|
Post by NJtoTX on Feb 22, 2024 14:22:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 22, 2024 23:58:53 GMT
People justifying men cheating as that's an evolutionary animal instinct, they HAVE to act on it, it's not their fault, it's just the way nature engineered them to be like all the other animals in the wild. When men ACT like pigs suddenly they're humans who are supposed to know and do better.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Feb 23, 2024 0:42:20 GMT
People justifying men cheating as that's an evolutionary animal instinct, they HAVE to act on it, it's not their fault, it's just the way nature engineered them to be like all the other animals in the wild. When men ACT like pigs suddenly they're humans who are supposed to know and do better. Same people both don't believe we have a common ancestor with apes and believe animals are beneath us and just put on Earth for our use.
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Feb 23, 2024 4:41:59 GMT
And some people send voter registration cards to dogs and cats.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2024 15:07:02 GMT
Christ. Surely a pastor should be arguing that a man is more than his biological urges.
I also don't see why it's a good argument anyway even if we accept the premise that men can't help themselves. A rabid dog can't help itself but we still have it put down to protect others.
|
|
|
Post by NJtoTX on Feb 23, 2024 16:12:25 GMT
And some people send voter registration cards to dogs and cats. Huh?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 6, 2024 14:50:09 GMT
People justifying men cheating as that's an evolutionary animal instinct, they HAVE to act on it, it's not their fault, it's just the way nature engineered them to be like all the other animals in the wild. When men ACT like pigs suddenly they're humans who are supposed to know and do better. Same people both don't believe we have a common ancestor with apes and believe animals are beneath us and just put on Earth for our use. The old, old religionist argument that Man, being created in God's image, is somehow a completely discrete order of being and emphatically NOT an 'animal'. Even today there are Xtians who get quite angry if you assert to them that man is indeed part of the animal taxonomy. It's the basis of the ongoing fundamentalist rage over the evolutionary theory of human relation to apes, which they incorrectly define as 'being descended from monkeys'. As for Novastar's quote, she appears to be frothing as per usual, and not making much linear sense. Hard to tell if she's defending the pastor's POV or denouncing it. I suspect the former, but we may never know ...
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2024 0:28:15 GMT
It's the basis of the ongoing fundamentalist rage over the evolutionary theory of human relation to apes, which they incorrectly define as 'being descended from monkeys'. Who's 'they'?
|
|
|
Post by novastar6 on Mar 8, 2024 8:06:03 GMT
Same people both don't believe we have a common ancestor with apes and believe animals are beneath us and just put on Earth for our use. As for Novastar's quote, she appears to be frothing as per usual, and not making much linear sense. Hard to tell if she's defending the pastor's POV or denouncing it. I suspect the former, but we may never know ...
I'm merely curious if the people who believe the post about 'man is a man, not an animal, and should control himself' exercise that same belief when the issue of men cheating on their girlfriends arises, or is that suddenly 'well it's EVOLUTION, most ANIMALS aren't monogamous, it's not FAIR to expect men to be different because we're still ALL just animals and men have an evolutionary trait to reproduce as much as possible (even though damn few of them are actively trying to have kids, let alone with 20 different women, and NOBODY expects them to actually take responsibility for the kids they DO create UNLESS it suddenly becomes a women's right issue regarded unwanted (and unprotected) pregnancies, so it's just a convenient excuse to sleep with 50 women without getting blamed for it). Strangely enough nobody ever says WOMEN are blameless for cheating 'cuz EVOLUTION!', always just men. So I guess that's supposed to mean men are animals and women are human and as such are supposed to control THEMSELVES when men cannot, gee, there's an argument that sounds vaguely familiar.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 8, 2024 11:40:33 GMT
As for Novastar's quote, she appears to be frothing as per usual, and not making much linear sense. Hard to tell if she's defending the pastor's POV or denouncing it. I suspect the former, but we may never know ...
I'm merely curious if the people who believe the post about 'man is a man, not an animal, and should control himself' exercise that same belief when the issue of men cheating on their girlfriends arises, or is that suddenly 'well it's EVOLUTION, most ANIMALS aren't monogamous, it's not FAIR to expect men to be different because we're still ALL just animals and men have an evolutionary trait to reproduce as much as possible (even though damn few of them are actively trying to have kids, let alone with 20 different women, and NOBODY expects them to actually take responsibility for the kids they DO create UNLESS it suddenly becomes a women's right issue regarded unwanted (and unprotected) pregnancies, so it's just a convenient excuse to sleep with 50 women without getting blamed for it). Strangely enough nobody ever says WOMEN are blameless for cheating 'cuz EVOLUTION!', always just men. So I guess that's supposed to mean men are animals and women are human and as such are supposed to control THEMSELVES when men cannot, gee, there's an argument that sounds vaguely familiar.
Out of that word-salad, I'm still unable to parse out whether or no you agree with what the nice holy man said. BTW, I know of no one in my society, who takes evolution seriously, that uses it as an 'explanation' of either rape or infidelity, male or female version. Out there in Scopes-trial land, I'm not so sure.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 8, 2024 11:45:36 GMT
It's the basis of the ongoing fundamentalist rage over the evolutionary theory of human relation to apes, which they incorrectly define as 'being descended from monkeys'. Who's 'they'? Fundamentalists. Yes, I'm aware that some branches of Christianity do now accept evolutionary theory of common ancestry; but like it or no, most fundamentalist sects are not among them. And fundamentalists are tending to be more than unusually vocal and have more than usual influence over such things as educational curricula in these all-together too interesting times.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 8, 2024 20:19:28 GMT
Who's 'they'? Fundamentalists. Yes, I'm aware that some branches of Christianity do now accept evolutionary theory of common ancestry; but like it or no, most fundamentalist sects are not among them. And fundamentalists are tending to be more than unusually vocal and have more than usual influence over such things as educational curricula in these all-together too interesting times. I’m fairly certain that Christian fundamentalists do not claim that man evolved from monkeys. In fact, that “March of Progress” picture is found in textbooks, not churches, and scientists have only recently begun admitting what Christian fundamentalists have been saying for years: It’s wrong.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 9, 2024 0:37:46 GMT
Fundamentalists. Yes, I'm aware that some branches of Christianity do now accept evolutionary theory of common ancestry; but like it or no, most fundamentalist sects are not among them. And fundamentalists are tending to be more than unusually vocal and have more than usual influence over such things as educational curricula in these all-together too interesting times. I’m fairly certain that Christian fundamentalists do not claim that man evolved from monkeys. In fact, that “March of Progress” picture is found in textbooks, not churches, and scientists have only recently begun admitting what Christian fundamentalists have been saying for years: It’s wrong. Christian fundamentalists deny that man had any apelike ancestry at all. And they don't claim the 'March' is wrong for the reasons that scientists do.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 9, 2024 1:03:56 GMT
I’m fairly certain that Christian fundamentalists do not claim that man evolved from monkeys. In fact, that “March of Progress” picture is found in textbooks, not churches, and scientists have only recently begun admitting what Christian fundamentalists have been saying for years: It’s wrong. Christian fundamentalists deny that man had any apelike ancestry at all. And they don't claim the 'March' is wrong for the reasons that scientists do. But they never claimed it was right. So as it turns out, the ones who incorrectly defined the evolutionary theory of human relation to apes as 'being descended from monkeys' were the scientists.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 9, 2024 3:42:22 GMT
Christian fundamentalists deny that man had any apelike ancestry at all. And they don't claim the 'March' is wrong for the reasons that scientists do. But they never claimed it was right. So as it turns out, the ones who incorrectly defined the evolutionary theory of human relation to apes as 'being descended from monkeys' were the scientists. Because they never claimed it was right in the first place doesn't put them one up on science. They claimed it was wrong because of the refusal to admit that man was part of the animal taxonomy--which they are wrong about. Science acknowleged that fact, scientific method simply got the theory wrong--something any scientist will be glad to tell you happens quite a lot, which is why 'doing science' is an ongoing thing, rather than a static one. Discoveries are made, and then supplanted as better and more complete evidences turn up, leading to further discoveries. To the best of my knowledge, religion isn't particularly known for doing this.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 9, 2024 3:53:54 GMT
But they never claimed it was right. So as it turns out, the ones who incorrectly defined the evolutionary theory of human relation to apes as 'being descended from monkeys' were the scientists. Because they never claimed it was right in the first place doesn't put them one up on science. They claimed it was wrong because of the refusal to admit that man was part of the animal taxonomy--which they are wrong about. Science acknowleged that fact, scientific method simply got the theory wrong--something any scientist will be glad to tell you happens quite a lot, which is why 'doing science' is an ongoing thing, rather than a static one. Discoveries are made, and then supplanted as better and more complete evidences turn up, leading to further discoveries. To the best of my knowledge, religion isn't particularly known for doing this. It's not about who was right; it's about who was wrong incorrect. I'm asking who "they" are in your original statement. If the Christian fundamentalists never claimed humans descended from monkeys, then they can't be the ones who incorrectly defined the theory as such. And if wasn't the scientists, then I reckon we're left with the ones who put that image in all the textbooks.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 9, 2024 4:02:35 GMT
Because they never claimed it was right in the first place doesn't put them one up on science. They claimed it was wrong because of the refusal to admit that man was part of the animal taxonomy--which they are wrong about. Science acknowleged that fact, scientific method simply got the theory wrong--something any scientist will be glad to tell you happens quite a lot, which is why 'doing science' is an ongoing thing, rather than a static one. Discoveries are made, and then supplanted as better and more complete evidences turn up, leading to further discoveries. To the best of my knowledge, religion isn't particularly known for doing this. It's not about who was right; it's about who was wrong incorrect. I'm asking who "they" are in your original statement. If the Christian fundamentalists never claimed humans descended from monkeys, then they can't be the ones who incorrectly defined the theory as such. And if wasn't the scientists, then I reckon we're left with the ones who put that image in all the textbooks. I've never said that fundamentalists 'defined' the theory incorrectly or otherwise. They deny that man, as God's supreme creation made in his image, could have had apelike ancestry or any other animal ancestry. This is incorrect. Trying to end-run around that by retorting "well, science was wrong" doesn't change it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 9, 2024 4:35:32 GMT
It's not about who was right; it's about who was wrong incorrect. I'm asking who "they" are in your original statement. If the Christian fundamentalists never claimed humans descended from monkeys, then they can't be the ones who incorrectly defined the theory as such. And if wasn't the scientists, then I reckon we're left with the ones who put that image in all the textbooks. I've never said that fundamentalists 'defined' the theory incorrectly or otherwise. They deny that man, as God's supreme creation made in his image, could have had apelike ancestry or any other animal ancestry. This is incorrect. Trying to end-run around that by retorting "well, science was wrong" doesn't change it. You said "they" incorrectly define the theory as 'being descended from monkeys'. When I asked who "they" are, you said, "Fundamentalists." If that isn't you saying fundamentalists 'defined' the theory incorrectly, then I misunderstood and have been on the wrong track this entire time. My bad.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Mar 9, 2024 12:05:38 GMT
I've never said that fundamentalists 'defined' the theory incorrectly or otherwise. They deny that man, as God's supreme creation made in his image, could have had apelike ancestry or any other animal ancestry. This is incorrect. Trying to end-run around that by retorting "well, science was wrong" doesn't change it. You said "they" incorrectly define the theory as 'being descended from monkeys'. When I asked who "they" are, you said, "Fundamentalists." If that isn't you saying fundamentalists 'defined' the theory incorrectly, then I misunderstood and have been on the wrong track this entire time. My bad. Here's my original post The old, old religionist argument that Man, being created in God's image, is somehow a completely discrete order of being and emphatically NOT an 'animal'. Even today there are Xtians who get quite angry if you assert to them that man is indeed part of the animal taxonomy. It's the basis of the ongoing fundamentalist rage over the evolutionary theory of human relation to apes, which they incorrectly define as 'being descended from monkeys'.
Perhaps I was loose in my usage of the word 'define' ('identify' would have been better); but it boils down to the fact that fundamentalist Christianity has latched on to the 'descended from apes' notion of human evolution, and has refuted it and still continues to refute it, not on the basis of revision in scientific thought, but because of according to them, divine law. Because evolutionary studies have progressed beyond the 'march' paradigm to another school of evolutionary thought on the matter does not somehow make the fundamentalists more right than the scientists, as you seem to wish to imply. Fundamentalist thought on this came from a rejection of and (often enough) an ignorance of scientific theory, not a more advanced interpretation of it.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 9, 2024 21:21:37 GMT
You said "they" incorrectly define the theory as 'being descended from monkeys'. When I asked who "they" are, you said, "Fundamentalists." If that isn't you saying fundamentalists 'defined' the theory incorrectly, then I misunderstood and have been on the wrong track this entire time. My bad. Here's my original post The old, old religionist argument that Man, being created in God's image, is somehow a completely discrete order of being and emphatically NOT an 'animal'. Even today there are Xtians who get quite angry if you assert to them that man is indeed part of the animal taxonomy. It's the basis of the ongoing fundamentalist rage over the evolutionary theory of human relation to apes, which they incorrectly define as 'being descended from monkeys'.
Perhaps I was loose in my usage of the word 'define' ('identify' would have been better); but it boils down to the fact that fundamentalist Christianity has latched on to the 'descended from apes' notion of human evolution, and has refuted it and still continues to refute it, not on the basis of revision in scientific thought, but because of according to them, divine law. Because evolutionary studies have progressed beyond the 'march' paradigm to another school of evolutionary thought on the matter does not somehow make the fundamentalists more right than the scientists, as you seem to wish to imply. Fundamentalist thought on this came from a rejection of and (often enough) an ignorance of scientific theory, not a more advanced interpretation of it. They didn't identify it as such, either. The scientists are the ones who incorrectly defined/identified the theory as 'being descended from monkeys,' and whoever refuted it was not incorrect. This isn't a competition. It's a simple question of who "they" are.
|
|