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.
And yet you presume to understand portions of his intent, while choosing not to recognise what we have been able to comprehend about our own world. Curiously, if you are correct, the intelligence and curiosity that enabled that comprehension were made possible by his creative act. The difficulty of conducting a religious discussion in this instance seems to revolve around your distorted theology.
So you claim - but by your own ant-human analogy, if a God existed, we would be unable to comprehend it or its world, and that applies to you too. That you claim this special knowledge contradicts your own analogy.
Problem is His 'word' was written and collated by fallible men with their own agendas, whose accounts varied, and which is interpreted and understood in almost as many ways as there are readers of it, and cherry-picked to suit the mores and proclivities of numerous different sects - and that is just one set of holy scriptures; each religion has its own examples, also with varied interpretations and sects, and similarly cherry-picked for appropriateness.
So you claim - but by your own ant-human analogy, if a God existed, we would be unable to comprehend it or its world, and that applies to you too. That you claim this special knowledge contradicts your own analogy.
However, we can and do imagine all kinds of fictitious entities, including pantheons of powerful and fickle deities - and throughout recorded history, most groups claim only their deity is real, and pledge allegiance solely to it alone, declaring all others false. What a very human way of behaving... 'our group is the special one, we are the chosen ones'
If you intend to attack anything - theory, opinion, person - it makes sense to know someting about it. Attacking a strawman wastes the time of the reader and makes the writer appear ridiculous. The classification of homo sapiens makes no distinction between the so-called 'races'.
Evolution has been quite successful at explaining the emergence of intelligence. Of course, some might dispute the value of intelligence, given that human intelligence has been sufficient to cause the extinction of many species, sufficient to recognise what we are doing, but not - so far - sufficient to prevent it. So, I wouldn't get too impressed by human intelligence. If God truly did make use stewards of the Earth, one would have to conclude he made a serious error.
I am sure the character of a scientific theory has been explained to you many times. Isn't it about time that you used your intelligence in order to accept that as a fact?
Such ignorance!. The "races" referred to in "Origin" are varieties and variants of species, not the 'race' of the racist. Darwin's family for at least three generations and Darwin himself were significant players in abolotionist movement. Describing Darwin as a racist is the logical equivalent of describing Hitler as a humanitarian.
Lol, I doubt you were even alive when different "races" of Homo sapiens had different classifications. And those classifications were motivated by pre-existing racism; the racism wasn't a consequence of the classification system or an inherent part of it.
Mostly in terms of problem solving. Chimpanzees and many bird species have way better memories.
From my perspective, claiming to have more knowledge than something which doesn't demonstrably exist is a bit of a nonsensical claim. If an omniscient being does exist, then obviously claiming to know more than it is just making an overly arrogant and obviously incorrect claim. If it doesn't exist at all, then the claim amounts to "I know more than nothing", which I should hope is the case for the vast majority of people. It's as if I were to claim "I'm stronger than a smorgenburgen".
Races of cabbages, for example. In that time period, "race" as a term was often used interchangeably with "species" or just general variation. It wouldn't shock me in the slightest if Darwin was racist; after all, he lived in the 1800s. But the Origin of Species doesn't even talk about human races other than a comment amounting to "variations seen in humans likely arose via the same processes as the other organisms I brought up". Obviously not a direct quote, but you get the point.
As the article itself explains, the opinions attributed to Darwin simply show that he was a man of his time.
History disagrees with you on that. For one thing, we know that pale skin among our species came about over 10,000 years after the last Neanderthal and Denisovan died. Thus, hybridizing with them is not how our species attained all its color variations. Additionally, we continue to experience mutations in various aspects of our physiology, and genetic drift varies heavily from country to country.
Way off the mark. As I noted in my prior post: "Darwin's family for at least three generations and Darwin himself were significant players in abolotionist movement. Describing Darwin as a racist is the logical equivalent of describing Hitler as a humanitarian!"
