<p>
</p>
<p>That is a horrible analogy–would you rather have them drive broken cars?</p>
<p>The better analogy is “kids will drink,” so let’s teach them about drunk driving</p>
<p>All of my Christian friends also believe in evolution. The sketchiness of evolutionists doesn’t merit a denial of the theory. </p>
<p>But I’m also interested in why you don’t believe in evolution. I’ve had subs who didn’t believe in evolution either, but sadly they couldn’t tell us their point of view because of the whole “Thou shall not preach in school” thing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you saying it’s not three sided?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Marriage was an example of the characteristic, just one that does not do a very well job at least in this day and age and finding a closer example is really difficult to put into words.</p>
<p>
No, I just wanted to know who’s three-siding it and how. Following this thread makes my brain hurt.</p>
<p>^^I honestly do not understand what you just said, and I don’t get why this means premarital sex is wrong.</p>
<p>Well I think applicannot is the third side.</p>
<p>Trying to maintain focus on a thread like this is kind of futile.</p>
<p>I gave up on trying to understand several pages ago.</p>
<p>I even skipped a page. And I never skip pages.</p>
<p>And your pages are the long pages.</p>
<p>@choco, James 2:19 says, “You have the belief that God is one, and you do well: the evil spirits have the same belief, shaking with fear.” The concern is not whether people believe in Jesus as God, it is whether they submit to the rules of God’s government that is significant. You see, you and other rebels (Satan and his cohorts) reject following God’s laws because of their pride, their wanting to be their own rulers (anarchists = selfish people). Jesus’ kingdom is about helping others, NOT helping themselves to pre-marital sex.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, indeed.</p>
<p>Yeah. Although I still have not seen an answer as to why pre-marital sex is wrong. </p>
<p>Hey, if something is NOT wrong, does that automatically make it right? What do you call the middle?</p>
<p>I’m asking because I’m just thinking. In my opinion, pre-marital sex is not wrong whatsoever. It’s not right either, right in the sense that everybody should have marital sex. It’s your own choice and you shouldn’t be condemned for wanting to have sex before marriage.</p>
<p>But what’s it called if something’s not wrong but also not exactly right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I should be studying for APs too (I actually have AP Stats open in another window right now), but this kind of debate is one of my favorite things to do…</p>
<p>“immense evidence”</p>
<p>Where?</p>
<p>A FEW problems I have:</p>
<p>No mechanism. Natural selection explains why a gene pool would be refined into specialized varieties (Darwin’s finches). But where do the genes come from in the first place? The only way genes change is through mutation, which, though impressive in Marvel comics, in real life does not create new and useful features. For a fish to mutate into a frog would require an incredibly unlikely series of random changes, which would need to either happen all at once or happen in a way that each phase was superior to the one before it.</p>
<p>No time. Dating methods are a crapshoot, but even generous estimates don’t give NEARLY enough time for evolution to happen, even assuming there was a mechanism that caused regular changes to the DNA (yet not so frequent as to destroy the creatures that existed).</p>
<p>No fossils. Even IF there was a mechanism, AND enough time, where did all the creatures go? Where are the “fishphibians” and “whalefaloes”? All we’ve got is a couple of slabs of rock with prints of both feathers and teeth. Complete feathers and complete teeth. Where are the half-evolved feathers and half-gone teeth? Really, where’s the half-evolved anything?</p>
<p>Lots and lots of perfect designs. So many things is this world see to be made exactly perfect for their worlds, with the exact set of traits they need, the loss of any of which would be crippling. Pity to poor proto-cleanerfish before groupers had evolved the instinct not to eat a certain small kind of fish that swim into their mouths, even though they spend the rest of their time eating other small fish. And what an amazing coincidence that an algae happened to land on a fungus one day and randomly learn how to make a combined algae-fungus spore, giving us the first lichen. Imagine how many failed versions of that there must have been?</p>
<p>Choco, my resp. is in re: to yours on #398 i believe. i’m trying to catch up on the threads.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>-big facepalm- I’m not even going to try. I just want to say though, learn about a concept first before you argue against it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As in, “teach them not to do it”, or “teach them to operate a car more safely while drunk”?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And this is the fifth reason, and one of the most compelling for me: I have thus far just about never gotten a more intelligent and reasonable response than that.</p>
<p>^^…Neither.</p>
<p>Teach them about the dangers of careless drinking. Just like how most schools teach students about the dangers of unprotected sex.</p>