Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Yes, it means that you do not want your rear end handed to you again.If I don't respond to a comment... you already know why that is.
I can appreciate that.
-
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
I can appreciate that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Wait! There are acolytes now? Do they get to wear robes with hoods and make musical chants? Where do I go to sign up?When you see the subterfuges that the acolytes of the evolutionary doctrine use to defend it in this forum, anyone wonders how serious that doctrine can be. Their priests should rebuke them for thus shaming such a sacred belief.
I respond to people that are civil, courteous and knowledgeable of the subjects they bring up. If valid information correcting their claims or position is provided with associated reason, the normal response is to review that information and correct any flaws in the position where that information is determined to be reasonably correct. That is not what I have come to find in certain discussions, so it isn't worth the effort to discuss with some and just discuss the topics instead.
It is clear here, for instance, that there is no "doctrine of evolution"; the other ape species do not give birth to babies not of their species including babies of humans; that historical views of race are cultural and not a scientific descriptor; and that behaviors often attributed to those in support of science are projection from those actually practicing the behaviors.
Last edited:
Apparently, there is an entire church of evolution, replete with a pope and a chapel with naked science fiction human/ape hybrids painted on the ceiling by Michaelangelo and the other Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.
Why would a rational person create a thread about a doctrine that doesn't exist and insinuate such wild flights of fantasy to insult others? To me it speaks of a doctrine, but not one arising from science.
The whole show put on to evade questions on their position is feasible proof that this doctrine is not serious, and its acolytes have only been educated to evade questions at all costs... They swallowed that doctrine out of pure faith. Otherwise they would at least respect those who have different points of view and make silence, waiting for someone more informed than them to respond to forum members who question the doctrine.
In reality, how many of the acolytes of that doctrine can answer the questions they are asked about it? 2%, 1%?
In reality, how many of the acolytes of that doctrine can answer the questions they are asked about it? 2%, 1%?
In answer to the question of the OP, there is no evolutionary doctrine and the theory of evolution is about the change in populations of living things over time and is not a doctrine of racism nor does it promote racism in any way.
Just as there is no way to prevent a hammer from being abused by people rather than used for it's intended purpose as a construction tool, there is no way to prevent people from using a scientific theory incorrectly for biased personal reasons. But that bias is the persons using or abusing and not arising from what is being used or abused.
That seems to be the point of this thread. To lay some sort of claim of racism on a scientific theory or on an entire scientific discipline. And wrongly dismiss science on the basis of that straw man.
Just as there is no way to prevent a hammer from being abused by people rather than used for it's intended purpose as a construction tool, there is no way to prevent people from using a scientific theory incorrectly for biased personal reasons. But that bias is the persons using or abusing and not arising from what is being used or abused.
That seems to be the point of this thread. To lay some sort of claim of racism on a scientific theory or on an entire scientific discipline. And wrongly dismiss science on the basis of that straw man.
Last edited:
Simply put, there is no evidence to support the claims of the OP and no effort in the body of this thread to even attempt it. At least in any rational way that would generate useful discussion and debate.
Unless there is a serious attempt at logic and reason to come to some cogent point that doesn't involve hurt feelings and misguided attempts at superiority, I don't see any reason to continue here.
I think the claims that the thread is based on have been soundly refuted.
I think the claims that the thread is based on have been soundly refuted.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I've seen this written here several times and don't doubt it, but it raises a question. If the earliest humans lived in a very hot and sunny region (Africa?) where darker skins were selected for then moved across the world into colder and less sunny regions, what caused those with lighter skin to predominate in the less sunny regions. It seems to me that there had to be some survival based advantage to a lighter skin once the advantage of a darker skin was removed.
Anyone know the answer?
Even if you don't want to accept it: the theory of evolution is a doctrine. They teach it in schools as if it were a proven scientific fact, but it is not, and even if they considered it that way, it would still be a doctrine that needs to be taught, believed and disseminated by its theorists.
Just because you don't like the word "doctrine" doesn't erase that reality. To say that it is a doctrine is not to offend that teaching; Doctrine and teaching are synonyms.
Believers also have doctrines, because we are also taught. Evolutionists, the same.
Just because you don't like the word "doctrine" doesn't erase that reality. To say that it is a doctrine is not to offend that teaching; Doctrine and teaching are synonyms.
Believers also have doctrines, because we are also taught. Evolutionists, the same.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Apes do.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You have to ask a reasonable question to demand an answer.The whole show put on to evade questions on their position is feasible proof that this doctrine is not serious, and its acolytes have only been educated to evade questions at all costs... They swallowed that doctrine out of pure faith. Otherwise they would at least respect those who have different points of view and make silence, waiting for someone more informed than them to respond to forum members who question the doctrine.
In reality, how many of the acolytes of that doctrine can answer the questions they are asked about it? 2%, 1%?
A serious question. Excellent.
Lighter skin allows for greater absorption of sunlight and increased vitamin D synthesis. There is an advantage to that. Also, lighter skin would make external parasites much more visible and easier to deal with. This may also have selected for lighter hair color as well.
The advantages provided by darker skin pigmentation in environments like those of Africa would have outweighed potential benefits from lighter pigmentation. But the new environment in more northerly conditions would have resulted in lighter pigmentation having the advantage.
Vitamin D.
Why Did Darker and Lighter Human Skin Colors Evolve?
Humanity’s color gradient probably has little to do with sunburn.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is not a "doctrine" but it is a scientific fact. Just like gravity. The theory of gravity explains the facts of gravity and the theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution. Doctrines are based upon faith. Science is based upon evidence. But sadly I have found that creationists never understand the concept of evidence and are too afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence and why.
It is not a doctrine because it is not a faith. It is not "written in stone" either. Well many of the facts are since fossils are strong evidence for evolution.
I do not like to run to dictionaries, so I am going to ask you what do you mean when you say "doctrine"?