Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[Subduction Zone]

If they build theories and even put a face and hair on a simple tooth (and there's not bigger fantasy than that one), what evidence will they have of pre-human ape migrations?

No they do not. You are confused again. When it came to "Nebraska Man" that was not done by scientists. It was done by an artist working for a popular newspaper. Please try to get your bogus accusations straight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Were not paleontological frauds EVIDENCE of the past?

There was only one that I know of. But frauds are not evidence against a belief. That is very lucky for you since there have been many Christian scam artists that have made various false relics of Jesus over the years. Mark Twain in his works Innocents Abroad noted again and again of how he kept seeing some of the same relics in church to church. To the point that it was obvious that most of them had to be fakes and they probably all were fakes. Do fake relics found in churches of the crucifixion of Jesus prove that it never happened? If not then why do you think one or two fake fossils disprove evolution?

By your odd standards you just refuted your religious beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said: "At least I use the Bible to prove my beliefs". I don't look for scientific theories in the Bible.

Scientific truths are supposed to be proven when they are presented, not preached. That's a system that is supposed to apply only to matters of faith and belief. Sermons are not scientific, but it's most of what we read here. The most shameful thing is that when those sermons are not accepted as they are preached, the exponents become angry and begin to insult...

That is not proof. In fact it is not even evidence unless you can demonstrate that the Bible is reliable.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Frauds in science are almost immediately detected and once discovered rooted out.

He will name Nebraska Man, even though that was not a fraud. He does not seem to even know what a fraud is. And Piltdown Man. There was a recent one that mad the news not too long ago. But I doubt if he will mention that one.

 

[Esteban X]

I found an interesting news story somewhere that proves to me what I was afraid of: evolutionists constantly change their rhetoric and therefore cannot be trusted at all.

The news story says that evolutionists AGAIN believe that the apes that transformed into humans originally lived in Europe and then moved to Africa.

They are as fickle as the stock market. Who are you betting on this week? Africa, Asia, Europa, Australia?

What is the citation for that?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For the lurkers and any future reader, I think it is important to point out that there is no doctrine of evolution.

Evolution is the biological phenomena denoting the change seen in populations over time. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains the biological phenomena.

This being said, a non-existent doctrine cannot be a racist doctrine. It can't be anything, being nonexistent.

 

[John53]

For the lurkers and any future reader, I think it is important to point out that there is no doctrine of evolution.

Evolution is the biological phenomena denoting the change seen in populations over time. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory that explains the biological phenomena.

This being said, a non-existent doctrine cannot be a racist doctrine. It can't be anything, being nonexistent.

You're not offended by honesty among the scientific community?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the citation for that?

Probably this story:

Human and ape ancestors arose in Europe, not in Africa, controversial study claims

A newly described fossil suggests that the ancestor of humans and apes arose in Europe, not in Africa.

www.livescience.com

I do not find that to be especially reliable. They are rather click baity in my opinion. Now the people who found it may be claiming that. And it is a possibility. But since the ancestors of apes lived in Africa to me it appears more likely that the species was merely one that emigrated from Africa a long time ago. There is no reason that humans were the only primates that left Africa successfully. In fact we know that they are not. When Africa and South America were much closer together there was a split in the line of monkeys with more than one group probably rafting to South America. Orangutans and gibbons live in Asia. Macaques are found in Africa, southern Europe and Asia.

There is a possibility that a line left Africa to become the great apes and then some moved to southeast Asia and the rest moved back to Africa. I do not see why that bothers him. He is at the grasping at straws state.

 

[John53]

Probably this story:

Human and ape ancestors arose in Europe, not in Africa, controversial study claims

A newly described fossil suggests that the ancestor of humans and apes arose in Europe, not in Africa.

www.livescience.com

I do not find that to be especially reliable. They are rather click baity in my opinion. Now the people who found it may be claiming that. And it is a possibility. But since the ancestors of apes lived in Africa to me it appears more likely that the species was merely one that emigrated from Africa a long time ago. There is no reason that humans were the only primates that left Africa successfully. In fact we know that they are not. When Africa and South America were much closer together there was a split in the line of monkeys with more than one group probably rafting to South America. Orangutans and gibbons live in Asia. Macaques are found in Africa, southern Europe and Asia.

There is a possibility that a line left Africa to become the great apes and then some moved to southeast Asia and the rest moved back to Africa. I do not see why that bothers him. He is at the grasping at straws state.

"Controversial study claims" is a hint.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Nothing like this has happened. Nobody is trying to "demoralize" anybody by setting the facts straight on how evolution actually works, in light of the many inaccuracies you've posted about it.

You're living in a persecution complex of your own making.

It is sadly amusing that a few comments back, evolutionists are described as untrustworthy and now the cries of persecution coming from the same source. It doesn't encourage me to believe the interest is in learning or demonstrating the anti-science claims.

Showing that someone is wrong isn't some attack. It is honesty and sharing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You're not offended by honesty among the scientific community?

No. I think it offends those in denial, but if I'm honest with myself, being corrected is a good thing in the long run. Even if it is my own conclusions that get skewered.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It strikes a chord, but I do not think that there are claims that it was necessarily a human ancestor. Just that apes lived outside of a Africa before humans left.

It would be reasonable to suppose that apes moved in to any suitable habitat that they could reach.
However that would be limited by large stretches of water or desert and high mountain ranges, in the same way that very early man would have been. It could be considered an aspect of human kind that they were able to overcome such obstacles.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I found an interesting news story somewhere that proves to me what I was afraid of

Link?

: evolutionists constantly change their rhetoric and therefore cannot be trusted at all.

Science constantly changes. It's called progress.

The news story says that evolutionists AGAIN believe that the apes that transformed into humans originally lived in Europe and then moved to Africa.

Link?

They are as fickle as the stock market. Who are you betting on this week? Africa, Asia, Europa, Australia?

There is no "betting". There is only following the evidence.
But let's see the link to the article first.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Tell me something: what is the reason that I have to accept as true all that story with no proof that you tell us? Should I accept it as religious believers accept sermons?

The same reason that you probably accept germ theory of disease.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Were not paleontological frauds EVIDENCE of the past?

Were not frauds exposed by the same scientists you loath?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One thing that you seem not to understand: that I don't belong to your faith doesn't mean I'm wrong.
You're all about getting personal and not about real proofs. You should stop with that. It's shameful to yourselves.

How many times must it be explained to you that science is in the business of evidence and not "proof"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If frauds were "evidence" in the past... it's because they were accepted by faith.

No. It's because they were fooled / tricked.
But how do you know about frauds?

Could it perhaps be because other scientists - you know: peers - investigated further and exposed it as such?

What about current "evidence"?

What about it?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

They even talked about how the first homosapiens must have been black and then acquired human characteristics with whiter skin as they moved to other places and their diet changed.

So to you, human beings are the white subset of Homo sapiens?

It turns out that if that news I read somewhere is true, all that rhetoric falls apart

I think you've already disqualified yourself as a reliable interpreter of text.

PS: I'm still laughing at the photo filters that a forum member used on a photo he posted in a past comment to make people believe that apes have different skin colors

And I think that you're on thin ice laughing at other people's beliefs. Yours come from a book of myths.

And you seem pretty insecure about yours. Isn't that why you started this thread - to reassure yourself by demeaning science and scientists?

Just to let you know: I still have the same people on my ignore list that I ignored before. Don't waste your time on personal insults and other disqualifications that you are used to.

I don't think that people are posting TO you as much as ABOUT you. It isn't necessary that you see those comments or respond to them. It doesn't matter at all to me whether you see these words. I write for critical thinkers.

It is unquestionable that people who love God are those who truly improve human existence, not those who do not wish to accept the One who created us and gave us life and everything that sustains it.

Your religion is a burden on the United States in a big way right now. It doesn't improve human existence. Along with the authoritarians and the robber baron capitalists, all of whom also want to destroy people-oriented democracies and impose their values on the citizens of those democracies, it opposes those who do. Humanism stands in opposition to all such people.

This upcoming American election is a showdown between the authoritarians who support the robber capitalists (and vice versa) as well as the theocrats (who also support the authoritarians) versus the humanists struggling to protect democracy, the rule of law, church-state separation, tolerance, human development, and dignity and social and economic opportunity for all from these other kinds of people who value none of that. Your church stands with them and has no interest or ability to improve the human condition.

that I don't belong to your faith doesn't mean I'm wrong.

You are wrong, and it's because of faith. You hold false beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence, which has you posting with your hair on fire telling the world that the science offends you.

I'll bet the reasonable Christian cringe when they see a display like yours. You earn disrespect for your religion with your disrespect for the science and scientists.

I've long said that more than a little bit of your religion is damaging, and it's not difficult to see that I'm correct. What makes respectable Christians respectable is that they reject most of its magical thinking, antiscientific and anti-reason thought, and this religion's bigotries. They're as decent, intelligent, and educated as the atheistic humanists, which is why it is reasonable to call them theistic humanists.

But the zealous Abrahamists are in another category altogether, and it appears that more zealous, the more they want to come onto venues like RF and reveal how unhappy and distraught they are and to insult science and scientists from a base of zero understanding of the science.

Please proceed. You make my case.

 

[Eli G]

All the forum members who have dedicated themselves to disqualifying me as a "bad interpreter" of what I read, have disqualified themselves...

It is evident that they neither read the article, nor bothered to understand it, nor even bothered to visit the other links it contains on the same subject.

They are a disgrace as debaters.

 

[SkepticThinker]

All the forum members who have dedicated themselves to disqualifying me as a "bad interpreter" of what I read, have disqualified themselves...

It is evident that they neither read the article, nor bothered to understand it, nor even bothered to visit the other links it contains on the same subject.

They are a disgrace as debaters.

You could prove them wrong by responding to the content of their posts.
But you didn't.
You never do.

Oh well.