more courage to touch the general title, seen what I imagine you believe (blindly?) to everything the Bible says.
Referring to your first intervention, in fact, if one leaves it to chance alone, the time to pass from a few molecules of methane and cyanide to the fish (I don't even tell you the man) it could reasonably be of such a long duration as to exceed the four and a half billion years of our planet, as you say; we potentially agree here. In fact, a mathematician has calculated the probability that organic molecules unite to form a functioning cellular oragnism, and found a number, obviously, astronomical. That's why I always have, modestly and in my heart, believed that chance alone is not enough for evolution, but let a living species know, partly, select certain traits itself in a targeted way to evolve, thus helping accidents; even if this idea, reasonable, it doesn't seem to me to have ever found support in genetics. Maybe, maybe someday.
But it is also true that four billion years is a long time, and you don't really know, as no one knows yet, which preferential routes has it been able to find the evolution to go faster. I'll give you an example: technology has developed exponentially in man. A million years will have passed from the first stone tools to the iron ones; from those in iron to the invention of glass it will have taken a few thousand years; from glass to the invention of computers a few hundred years; from the calculator to the Japanese Asimo robot, only a few decades… here, it may well be that evolution has discovered a system, a quick way (it remains to know which one…) that would allow her to evolve easily, at a given time a few hundred million years ago.
Then I am not saying that the authors of the Bible knew nothing, at all. They just didn't know everything we know today: chemistry, physics, geology, etc. It seems obvious to me.
The roundness of the Earth… but who tells you that contemporary man with biblical writers believed that the Earth was flat? You know that it is enough to go to a height and look at the horizon of the sea on a clear day, to perceive the earth's curvature? You know that the horizon limits the vision as a sphere would, something that an educated man even in Aramaic society could achieve? Eratostene misurò, with success, the circumference of the Earth in the third century BC, and the Bible should have been written between the eighth and sixth centuries, if I remember well (therefore only a few hundred years earlier). in short, it's not really that prophetic, your Bible, sorry….
Science hasn't failed, as you say: and the fact that we use a computer proves it. However, there is no doubt that if everyone reasoned like you, science would die instantly!
Do not get angry, ciao.
Marco Cosentino
“here, it may well be that evolution has discovered a system, a quick way (it remains to know which one…) that would allow her to evolve easily, at a given time a few hundred million years ago.”
… or someone created us up there 😉
see? I don't believe all these puzzles to find these answers that will never come. Faith makes us so sure… it is a thing that you, trying to explain things with your limited logic as a human being, you can not understand.
I don't get angry, forget about it, I have heard and read the speeches you make many times… think that until a few years ago I used to make them too 🙂
yes I blindly believe the Bible of course, but not because I'm dull and I try to explain the things I experience, but because I feel an inner strength that guides me when I read it.
ciao
Oh I forgot… about the science that would die if everyone had faith, you are wrong, as there are so many creationist scientists, who study without presumption, just to explain the things around us, without wanting to explain the birth of life by putting himself in the place of God, because they know they will never find out.
But sorry ChristianFaith,
the hypothesis of an accelerated evolution is logical, rational, although not necessarily real. The hypothesis instead that God comes and creates men out of nothing has no logical scientific value. It is as if one day they ask you why sulfuric acid makes bubbles with bicarbonate and you answer: “Because it is the strength of God that wills it so”, without giving a rational model of the process. The origin by creationism has no rational language, valid, but mythological: it is absurd to believe and think like the aborigines, who think of the primeval egg or something else. The Bible transcribes the myth of the ancient Jewish populations, stop. It cannot be used as an easy, ready-made answer, just because, very humbly, we have to admit that we still don't know exactly how things went, in a billion years of evolution! You insert the creationist discourse only because there is the absence of proof. It is as if one has eaten a piece of cake on the sly, then everyone sees that it is a man's bite but there is no evidence to say who it was, and then it is concluded that it was a greedy angel who came down from heaven to have smelled the perfume. All this because there is no proof of who did it. Long ghost, please. It is one thing to believe in a higher Spirit (it's still…) and it is one thing to believe the tale of Adam and Eve: they are childish! Eventual creationist scientists don't do science: they ruin it! But then, where am I ? You can tell me only one (except a well-known school teacher, Unfortunately)?? First. Second: the smarter ones, among creationists, they dare not advocate a literal version of the Bible (they would be expelled from the universities on the spot, without compensation…) but they opt for Smart Design, version adapted for the science of the Divine Project. I disagree with this thesis, but at least they are much more rational in their reasoning and if one day, as I believe it will be, their speech will be invalidated, we will be more reassured that we have not left this unexplored road behind.
You love that the scientific truth about the origin of life is not discovered, because ignorance of this truth suits you, and you can put the Bible in it. “Brava”, very “scientific” as a practice.
You say that before you held theses like mine… mmmh, I doubt you did it with conviction; otherwise…. or you have been plagiarized by some believer (frequent Opus Dei, by chance?) or you badly needed faith on prepackaged things, or of spirituality and of an afterlife to quell doubts or anguish or, sorry if I tell you… you fell off the swing one evening. I see no other explanation. Ciao.
Marco Cosentino
They are points of view… for me it is illogical your reasoning and the evolutionist one, who does everything to demonstrate the indemonstrable by climbing the mirrors… the reason? We will never find out how life was born because it is certain that it was created… there is no primordial soup.
And as I told you these answers give me faith, one thing you can't understand.
You see that you haven't read anything about my blog, because if you had read it you would have known that I am not Catholic but evangelical (Protestant).
I have not fallen from the high chair or the swing, nor did anyone brainwash me, nor did I have any problems before, rather… I lived quietly! Faith came to me from reasoning initially, when I was trying to find answers that science could not give me (sometimes they give theories then retract them, first you believe in one thing and then in another) it is enough to study the history of scientific thought to realize this, but the Bible is not, that doesn't change and has all the answers. Before criticizing it so much, read it carefully my dear, so you also understand how the tale of Adam and Eve is true!
I started reading the bible on my own and suddenly felt good, enough to cry, but you can't understand this because you don't go beyond your nose anymore…
I don't go to churches but I only read the Bible and I am a Christian. point.
I don't understand one thing though, what a nuisance believers can give to atheists, they are always the ones who go to support their thesis in their blog or forum, while Christians do not go to them, because? what bothers you? our ignorance? (according to you means) don't think it could be mutual?
Cordially…
PS: for creationist scientists (who support the truths of the Bible and not what you say about creation I don't know from whom) just visit the site http://www.answersingenesis.org (if you know English!)
Ma ChristianFaith,
how do you consider evolutionist reasoning illogical?! Everything evolves, have you ever seen a thing created out of nothing? Evolutionary language is very logical: look for evidence, and on these he makes us reasoning, and everyone can participate in these arguments as long as their observations are fruitful and advance research (even being wrong), and for them to be fruitful they must be realistic, that is, based on observable or observed things, and consistent with other sciences and mathematics, When possible. The Bible does not fit into any of these aspects: it's a story that's enough. It doesn't give you proof; it does not give you mechanisms consistent with other branches of science, because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology. because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology: because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology. because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology, in conclusion, because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology. because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology, because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology. because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology, because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology, because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology, who knows… because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology, because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology; because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology (because evolution also pervades other fields of science and not just paleontology) what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina: what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina… what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina!
what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina, what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina, what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina, what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina, what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina, what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina! what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina, what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina? what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina.
what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina, what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina: what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina; what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina, just, what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina, what an intellectual dishonest or inventing lies as in the case of your Roberto Marchina, less rigorous than Newton's or Maxwell's laws because without mathematical formulation, I'm sure it will be revised and corrected in the future… but not to make way for creationism, calm !
The Bible, on the other hand, does not change (you are right !), because it is embalmed in its pages forever: there is no dynamic discussion around the Bible read in a fundamentalist sense like yours: it is just like that. I can ask the professors why they think that Homo habilis is not really a Homo yet, but you cannot ask the authors of the Bible what the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah did that was so bad…
I then inform you that the evidence of evolution, little by little, they jump out and make scientists climb less and less on mirrors.
You who believe the biblical story tell me: Adam and Eve were white, black, rossi, asians…? What race is the first couple on Earth, for the Bible?
Marco Cosentino
Also I remind you that the concept of “logic” human beings created it, human beings created science ACCORDING TO THE HUMAN REASONING METER. I repeat what I have already said against evolution: here we are not talking about butterflies and plants, but of the human being created different and with a sense of eternity, with God's law of good and evil written in the heart.
I cannot say that the sun is blue since it is not, but this is a proven and objective truth, while what you claim is simply a theory without proof. You should know that to affirm a phenomenon as scientific, you have to try it first, well where would this evidence be that we evolved from apes? and the monkeys where they came from? who was this common ancestor? resigned because there is no answer, nobody knows, not even your dear professor who supports his thesis as I do and as you do.
Universal gravitation is science, the solar system is science! Not evolution, the big bang and the primordial soup (just go to wikipedia which is a neutral field and type these terms and you will see that it says they are THEORIES!!!!
I also invite you to be less presumptuous and arrogant since you told me I fell off the swing. I don't think I have said such a thing to you, although you have no idea what I think of someone who does not believe in the Creator. I have a brain like yours and I can reason, we just can't all think the same way, if I believe that evolutionism is a hoax it is because first, I have read books and books of all kinds and even the Bible (which you haven't done yet)and then I reasoned! It is you who hold the lights of reason? It is you who know everything about life? And that you are God?
I would not want to be in you when the judgment against the unbelievers arrives!
We are on the same level with the brain only that atheists have blinders and no longer see beyond their nose, stopping at the visible and the material world. I'm sorry for you.
Read some other books written by those who think differently and not always the same as the ignorant evolutionists (there are very few left, I'm surprised you don't know this, you can see that you do not inform yourself)
I do not agree to argue with those who criticize the Bible without even having read it, it is a debate that is not on the same level, do not you think?
I'm done here.
Okay ChristianFaith,
let's stop here, as you like. Although for me a blog can become a bit’ a forum but not vice versa. Anyway thanks for the suggestion actually right.
The swing was a colorful joke, and not an insult!, to jokingly tell you something that, otherwise, seriously, I should have said so “Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology”. Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology, no?
Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology: Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology, Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology, for example, Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology’ Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology (Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology, Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology, Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology, Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology “Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology” Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology “Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology” Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology, Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology, etc.) Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology’ Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology. Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology “Or a strong physical or psychic trauma has upset you to the point of confusing reason with mythology” because we evolved together from a common ancestor that was certainly more ape-like than man, but that it was none of the monkeys seen today (except that it may not be discovered still alive in some forest to be explored, but, I do not think so). Anyhow, the word ancestor is generic: who is your ancestor for you: your father or paternal grandfather? Or your maternal great-grandmother? As for the genealogy that you have before your eyes (father, not no, great grandfather, etc.) even for paleontological genealogy there is a whole long line, rather a hyper-complex interweaving of a row, of ancestors less and less similar to us, going backwards. This evidence is so crystal clear! But not, the believer always wants to complicate things, as in sex and in other areas: here is the sin and you don't go; there is the mystery and it cannot be explored; here is the biblical letter and science must keep silent because otherwise it feels like God… I'm going to go. However know that evolutionists are now not few, as you say, but they are almost all the scientists on Earth. Creationists, on the other hand, are mere speculators (in my opinion many in bad faith) or at least school teachers, but not scientists (then I go to that English site of yours to see). Except those of Intelligent Design. And they are a very small minority anyway.
I am not a materialist and have told you that I accept the possibility that a Creator can, possibly, have done or wanted everything; but it remains an entirely sentimental eventuality, not a rational belief that I can expect others to share and accept, as in the case of evolution. I too have my own ChristianFaith spirituality: that can be invented because science does not tell you how to live, but it only helps you to understand the reality of your life and things and to share this understanding with others; very important share that you creationists have been undermining for a decade now, Unfortunately.
I do not fear divine judgment, even if it existed, because I do nothing wrong and I love others. Instead, I would feel like a dishonest ruining the building of scientific research in unprepared minds.
Accept the theory of gravitation (whew, that's better… old bonnet) but not evolutionism?? Well, know that science is one and is made up of theories that meet and interlock with the progress of research. The day will come when evolutionism will meet other scientific evidence that you already accept (not gravitation because we are too far away, but other principles and then the conflicts of logic in your thinking will begin. Rather, really should be started, for example with the evolution of the Earth from a glowing ball, my good….
Anyhow: you didn't tell me whether Adam was black or white or Asian, etc. Well, I posed the same question to an evangelist like you, French, who answered me: bianco. Now, the Bible puts the white or mestizo man at the center of creation (since perhaps the Jews of the time were as dark as the Arabs of today), while science, largely developed by the white man, more honestly came to the conclusion that the first men most likely should, but certainly not, be black. So you and I would be bleached niggers. Science, in its impartiality of outcomes and democracy of anyone who can advance it, cleanly cuts the foundations of certain racism (not all); not so the Bible.
I've read a few chapters (and not just page!) of the Bible Old testament, and almost everything New. Staying in the Old, I must tell you that I found it a sometimes difficult book, sometimes as sympathetic as an ancient poem, sometimes boring for all those descendants of men, but still interesting. The Psalms, on the other hand, I find wonderfully poetic. But that doesn't mean I remove a book on the evolution of species from my table, to make room for the Bible or the Psalms. For me it would be like removing a biology book to make room for the Aeneid: why should i choose? The Aeneid, like the Bible, It's a great book, but it is literature, poetry. The biology book is scientific description, non-fiction, mathematics.
By the way, important: in your site there is a serious error when you talk about this blessed flat Earth. You don't have to wait for Magellan in 1521, which in any case came after Christopher Columbus who believed he reached the Indies precisely because the Earth was round, but I tell you again, Eratosthenes, in the third century BC, not only did he know perfectly well that the Earth was circular, but it came with angular measurements, even measure the circumference of the earth, with remarkable accuracy: you are wrong yourself 355 kilometers up 40.030! What more do you ask for at the time?
I worry about your children, ChristianFaith, because they will have to find out for themselves that their mother was telling them lies, and perhaps they will be shocked. Your conscience should ask itself this question. But for you, just believe the bible, and you're set, I imagine.
A warm greeting,
Marco Cosentino
Wanted to tell you, ChristianFaith,
you've made me feel a little guilty these days: I don't want you to get too upset by my words; At bottom, believing has its beauty, although it has strong limitations and side effects that are not always beautiful (repression of sexuality; religious conflicts between ethnic groups; obscurantism against science, etc…).
But the important thing is that you live how you feel about living and seeing the world, without feeling compelled by scientific rationalism not to believe in God or to feel this belief threatened by it (even if in a certain sense this is objectively true).
However, carefully evaluate the articles you offer, because science is not made by one man alone (Darwin) nor by men who a priori wanted to be atheists: it is instead a tiring set of reasoning and work on the ground, sometimes even exhilarating, who doesn't say what he says out of human presumption or to deny God at all costs. Einstein believed in God, and some recent implications of quantum mechanics, denying the principle of cause and effect so dear to classical science, they open glimmers towards potentially more metaphysical panoramas (from here to say that they lead to God but it takes some). I tell you this to please you, although I am suspicious of the entry of metaphysics into science.
Science is the glory of human reason which, a believer like you, should lead to a gift from God. I don't think God, if there is, made our reason just to read and re-read the Bible. sure, you say you accept Newton, but in the message of 1/9/2015 19:31, you wrote: “Science has failed !»…
The fact that the Earth is round to the Bible is hardly exceptional; but the sentence surprised me: « and suspends the Earth over nothingness », because, this, it is of profound insight (in fact it is literally suspended in the high void).
I hope you can be a good and happy mom. With love.
Marco Cosentino
I read your comment and I smiled: do you really think that your words upset me? 🙂 doesn't it look like a bit’ presumptuous of you? You overestimate yourself so much?
I have other things to do, that's why I'm not blogging!
My faith is untouchable, I live it happily without a doubt, I have the assurance of eternal life, this is one thing you cannot understand, it's something that I have inside me, something between me and God! and scientific discourses are not enough to make me doubt, also because I believe that science and faith go hand in hand. Yup, I believe that human reason was made by God and it is a beautiful thing, in fact I told you that science is the explanation of the world around us, of creation! When I said science failed I meant evolutionists and not all of science, because that was what we were talking about.
There are no sexual repressions and conflicts between believers, but you only know catholicism you! Sex is not only for procreation but for the pleasure of the couple, it is written in the Bible! See you don't know her?
anyway I already told you to go and discuss on the forum if you want a comparison!
hello and good continuation.
Hello,
I like your blog very much. I also believe in the truth of the Bible, and I am trying to learn Italian. I’m happy to find a place where I can both practice reading in Italian and learn more about the Word of God.
Thank you,
Leah
Thanks leah,
I’m glad you like my blog and you’re learning Italian! And I’m happy you want to learn more about the Word of God, that’s really nice!
bye
Caro ChristianFaith, So Adam and Eve really existed? Thank you for the reply
Of course they existed, because you thought it was a fairy tale?
I have heard many different opinions which have confused me