-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?
- Thread starter Eli G
- Start date
Yeah, but those with no sense of humour are even less worthy of bothering with - apart from the delusions being so overwhelming.And there are still those who ask me why I prefer not to dialogue with peasants who believe they are intellectuals because someone took them out of the countryside to indoctrinate them.
Last edited:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
And there are still those who ask me why I prefer not to dialogue with peasants who believe they are intellectuals because someone took them out of the countryside to indoctrinate them.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
And another one bites the dust. Is Acme Corp. working on a nuclear capable meter for you?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Nope.
The problem is that there are some members who don't know their backsides from the grand canyon, yet post thinking they are experts in the field.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No! Once again you do not understand evolution or even the concept of evidence. We can show by various means that we are apes. Even the creationist who first devised the Genre, species cataloging system for all live could tell that humans were apes. It bothered him quite a bit since he had no explanation for it. You are conflating sharing a common ancestor with being the same thing.Someone saying that humans are apes is the same to me as someone telling me that humans are bananas.
Actually, did you know that humans share 60% of their DNA with bananas?
For example, we are not chimps. We share 98% of our DNA with them and that is because we share a very recent common ancestor. That common ancestor was an ape and we are therefore still apes. We share a bit less DNA with elephants, dogs, and mice. We are none of those, but we do share a common ancestor with all of those that was also not an elephant, a dog, or a mouse. But it was a mammal. We are still mammals. If you go allllllll the way back to bananas you are making a heck of a long journey. We do share 60% of our DNA with bananas. That does not mean that we are bananas (well some of us aren't bananas) but it is evidence for a common ancestor. That common ancestor was so far back that it was at the time of single celled eukaryotes. It was a eukaryote. Guess what? We are still eukaryotes.
The problem with far too many creationists is that they think that evolution involves "changing into a different kind". And no, there is no change of kind in evolution. There is merely development of new species. In fact creationists cannot even come up with a working definition of "kind".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh, so you are bothered by avatars? You trigger rather easily. That you know less about almost any topic than those that you disagree with is not a good sign. There must be something that you are good at. You have to have some of your own knowledge. Why are you so jealous of those that understand the sciences better than you do?Just looking at their avatars and reading their nicknames make me wonder how old they are and where they got these characters from.
And you could always learn the basics if you want to do so as well. They are not beyond your abilities to understand. Why the fear?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
It would probably help if they knew there were more than just species in the taxonomy hierarchy and that 'kind' did not even make the list....
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Ignorance is their strongest "weapon".
Astrophile
Active Member
Yes. Am I allowed to submit a photograph of a naked person for comparison with the ape?
Astrophile
Active Member
Someone saying that humans are apes is the same to me as someone telling me that weasels are carnivores or that pythons are snakes.Someone saying that humans are apes is the same to me as someone telling me that humans are bananas.
Actually, did you know that humans share 60% of their DNA with bananas?
Pogo
Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Maybe if you put it behind a spoiler. Ask an admin.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
How about when someone says that humans are mammals? Or vertebrates?
Does that make you respond in insane fashion also?
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
And there come the ad hominims.Just looking at their avatars and reading their nicknames make me wonder how old they are and where they got these characters from.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
An actual correct use of pointing out the use of an ad hominem fallacy. Too many people think that any insult is an ad hom. It has to be an insult that has no bearing on the argument.
Taking a side trip into politics, pointing out that Trump is a liar is not an ad hom. Calling out his use of orange powder on his skin is an example of that fallacy.
I thought he might have meant me.
So I had to lie down and take it easy for the rest of the day. 
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
getting off the race question for a moment, I did some research about the evolution of humans, and interestingly, here's what I found: "Many of the features of A. anamensis are ape-like. It had a pronounced snout and its brain would have been similar in size to that of a chimpanzee." So then my question: despite protests of some, there's quite a difference between the mental capacity of a chimpanzee and that of a normal human. Now if anyone wants to argue with that, ok, can't stop them, but -- it doesn't make sense that someone might not admit the difference of mental capability. In one sense chimpanzees might be more intelligent than "homo sapiens." They don't argue about these things.
Pogo
Well-Known Member
No, we look at a multitude of evidence and avoid making "silly" conclusions based on one piece of data as cretionists often do.getting off the race question for a moment, I did some research about the evolution of humans, and interestingly, here's what I found: "Many of the features of A. anamensis are ape-like. It had a pronounced snout and its brain would have been similar in size to that of a chimpanzee." So then my question: despite protests of some, there's quite a difference between the mental capacity of a chimpanzee and that of a normal human. Now if anyone wants to argue with that, ok, can't stop them, but -- it doesn't make sense that someone might not admit the difference of mental capability. In one sense chimpanzees might be more intelligent than "homo sapiens." They don't argue about these things.