There is no evolutionist Bible. Please limit your responses to the facts and stop making sweeping personal comments about others.Don't you know the story of the mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosomal Adam in the evolutionist Bible?
-
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 guess, when you haven't got legitimate rejection of science, the next best thing seems to be a tantrum and ridicule.
How sad. But it isn't unexpected behavior given what I've seen. I know this post will get the same treatment. It seems to be another example of those claiming the high road getting down in the mud in my opinion.
How sad. But it isn't unexpected behavior given what I've seen. I know this post will get the same treatment. It seems to be another example of those claiming the high road getting down in the mud in my opinion.
I think I won! 
I think the word “educate” and the phrase “way to much” shouldn’t be in the same sentence together.
Just saying….
It's interesting to see the apologists use religious words in an attempt to demean science or atheism. Science is a religion with Bibles believed by faith, and we worship at its altar:
"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes." - Amanda Marcotte
Was that a rebuttal to "There was never a human being born to non-human parents"? Was that a counterclaim (it wasn't a counterargument). If so, it doesn't address the claim at all. If those can be called human, so can their parents. If their parents can in any sense be said to be non-human, then they were non-human in the same way.Don't you know the story of the mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosomal Adam in the evolutionist Bible?
Can we assume that you have no counterargument to my claim? By not giving you the argument to go with my claim, I'm inviting you to disagree. It's a paradox: once there were no human beings and now there are, yet there was no first human being or first pair of human beings. or, as I worded it above, there never was a human being born to non-human parents.
Do you know about Atheist Eve? If you recall Tracie Harris from The Atheist Experience, she was the cartoonist:
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
All I see you doing at least on this thread is trolling, so maybe it's time for you to knuckle-down and get serious.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Instead of responding to your (ignorant) self, why not respond to someone who's actually presenting you with the information you seek?Again:
Is there anyone here (besides ...) really reading the posts?
Were the European apes white and the African ones black?
If the (supposedly pre-human) apes never changed races when they supposedly migrated from Europe to Africa, how come humans supposedly did so as soon as they started migrating? Besides number of chromosomes in the DNA, what else changed them so much?
Nah, that would make too much sense.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Not really. I was born at 38 weeks.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nah, that's an old PRATT from like, 50 years ago.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yes.
"Evolutionists" don't say there was a "first" anything. You made that up.Evolutionists say that the first human-ape female was interbreeding non-human male apes and her descendants after her, until after several centuries of descendants, the first ape-human male met one of her genetic descendants, so they formed the first truly human couple.
If I am wrong an expert evolutionist will surely "educate" me.
You're hopelessly confused, and it's not for a lack of explanations provided to you in this very thread. It seems you're engaging in willful confusion.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
When are you going to demonstrate that?
You're not, actually.
What you're doing is arguing against the evidence collected by paleoanthropologists, evolutionary biologists, geneticists, paleontologists, archaeologists, etc., that all converge on the same conclusion: Evolution is a fact of life.
You're not actually debating anything here. That would involve an honest back-and-forth discussion wherein you acknowledge the facts being presented to you.
You should probably take your own advice.PD: If you wanna tell me something else, please do it on the topic and don't get personal. Thank you.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once you understand this, you will be able to reason better in reality, or at least on what I consider real: according to evolutionists, there was a time when there were only animals and no humans. From among those animals, humans similar to us began to emerge.
Now think about what real moment, under what real circumstances, in what specific animal family, what processes directed that FIRST event, when it was not just a "first event" about one individual half-animal but a whole shrewdness of half-animals roaming the planet and learning to behave like humans until we, really humans, appeared among the never evolved animals.
I don't know what you have in your imagination, so I'll try to get into it to try and put some order there: apes and humans are so very different, that they would never interbreed with each other.
Whenever an evolutionist tries to explain the details about what they imagine happened, they get stuck in speculative ambiguities that say nothing real. And they call that "evidence" and "science".
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Okay, correct so far. Except you do not seem to realize that humans are animals.
I could see that my instincts were right. There never was a "half-animal" since humas are one hundred percent animals. Perhaps you meant something else, but I am not putting words in your mouth. The fact is humans are animals. Seriously, do you think that you are a tree?
Humans are apes. This is a simple fact. There was no "interbreeding" in our evolution.
No, we stick with the facts. You are trying to make up your own unsupported and bogus claims. You would need to show somehow that humans are not animals Even the Bible disagrees with you on that.
If I were to spend time explaining to someone why a human is not an animal and an animal is not a human, I would be another one with some mental problem.
A normal human would neither need it explained to them, nor believe that someone who needs that explanation is normal.
So, trying to explain to a person who is not "normal" something that they should normally understand is typical of someone who does not think normally.
Capisci.
A normal human would neither need it explained to them, nor believe that someone who needs that explanation is normal.
So, trying to explain to a person who is not "normal" something that they should normally understand is typical of someone who does not think normally.
Capisci.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Well it is a good thing that I am not ignored then. I am still waiting to see you support your claim that humans are not animals. Let's see, the bible refers to man as a beast. For example:Some evolutionists are simply delusional. They don't even know the difference between a human and an animal anymore, and that's just crazy. Crazy people should be locked away in a mental asylum... or on the ignored list.
Jerry 10 14 Every man is a [a]beast by his own knowledge: every founder is confounded by the graven image: for his melting is but falsehood, and there is no breath therein.
Ecclesiastes 3 19 Makes it clear that beasts and animals are the same thing. In fact some translations use the word "beasts" and some sue the word "animals":
For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same fate for each of them. As one dies so dies the other,
And you need to remember, the Bible is not a very good science source since it is wrong far more often than it is right.
When those who do not know the difference between a human and an animal understand this, perhaps they will come to understand why they should never expect a female ape to give birth to a human being... just as they would never expect an apple tree to naturally produce a mango.
Oh, wait! Maybe they don't know the difference between a mango and an apple. What do I say now?
Oh, wait! Maybe they don't know the difference between a mango and an apple. What do I say now?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That obviously includes you because you were unable to support your claim. And you forgot female apes give birth to humans far more frequently than they give births to other apes. You should not be insulted by this fact, but your mother is or was a female ape too.When those who do not know the difference between a human and an animal understand this, perhaps they will come to understand why they should never expect a female ape to give birth to a human being... just as they would never expect an apple tree to naturally produce a mango.
Oh, wait! Maybe they don't know the difference between a mango and an apple. What do I say now?