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.
I'm complimenting your insight. One is often hard pressed to go against the milieu of the times: Darwin lived in a period where racism was the norm. Subsequently, better observations and more cogent reasoning dispelled the errors of racism. Since all science is provisional, the same may be true for evolution as understood today.I really cannot tell if you're trying to support what I said, or mocking me...
I'm complimenting your insight. One is often hard pressed to go against the milieu of the times: Darwin lived in a period where racism was the norm. Subsequently, better observations and more cogent reasoning dispelled the errors of racism. Since all science is provisional, the same may be true for evolution as understood today.
My impression is that Darwin was talking about the human race in general. He was still a young man at time and coming from an upper middle class family he never the opportunity to witness such atrocities.I wonder if he had any one individual in the Bible in mind when he said that; because I can't think of any single person therein who fits that description.
Here's another logical conclusion. The fundamental assumption underlying science is that the universe is determined. Physical laws control and we can come to know them.It's a logical conclusion from his ideas.
Why are people not able to admit that?
Read it again slowly. Here is a hint. Darwin referred to species as races, i.e, for Darwin both humans and monkeys species are races. You can actually learn a lot more if you stop reading only biased sources.Lol, thanks for confirming what I said. You know he's calling black people savages, right?
And saying primitive blacks are worse than monkeys.
Hopefully @renniks will do some independent research, but I think I am being too optimistic.Chapter and verse that Darwin is specifically referring to blacks in that passage.
Go ahead.
Hopefully @renniks will do some independent research, but I think I am being too optimistic.
In the Catholic church when the sisters take their vows they are considered the wives of Christ. I am not sure if they still hold to that at present.God has wives, does He?
A critique is not numerous unsubstantiated claims meant to demean the ToE, just as you are now attempting to demean Darwin.I've already done that in other threads.
What intrigues me is the fact that the United States listened to the Bible and thus the declaration:My impression is that Darwin was talking about the human race in general. He was still a young man at time and coming from an upper middle class family he never the opportunity to witness such atrocities.
For the simple reason that you are wrong. You picked up on a few words that Darwin wrote without understanding what he was writing.Already did. Darwin associated superior races, specifically white supremacy, with evolution.
It's a logical conclusion from his ideas.
Why are people not able to admit that?
Once again your ignorance of the subject does not make it false. I'm sure you're amused in the same way a stupid person is amused by seeking a penny in the corner of a round room.Quite amusing. A series of blind mutations " designed" everything?
That's not how design works in the real world. We have to plan, make a blueprint, check it twice, do the math, and so on.
In essence, you're saying it just happened with none of that, just because, for no discernible reason.
Yes, I know ... and that's just ... well ... no comment.In the Catholic church when the sisters take their vows they are considered the wives of Christ. I am not it they still hold to that at present.
No, they (If Jesus was actually a real person) crucified a man. The rest was decided at the council of Nicaea in 325. One day Jesus was a man the next day he was a god. I know what you believe. It's not based upon evidence or reality.They did do that; at Jesus' trial and crucifixion.
Then show me a picture of His remains.No, they (If Jesus was actually a real person) crucified a man. The rest was decided at the council of Nicaea in 325. One day Jesus was a man the next day he was a god. I know what you believe. It's not based upon evidence or reality.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don't have it.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,
Or seeking evolution in a ring species?I'm sure you're amused in the same way a stupid person is amused by seeking a penny in the corner of a round room.
See Acts 5:39. Substitute "women" for "men". The history of women's apostolic communities is long and repression by the Catholic and Protestant churches frequent. Yet they perdure.And when the Marriage Supper of the Lamb takes place, I have a feeling those who think they're married to Him aren't going to be there.
Well, when it's all over and done with; and God's adopted children sit at the Table, I don't think a single one will be God's daughter-in-law.See Acts 5:39. Substitute "women" for "men". The history of women's apostolic communities is long and repression by the Catholic and Protestant churches frequent. Yet they perdure.
From your "source"Then show me a picture of His remains.
And what do you mean, "If Jesus was actually a real person"?
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?