Darwin a Racist and a Sexist ?

@kevcvs57

I’m old enough to remember when the I.D brigade got exited about the human eye and cited it as evidence of intelligent Design only to be shot down on flames by a very simple explanation of the very simple natural evolutionary mechanism for its development.

I'm probably older than you.
I don't remember that so much as I remember complaints that the eye doesn't
work all that well. Some proud types said it should have been done this other
way.

1.) Their "other" way is questionable.

2.) A non-optimal design is still a design.

@sonship said
@kevcvs57

No no it isn’t because you’ll still need to answer the question of where the intelligence came from. I’ll give you a clue; unless it came from a puff of magic smoke it must have developed, now if only there was a theory for living things developing intelligence,

You need to answer a similar question.
Motility in cargo transport in walki ...[text shortened]... lar Motor Proteins [/b]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RUHJhskW00&t=3s&ab_channel=iBiology

I do not need to answer any of your questions you need to provide empirical evidence of an intelligent designer or accept your just blowing smoke whilst hiding behind the gap of the gods.
That’s what the video you posted said it would do and it did not. It simply offered an outlandish alternative causal interpretation.
We know evolution through natural selection happened and we know it’s still happening. You may not ever accept that because it threatens the security of your worldview.
We do not know everything there is to know about the mechanics of its origins and that is where your trying to place your god of the gaps and self deluding people will probably always be able to do this because science will never be able to answer the questions concerning the ultimate truth of reality and to the best of my knowledge has never claimed that it will
You are claiming to know this ultimate truth therefor the onus is on you to prove your claim.
Perhaps you should start with something simple like proving that the world is as young as the writers of the OT claim it is.
Evolution as general theory is proven but given the age of our planet and the billions of years since evolution began its a bit weak to base your argument on the other party’s as yet unknowns.

@sonship said
@kevcvs57

I’m old enough to remember when the I.D brigade got exited about the human eye and cited it as evidence of intelligent Design only to be shot down on flames by a very simple explanation of the very simple natural evolutionary mechanism for its development.

I'm probably older than you.
I don't remember that so much as I remember complaint ...[text shortened]... way.

1.) Their "other" way is questionable.

2.) A non-optimal design is still a design.

Evolution throws up workable solutions rather perfect ones although that is an interesting question. Why aren’t we perfectly suited to our environment if we are designed by a supposedly intelligent designer.
I would suggest that it’s because evolution requires a changing environment for its continuing existence. Which doesn’t discount an intelligent designer who is playing the long game.
If the changing climate had not removed most of the trees from Rift Valley area we would still be swinging from their branches but our spines are still unhappy about being upright and carrying our weight along with our legs whilst our arms have been freed up to mostly cause mischief.

@kevcvs57

Evolution throws up workable solutions rather perfect ones although that is an interesting question. Why aren’t we perfectly suited to our environment if we are designed by a supposedly intelligent designer.

That question probably goes off into other means of knowing truth., like philosophy or theology.

And one should not be ashamed of having an accumulative case over more than one discipline or more than one avenue of the search for truth to get there.

I would suggest that it’s because evolution requires a changing environment for its continuing existence. Which doesn’t discount an intelligent designer who is playing the long game.
If the changing climate had not removed most of the trees from Rift Valley area we would still be swinging from their branches but our spines are still unhappy about being upright and carrying our weight along with our legs whilst our arms have been freed up to mostly cause mischief.

Interesting concept that the environment needs to change for the program to continue.

A similar question I have to what you proposed about ID and non-optimal design.
Is there a scenario you think where "mischief making" itself could be natural selected out of existence - ie. a more perfect human adoption?

@sonship said
@kevcvs57

Evolution throws up workable solutions rather perfect ones although that is an interesting question. Why aren’t we perfectly suited to our environment if we are designed by a supposedly intelligent designer.

That question probably goes off into other means of knowing truth., like philosophy or theology.

And one should not be as ...[text shortened]... chief making" itself could be natural selected out of existence - ie. a more perfect human adoption?

Well I recently watched a documentary on the BBC Four that claims we are becoming less violent and at a cerebral level rather than simply a societal trend
“The Violence Paradox” argues we have been evolving into more social / less violent individuals. That is not to say that we are not capable of extreme communal violence but that our personal propensity for violence has lowered over time.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m000vsdw

The fact that our brains have developed and changed over time suggests that something in, or aspect of, our environment is causal to this. One obvious option would be the rise of organised social living. Clearly violence will only take the average person so far in terms of successfully negotiating the social melee in which we find ourselves as apposed to the very direct violence that may have been an advantage to our ancestors who lived in small groups and were constantly under threat from, or a threat to other small groups in the pursuit of scarce resources. The same drives are still present but success demands a much more nuanced skill set than simply being bigger or more violent than the next person or group.

Humans in Zoos - a byproduct of the theory of evolution.
So called "missing links" in evolution in P T Barnum's Circus.
Humans displayed at St. World's Fair as missing links.

Human Zoos: America's Forgotten History of Scientific Racism

YouTube&ab_channel=DiscoveryScience

@sonship said
Humans in Zoos - a byproduct of the theory of evolution.
So called "missing links" in evolution in P T Barnum's Circus.
Humans displayed at St. World's Fair as missing links.

Human Zoos: America's Forgotten History of Scientific Racism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY6Zrol5QEk&ab_channel=DiscoveryScience

We can go back far enough in our evolutionary journey to evidence that we didn't originate from two perfect humans in a garden. Didn't you know?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
We can go back far enough in our evolutionary journey to evidence that we didn't originate from two perfect humans in a garden. Didn't you know?

Head in the sand, hey Sonship?

@fmf said
Every single thread you start about your religion is underpinned by your odious and non-sensical torturer God ideology and implicit assertions about how human beings who do not share your particular set of superstitious beliefs deserve to be tortured for eternity. That's conveying "some negative thing" about all those people, to my way of thinking. That's not having a positive purpose. Do you think it is?

I do not know sonships views on hellfire and torture. I do believe that it has to be a man made contrivance initiated for the purpose of control by fear. The underpinnings you speak of about his threads are inherent from his belief system he is enslaved to. I do not count it against him but rather try to understand his points based on his beliefs. To such a person that has allowed the fear based belief system to influence his life to such a high degree, he is blind to others seeing it as a negative thing. In fact he may feel that spreading his religious views may even save lives.

@joe-beyser

I do not know sonships views on hellfire and torture. I do believe that it has to be a man made contrivance initiated for the purpose of control by fear.

If you are interested you can ask sonship.
If you want to get it from FMF take the lazy way and don't ask.

I don't think the truth of eternal punishment is so controlling on people that much. The enjoyment of sinning is so great that even the warning of unreconciled eternal punishment is not a complete deterrent.

One needs Christ within to truly live a new life.
Yes, the thought of eternal punishment is dreadful. But it is not so strong that it sways many people. They go on with their lives of sinning out of the shere temporary enjoyment of it. Hell just something they figure they will deal with at another time.

The thought of hell alarmed me some. It did not totally arrest in me the sinning nature. Ony the power of God's grace can do that by Jesus getting on the inside of one's heart.

There are some critics here of the Gospel with seemingly a plethora of reasons they are turned off to the message. Actually, I think at the bottom is the hatred for the Lord's words about eternal punishment.

The thought that they could really lose all with no hope of winning or getting away, causes the most resentment against God. It is too bad they don't spend any time on what Christ has gone through that men be saved from this wrath.

@sonship said
Actually, I think at the bottom is the hatred for the Lord's words about eternal punishment.

The thought that they could really lose all with no hope of winning or getting away, causes the most resentment against God. It is too bad they don't spend any time on what Christ has gone through that men be saved from this wrath.

Yes, the idea that an omniscient and omnibenevolent deity would require eternal punishment of nonbelievers renders such a god ridiculous and profoundly comical.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke

I never used the word "omnibenevolent."
Quote me.

You atheists just hate to realize that rejecting Christ you will lose. You misdirect your annoyance at me. I am just quoting and believing what came out of the mouth of the Son of God.

Get use to it that I am simply BELIEVING and reiterating what Jesus spoke. Your desire to misdirect blame must be your inability to believe that Christ so taught about eternal life and eternal punishment.

@sonship said
@joe-beyser

I do not know sonships views on hellfire and torture. I do believe that it has to be a man made contrivance initiated for the purpose of control by fear.

If you are interested you can ask sonship.
If you want to get it from FMF take the lazy way and don't ask.

I don't think the truth of eternal punishment is so controlling on ...[text shortened]... too bad they don't spend any time on what Christ has gone through that men be saved from this wrath.

Not particularly interested in your situation, but rather giving FMF an idea to ponder as to why the religious folks may sling around their beliefs like a crazy sprinkler someone turned on in the middle of a gathering for an outdoor wedding. To the dressed up crowd the water is repugnant, yet to the sprinkler it is saving and life giving to the grass. Also, there is not a thing wrong with engaging in conversation with someone that has a different spiritual view or world view. Is it reason to get mad at them? Not in my mind, because it could very well be the religious folks are doing it out of love and trying to save mine or your life. I disagree with your view about fear being a motivator. The people that are sinning do not believe in God or what they have been attempted to be indoctrinated to believe.
An example would be this: If you ask the church going sinner if he would shoplift something from a store if he knew the Law was watching him on video live. He will say no. There would be fines to pay, embarrassment to self and family, bad reputation, name in news paper, and some jail time. Ask the same church going sinner why they have sex outside the marriage and they will tell you it is a weakness of the flesh but they will repent. The risk on this may be lost relationship with God, possible eternal punishment or hell, and bad reputation. If you ask the same church going sinner if they would cheat if they knew their wife was watching them live on video they will say no. What happened to the weakness of the flesh excuse? They will do everything they can to put blame on something else rather than confess they don't believe in God or what they have been taught. To the true believer fear is the motivator.

@sonship said
@Ghost-of-a-Duke

I never used the word "omnibenevolent."
Quote me.

You don't think God is omnibenevolent?! I won't quote you, but I will quote the Bible.


'No one is good except God alone.' (Mark 10:18)

'Oh give thanks to the Lord, for he is good, for his steadfast love endures forever!' (Psalm 106:1)

@Ghost-of-a-Duke


You're certainly are a phony.
Not quite an atheist and not quite a theist.

You must be a Career On the Fence - play it either way that gets you attention.
Chronically ambiguous by habit.