Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
For speaking truth?And for the record, I tried to watch it, but stopped at 06:02 for obvious reasons.
Do you agree with him that religious fundamentalists "distort everything into parodies"?For speaking truth?
What real evidence is there that plants and animals diverged from a common ancestor? Is that an Evolutionary article of faith?
I think if you created an objective measure of genetic traits and developmental benchmarks for "human" and "pre-human" I agree that there would have to be a single individual who first had all the traits.I would agree with the idea that the other person is presenting. I agree that in technical terms nobody is going to be able to say that there ever was a first human, but rather a population came to be first, then the term "human" was applied to it.
But if we did define people as individuals with specific genes or a specific group of genes, then at some point in time, one Individual animal would acquire that group of genes before it reached a general population. And that individual could be said to be the first true human. Regardless of what that combination of genes might be.
If we believe that humans exist now but didn't exist in the past, that beginning had to start somewhere. And if we say that this species is defined by X group of genes, then it follows that X group of genes wouldn't necessarily mutate in 100 or 1000 individuals all at once, but rather would come to be at a particular point in time in which a mutation occurred in an individual.
I think if you created an objective measure of genetic traits and developmental benchmarks for "human" and "pre-human" I agree that there would have to be a single individual who first had all the traits.
However, I imagine you would be extremely hard pressed to distinguish this individual from their peers demonstrating that the hard border was totally arbitrary.
(Also, it seems ludicrous that first male example and the first female example devoted separately and reproduced together.)
No, he didn't. Another creationist falsehood. But even if he did how was that "hubris"?Did Sagan actually say this?
Did Sagan actually say this?
From the very first sentence in Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium
View attachment 298627
I didn't find it offensive. I think that its only offensive if perhaps you feel like you can relate to the particular group of Christians that he is referring to.
The "harshness" of his words is a product of the very thing he is describing. Which is most easily described as denial of physical reality by biblical literalists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?