Darwin was apparently a pretty reasonable person and hated bad treatment of his fellow humans. Newton was indeed a nasty person, does that mean that gravity is "just a theory" ?
Thank you all theists and christians especially. Its people like you who keeps confirming that either there is no god or he doesnt care about convincing anyone since he only sends people who couldnt convince anyone that the the sun will rise tomorrow..
Normally I would complain about ad hom attacks, but this caller is verifiably, a condescending twit repeatedly proving his inability to actually listen to anything he doesn't want to hear. “If you’ll just give up your critical faculties, a world of idiotic bliss can be yours.” - Christopher Hitchens
@ekipogh the theists know this. They just try and drag everything down to their level. Especially of their bigoted book. Like claiming we have faith in science. Like it's all just a guessing game. Hypocrites.
Evolution is the change in inherited characteristics across generations. This is proven every time offspring are compared to parents. This change can accumulate across generations. This is proven every time generations are compared with earlier generations. Changes can be selected for or against. This is proven whenever successful individuals are compared with unsuccessful ones under the same conditions.
Anytime somebody brings up the title of that book, you can automatically tell they never read it, because if they had they would know that there's nothing in the book which promotes racism. If the book is so racist, how come they can't point to any passages that say anything racist?
And even if it was, it wouldn't disprove evolution. All it would do is prove that Darwin held some incorrect beliefs, which he absolutely did, just not any racist ones that weren't typical for his time.
Darwin's work wasn't even racist, it's taking the language of the time and imposing modern language to it. Others have taken his work and misused and misinterpreted it to argue for racism but the caller either hasn't actually read their work and is parroting things someone told them or his deliberately misunderstood it (borh of which are common amongst religious people, cause when they can't make genuine arguments, they have to try and drag people down to their level and try and make people look bad, even if it means making things up). Just once I'd like an honest argument from a religious person bit they all seem to he in some way dishonest.
Darwin was incredibly progressive for his time, he was against slavery. Yes he may not have thought black people were on the same level as white but again for his time he was extremely progressive.
Race was how they labeled different species. The actual book never spoke of humans it spoke about other animals but humans. It eluded some aspects of humans but name eluded to race in that way. In matter of fact he was very prominent in anti racist activism.
Message to the caller (if he is still at least paying attention): READ the freaking book BEFORE you try to comment on the contents. Darwin only passingly referred to humans in that book when he was referring to “race”.
Herbert Spencer originated the expression "survival of the fittest", which he coined in Principles of Biology (1864). Darwin suggested that an organism that best fitted into its environment was more likely to survive.
In Darwin's day _race_ meant a group of organisms sharing characteristics. It still does today, although colloquially the term is often used to refer to humans sharing characteristics. It is unfortunate when the ignorant base their views on their restricted view.
I think Matthew doesn't understand Darwin's second law of evolution, or the law of SEGREGATION. This was a scientific term related to alleles and gametes that I need Forrest to describe, and not at all RACIAL segregation. This is similar to the widespread misunderstanding of the word THEORY, which in common parlance is synonymous with supposition, almost the opposite of what it means in science.
How dare he infer that people are lying, when they say that they are not convinced by biblical assertions. If Christianity had been undoubtedly true, rather than merely a belief, there would be no just cause to question its authenticity. Where's the evidence to demonstrate that Christianity has ever saved anyone? Where's the evidence to suggest that anyone has ever been damned for rejecting Christianity?
Caller stops, or rather, can't get past the title, let alone bring himself to read even a chapter of the material, or he would have understood that the subject he truly has issues with is actually Darwin's second volume, The Descent of Man (1871) published 12 years after the initial Origin of Species. If the genetic mechanism of heredity had been understood at the time, then there would not have been any loose threads for anyone to pull at.
Repeating the questions that you ran away from: An "eternal mind" still needs to be made from something, with predictable laws that govern interactions of that "something", allowing for predictable interactions of that "something". What is that "something"? Where did it come from? And this "something" needs "somewhere" to exist. Where is this place that the "eternal mind" exists? Where did it come from?
@@BlarglemanTheSkeptic2 Why does something eternal need to be made from something? Instead of an infinite, mysterious, nothing, why not an eternal mind? In contrast to the mysterious nothing, I'm glad there's a number of ideas. I couldn't imagine being an atheist or a theist who wanted everyone to submit to some kind of ontology that caused people to view themselves as matter with the illusion of being something greater than hydrogen, carbon, protein, and amino acids. And your questions really aren't that important. You act like you're really on to something and if it's ever answered you just tell people you disagree. You act like you're gonna have a woo gasm and then you just poop your pants. Silly phagit
@@tonyclements1147 Look how you obsess on a religion you're supposed to be free of. Everything you people say is a repeat of everything you've already said thousands of times over the years, every day. 😂
Not forgetting that the disciple Thomas doubted that Jesus had risen from the dead and was given direct and verifiable evidence that it was so, according to the Book of Wholly Fables. Today we are told to believe on faith alone or burn in a lake of fire for eternity for demanding the same evidence that Thomas demanded.
If saying “You know it’s true.” is supposed to be a demonstration of truth then the caller doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “demonstrate”. In order to have a logical conversation with someone the definition of words must be understood by both parties, otherwise, one side or both won’t make sense. In this case, the caller didn’t make sense.
low key they talk too big to these kind of ppl, i promise u the moment u start talking normal or logical to these ppl they genuinely stop listening cuz they can’t comprehend following another train of thought. u need to dumb it down a lot for them to understand, i could hear the gears turning in that man’s brain through the screen
Scientific American March 20, 2019 Atheism Is Inconsistent with the Scientific Method, Prizewinning Physicist Says "Marcelo Gleiser, a 60-year-old Brazil-born theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College and prolific science popularizer, has won this year’s Templeton Prize"
None of us can hold back our spirit from departing. None of us has the power to prevent the day of our death. There is no escaping that obligation, that dark battle. And in the face of death, wickedness will certainly not rescue the wicked. - Ecclesiastes 8:8
We get more than enough pseudo-intellecutal word salad from the so-called "true believers", aka theist, around here without adding his particular brand of sophistry to the mix.
Or we could listen to people who actually have something decent to say, rather than the modern day equivalent of a self help book writer who doesn't understand that free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences from other people's free speech or society.
In order to listen to Jordan Peterson, you would have to be willing to accept word salad as an argument for things that do not exist. For example: "Mythological truth reflects incredible responsibility, roughly speaking. And the dominance hierarchy is at the heart of new boundaries." Tell me if he actually said this or whether this was generated from Wisdom of Peterson website.
`Repent, of what? What does it even mean "believe in Jesus Christ"? Salvation, of what? A new person? Why would I want that? Christians always sound soooooo confused when they mindlessly repeat some stuff they heard last Sunday in church.
The Buy-Bull is absolutely worthless book of lies, myths, fictions, fantasies, and fairy tales, most definitely NOT the words of your evidently nonexistent "God" and a source of unending falsehoods that the gullible think are "truths". True salvation can only be found by embracing the one objectively TRUE living God Njambe! REPENT 🤣🤣
Quick question. If one repents and believes in Jesus Christ for Salvation and becomes a new person in this life do they then become a newer person in the afterlife ?
