Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[YoursTrue]

For almost 200,000 years, human beings also felt no need to invent the written word. In fact, hunter gatherer tribes today have no written word, or if they do, only have it because outside missionaries came in a created it for them. Why is that? Any theories?

You can believe that if you want. I was just reading about a rabbi who was talking about the need for a Messiah but importantly, the need for -- REDEMPTION. Fancy that. Redemption. Anyway, sad to say you have it wrong about the first appearance of -- the Messiah. But anyway, try figuring out about redemption. It may be a deep concept but not one that should be foreign.

 

[Pogo]

Let me put it this way: the chimp in the picture looks pretty dumb. OK, call me prejudiced. Maybe it's not dumb. But could not (so far) invent electronics to call for medical help. Now if you want to show/prove/demonstrate that chimps have the ability to "evolve" to higher consciousness somehow by priming them up and teaching them human things, ok, that's for you. This is not to say I wouldn't be kind to a chimp.

So your grandmother was as stupid as a chimp?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You can believe that if you want. I was just reading about a rabbi who was talking about the need for a Messiah but importantly, the need for -- REDEMPTION. Fancy that. Redemption.

Redemption from what? Do you have a link?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Let me put it this way: the chimp in the picture looks pretty dumb. OK, call me prejudiced.

Pretty much

 

[YoursTrue]

Redemption from what?

From -- sin. Oy vey. The goat -- the lamb -- birds -- I hope it's not beyond someone's ability to digest what this is saying,:

End of Days | Aish

What does Judaism say about an apocalyptic final event. How will it play out?

aish.com

While I do not agree with everything there, I certainly can recognize what the rabbi means by the hope of redemption. What about you, how do you feel about the expression of need or hope for redemption?
One dictionary definition of redemption--

1. the action of saving or being saved from sin, error, or evil.
   "God's plans for the redemption of his world"
2. the action of regaining or gaining possession of something in exchange for payment, or clearing a debt.
   

 

[YoursTrue]

Pretty much

lol. He's not handsome either. Reminds me of a joke I heard years ago. Woman went to the doctor and he gave her his medical analysis of what he thought was physically wrong with her. And she said, "I want a second opinion." And he said, "OK, you're ugly, too."

 

[Subduction Zone]

So by the way, when nations go to war, would you say that's part of the theory of evolution?

No, that would be an abuse of the theory of evolution. And it is also pretty much scientism.

You do not use the sciences to solve every problem. Granted, they do answer quite a few. But that is not one for the sciences at this time.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, that would be an abuse of the theory of evolution. And it is also pretty much scientism.

You do not use the sciences to solve every problem. Granted, they do answer quite a few. But that is not one for the sciences at this time.

Well now, let's see. When alligators and lions, for instance, kill others, is that part of their "biologic" evolutionary makeup? You think maybe protection and/or instinct is part of "biologic" evolution? Oh, never mind...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well now, let's see. When alligators and lions, for instance, kill others, is that part of their "biologic" evolutionary makeup? You think maybe protection and/or instinct is part of "biologic" evolution? Oh, never mind...

Do alligators and lions unite and try to kill others for no rational reason at? They work on the family level at the most killing for food.

Do troops eat the bodies of the enemies that they kill?

Do you yet realize how foolish your comparison was?

 

[YoursTrue]

Do alligators and lions unite and try to kill others for no rational reason at? They work on the family level at the most killing for food.

Do troops eat the bodies of the enemies that they kill?

Do you yet realize how foolish your comparison was?

Not at all. If you don't think conscience and/or warfare is not part of what YOU consider as "evolution," and by that I certainly mean biologic, according to the theory you adhere to, all I can say is -- ok -- have a good day. Bye for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not at all. If you don't think conscience and/or warfare is not part of what YOU consider as "evolution," and by that I certainly mean biologic, according to the theory you adhere to, all I can say is -- ok -- have a good day. Bye for now.

How would you show that it is? This is your claim it is your burden of proof.

 

[YoursTrue]

Do alligators and lions unite and try to kill others for no rational reason at? They work on the family level at the most killing for food.

Do troops eat the bodies of the enemies that they kill?

Again, not at all. Do you think or believe that alligators and lions biologically evolved to kill for food and otherwise? Is thinking biologically evolved in the opinion of science?
Especially if you believe/think that the brain of any sort is an evolved organ. That "mutated" to its present situation. The burden of "proof" is on you -- that the brain and its adherent conscience has not "evolved." I asked a question as to what you think. Thanks for the conversation.

 

[YoursTrue]

How would you show that it is? This is your claim it is your burden of proof.

Speaking of which, how would you show it isn't? Any idea(s)?

 

[metis]

Let me put it this way: the chimp in the picture looks pretty dumb. OK, call me prejudiced. Maybe it's not dumb. But could not (so far) invent electronics to call for medical help. Now if you want to show/prove/demonstrate that chimps have the ability to "evolve" to higher consciousness somehow by priming them up and teaching them human things, ok, that's for you. This is not to say I wouldn't be kind to a chimp.

It's been previously explained on numerous occasions to you by some others and myself here, so there's nowhere for me to go forth on this.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend, my friend.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again, not at all. Do you think or believe that alligators and lions biologically evolved to kill for food and otherwise? Is thinking biologically evolved in the opinion of science?
Especially if you believe/think that the brain of any sort is an evolved organ. That "mutated" to its present situation. The burden of "proof" is on you -- that the brain and its adherent conscience has not "evolved." I asked a question as to what you think. Thanks for the conversation.

Yes, they evolved to do that. That is how they eat. Predators evolved to be predators.

By the way, what difference does it make? I answered no largely because your answer was poorly formed. Let's say that our warlike behavior was 100% due to evolution. What difference does that make? Are you saying that you would not believe in God if he was evil? If you want to believe in God then you should never read the Bible if that is the case. There is no doubt that the Bible of the Old Testament is very evil. And incompetent and vain to boot. The god of the Old Testament is far worse than evolution if evil is what bothers you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Speaking of which, how would you show it isn't? Any idea(s)?

Actually I am not sure. That is not my area of expertise. But lets say that it does lead to warfare. So what? As I just pointed out the God of the Bible is far worse.

 

[Pogo]

No, that would be an abuse of the theory of evolution. And it is also pretty much scientism.

You do not use the sciences to solve every problem. Granted, they do answer quite a few. But that is not one for the sciences at this time.

Eah, Agonistic behaviour in animals is common in hierarchical species and when resources are scarce.
The big difference is that in non-human animals it rarely reaches the point of injury let alone death.
The exception is homo Sapiens who kill even when it is not necessary.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually I am not sure. That is not my area of expertise. But lets say that it does lead to warfare. So what? As I just pointed out the God of the Bible is far worse.

Skyscrapers, culture, cars, airplanes, business models are also things or activities that are engaged in by people. But they are not genetic traits or the endpoints of evolution.

Certainly, some populations may have genetic traits that predispose them more aggressive or more peaceful positions, but trying to tie any human outcome regardless of what it might be to evolution is another attempt to equate it to a belief system in my opinion.

It also seems indicative of a low level of understanding of biology, human behavior and the theory of evolution.

That a person may be born with the musculature and physiology that have distinct fitness advantages in some environments doesn't mean they will become an athlete or take up a particular kind of athletics. Those are more akin to side-effects and repurposing of existing evolved traits.

I disagree and think you are qualified to come a similar conclusion, given what I know of your understanding of these things. It is just such a weird claim that a valid answer isn't immediately obvious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Skyscrapers, culture, cars, airplanes, business models are also things or activities that are engaged in by people. But they are not genetic traits or the endpoints of evolution.

Certainly, some populations may have genetic traits that predispose them more aggressive or more peaceful positions, but trying to tie any human outcome regardless of what it might be to evolution is another attempt to equate it to a belief system in my opinion.

It also seems indicative of a low level of understanding of biology, human behavior and the theory of evolution.

That a person may be born with the musculature and physiology that have distinct fitness advantages in some environments doesn't mean they will become an athlete or take up a particular kind of athletics. Those are more akin to side-effects and repurposing of existing evolved traits.

I disagree and think you are qualified to come a similar conclusion, given what I know of your understanding of these things. It is just such a weird claim that a valid answer isn't immediately obvious.

I was being a bit too generous. But I was also trying to get to the meat of her argument. Why did she think that this was a valid argument against evolution? Even if true it would not mean that the theory was false.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was being a bit too generous. But I was also trying to get to the meat of her argument. Why did she think that this was a valid argument against evolution? Even if true it would not mean that the theory was false.

I'm fairly well-convinced that there isn't any meat on that sandwich. Based on my knowledge of past participation, this is consistent with a repetition of meandering, empty claims and logical fallacies made 100's of times already.