Is the evolutionary doctrine a racist doctrine?

[Eli G]

This forum needs some real moderation.

 

[McBell]

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.

So basically you are saying that you are completely unable to explain the difference and instead of simply admitting to it you try to claim that those who do not are ignorant.

So were does that put you on your ignorant scale?
Sinc eyou claim to know the difference but are completely unable to explain the difference?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

No, that is just a weak excuse. I can tell you why you are an ape. I can tell you why you are an animal. It is not an insult. It is a simple fact.

If you want to make claims you should be ready to back them up with evidence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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 guess you have no intention of trying to rebut my claim that there were no first humans, that is, no human being born to non-human parents. Is that because you know you can't but don't want to admit it, or because you don't understand the claim well enough to know what a rebuttal to it would look like?

Some evolutionists are simply delusional. They don't even know the difference between a human and an animal

You don't have even a rudimentary understanding of biology.

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.

You not only don't understand that human being are animals, but that they are also apes as are their mothers. It's fine with me if you want to get science from a book of myths, but if you intend to post that mythology as science, you should expect to be corrected.

 

[Eli G]

I see that you don't see the difference either.

What can I say to help you? Maybe "GO TO A ZOO"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see that you don't see the difference either.

What can I say to help you? Maybe "GO TO A ZOO"?

I have been there. The similarities between humans and other apes is rather obvious. We are still waiting for the supposed differences.

 

[McBell]

I see that you don't see the difference either.

What can I say to help you? Maybe "GO TO A ZOO"?

You could explain the difference...

But you can't, you merely declare there is one.

 

[Eli G]

You don't have even a rudimentary understanding of biology.

When you don't know the diferences of animals and humans, the problem is not that I "don't have even a rudimentary understanding of biology.".

The problem is that you are so into your books that you went out of the real world.

 

[McBell]

When you don't know the diferences of animals and humans, the problem is not that I "don't have even a rudimentary understanding of biology.".

The problem is that you are so into your books that you went out of the real world.

Apparently the difference between humans and animals is a huge secret that can not be revealed by those who claim to know the difference.

 

[Eli G]

Even a little kid would start crying if you told him that the monkey at the zoo is his real grandmother. And if it's any funnier, he'd laugh out loud.

I have seriously wondered many times who or what is behind many of the characters posting on this forum...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Even a little kid would start crying if you told him that the monkey at the zoo is his real grandmother. And if it's any funnier, he'd laugh out loud.

I have seriously wondered many times who or what is behind many of the characters posting on this forum...

That is because that monkey is not your grandmother. The monkeys that people ultimately came from existed about 10 million years ago. Though you and I are still monkeys too. We just are not the kind that you see in cages in the zoo. We are the monkeys looking at the cages from the outside.

Those monkeys are very distant cousins of yours and mine.

 

[Eli G]

Evolutionists are very fanciful. They believe that some female ape (which they have never known and of which they have not the slightest idea except in their most restless fantasies) once gave birth to a human. I wonder who the father of that first human was; another ape, perhaps?

Rather than a bedtime story, it seems like a Frankenstein-type horror story.

It can't be that I'm still entertaining characters who don't seem to realize the simplest things and yet believe they are aligned with "science."

I'm leaving this subforum until there is some poster who I can take seriously.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Evolutionists are very fanciful. They believe that some female ape (which they have never known and of which they have not the slightest idea except in their most restless fantasies) once gave birth to a human. I wonder who the father of that first human was; another ape, perhaps?

Rather than a bedtime story, it seems like a Frankenstein-type horror story.

It can't be that I'm still entertaining characters who don't seem to realize the simplest things and yet believe they are aligned with "science."

I'm leaving this subforum until there is some poster who I can take seriously.

That is incorrect. Once again, humans are apes. There is no hard line that denotes the first human.

 

[YoursTrue]

I guess you have no intention of trying to rebut my claim that there were no first humans, that is, no human being born to non-human parents. Is that because you know you can't but don't want to admit it, or because you don't understand the claim well enough to know what a rebuttal to it would look like?

You don't have even a rudimentary understanding of biology.

You not only don't understand that human being are animals, but that they are also apes as are their mothers. It's fine with me if you want to get science from a book of myths, but if you intend to post that mythology as science, you should expect to be corrected.

In accordance with your post, I guess you can say that way down the line a few fish gave birth to organisms that kept evolving until these became humans.

 

[Revoltingest]

Been away from this thread for a while.
So....
Evolution is a process that's observed.
It's not a "doctrine".
Neither is the Theory Of Evolution, which
is an explanation (ie, group of explanations)
of what's observed.
It imposes no morality or directives at all.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

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:
View attachment 97006
View attachment 97007

I wish these people claiming to be Christian would stop using claims stating or alluding that science is a religion as some sort of negative or pejorative comparison with religion. Apparently, the ignorance is so deep that this is done without any understanding of what is being done.

This thread and similar threads don't seem to bear witness to any knowledge of science, interest in debate or even considerate listening to what others have to say. It seems more like a place for misinformation, ridicule and claims of persecution for being questioned.

The only value is reading what the science side has to say. The counter position taken against science seems like one giant argument from personal ignorance erroneously seen as the possession of extraordinary knowledge supported by a position revealed as massively uninformed.

 

[McBell]

I wish these people claiming to be Christian would stop using claims stating or alluding that science is a religion as some sort of negative or pejorative comparison with religion. Apparently, the ignorance is so deep that this is done without any understanding of what is being done.

This thread and similar threads don't seem to bear witness to any knowledge of science, interest in debate or even considerate listening to what others have to say. It seems more like a place for misinformation, ridicule and claims of persecution for being questioned.

The only value is reading what the science side has to say. The counter position taken against science seems like one giant argument from personal ignorance erroneously seen as the possession of extraordinary knowledge supported by a position revealed as massively uninformed.

THAT POST HAS TOO MANY SYLLABLES!!
APOLOGIZE!​

 

[John53]

THAT POST HAS TOO MANY SYLLABLES!!
APOLOGIZE!​

He was speaking in ancient snowshoe hare.

 

[Revoltingest]

I wish these people claiming to be Christian would stop using claims stating or alluding that science is a religion as some sort of negative or pejorative comparison with religion.

It won't ever stop.
The inferiority complex of the faithful demands attacking
those whose views threaten sky fairy mythology.
There's no worse insult than saying....
"You're just like us!"

 

[Dan From Smithville]

THAT POST HAS TOO MANY SYLLABLES!!
APOLOGIZE!​

I'm sorry. T. rex made me do it.