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.Our reality is limited to our abilities to comprehend our own world--He is as high above us as we are to the ant.
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.It is really quite impossible to have a real discussion on religious matters with an atheist! It's like going in circles. The reality of an ant is far different from the reality of a human. The ant can not comprehend the world of the human, the stars, the sun, the oceans and so very much more that they simply can not fathom, they would consider it foolishness, not real. It is the same with us and God. Our reality is limited to our abilities to comprehend our own world--He is as high above us as we are to the ant.
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.We can only understand what He has chosen to tell us through His word.
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'
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.
And still you express surprise at our scepticism!
Yes; that's true of all personal experience.... You can talk about love all you want--you have to experience it to understand it.
False, since Humans have the superior intelligence
Looks like you have classified Humans as just another animal
Be ashamed of your mis-classification
Your view is the willingly ignorant genesis of Racism. Repent before it's too late.
I didn't do that. The evidence of reality did that.
Humans are primates, mammal, tetrapods, vertebrates,.... Animals. As in: the kingdom of animalia.
There is no shame in accepting the evidence of reality.
There is much shame in ignoring the evidence of reality.
When all else fails, try insults and threats.
Not according to God
which falsely supposes that White people are more intelligent than others.
Reality is that Humans are more intelligent than ANY other living creature
and Godless Evolution cannot explain
Evolution is a THEORY, an ASSUMPTION of people who THINK they know more than God.
You mean, tell the Truth? On the origin of species" is: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Racism, pure and simple, as I posted. Amen?
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'.Not according to God but according to your Godless classification system, which falsely supposes that White people are more intelligent than others.
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.Reality is that Humans are more intelligent than ANY other living creature and Godless Evolution cannot explain.
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?. Evolution is a THEORY, an ASSUMPTION of people who THINK they know more than God.
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.You mean, tell the Truth? On the origin of species" is: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Racism, pure and simple, as I posted. Amen?
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.Not according to God but according to your Godless classification system, which falsely supposes that White people are more intelligent than others.
Mostly in terms of problem solving. Chimpanzees and many bird species have way better memories.Reality is that Humans are more intelligent than ANY other living creature and Godless Evolution cannot explain.
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".Evolution is a THEORY, an ASSUMPTION of people who THINK they know more than God.
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.You mean, tell the Truth? On the origin of species" is: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". Racism, pure and simple, as I posted. Amen?
Favoured, in the sense of "better equiped for survival". Not favoured in the sense of racism. That's just your ignorance talking again.
Such ignorance!. The "races" referred to in "Origin" are varieties and variants of species, not the 'race' of the racist.
The actual inherent conclusion one would get from evolution as a theory is that the variations in human populations are due to differences in what traits were beneficial in different environments. So, a person with dark skin fairs better in a sunny, hot environment than a pale person, and a pale person fairs better in an environment in which sunlight is limited than a person with dark skin.
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.Not Humans (descendants of Adam) but instead, you are speaking of the sons of God (prehistoric people) who had been on planet Earth for millions of years BEFORE the Ark arrived bringing Adam's descendants to this planet. History agrees. God's Truth is the Truth in every way.
Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy.
Darwin, race and gender
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!"It wouldn't shock me in the slightest if Darwin was racist; after all, he lived in the 1800s.
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?