Why does evolution select against atheists?

[Dywyddyr]

I take nothing away from the scientists for that.

Your posts do little but detract from science AND scientists.

It is just they have made a mistake in the backing something that is not proved, and really can not be proved. Now almost everything that science does is about evolving.

Wrong again. You're assuming that you're correct (on zero evidence). And by sticking to a belief you're ignoring the facts. As usual.

I don't want to plague you guys too much on this, I only wanted you to think about it.

You're the one that doesn't think.

 

[shichimenshyo]

But that ofcourse is the point. The evidence points to what is real, there are distinct 'kinds'. Scientists are going beyond what the evidence says, to say something completely different than that.

What could you possibly mean by that? Do you have an example? Please enlighten us with a link...

 

[hay_you]

hey_you is credulous almost to the point of beyond my comprehension. Who is it bewitching him?

Everyone is left to his own conclusion on this.

 

[hay_you]

“
Originally Posted by hay_you
But that ofcourse is the point. The evidence points to what is real, there are distinct 'kinds'. Scientists are going beyond what the evidence says, to say something completely different than that.
”
What could you possibly mean by that? Do you have an example? Please enlighten us with a link...

Well that is very easy, there is a human kind, and animal kinds, plant kinds.

 

[shichimenshyo]

Well that is very easy, there is a human kind, and animal kinds, plant kinds.

Humans are animals my good sir

 

[earth]

I only wanted you to think about it.

................

................

 

[hay_you]

................

................

Ha ha this does show that thinking ability of some.

 

[John99]

did someone say that alread?

 

[S.A.M.]

Humans are animals my good sir

Not legally.:bugeye:

 

[earth]

Originally Posted by shichimenshyo
Humans are animals my good sir

Not legally.:bugeye:

Whats up Doc.....

 

[shichimenshyo]

Not legally.:bugeye:

Are we talking about this in a legal sense? I must have missed that.

 

[S.A.M.]

Oh I don't know, we could cull people where they overpopulate too, I guess

It would make things so much easier if people were designated as animals. They could find a biological basis for everything they did.

 

[earth]

Oh I don't know, we could cull people where they overpopulate too, I guess

Oh no please don't cull me........

 

[S.A.M.]

Just think of it as natural selection.

 

[earth]

Just think of it as natural selection.

"Th-Th-Th-Th-Th-... That's all, folks."

 

[Billy T]

Not legally.{are humans animals}

Laws are country specific. In what countries are humans defined to not be animals in the law? Perhaps you are just saying that many laws are applied to humans only? Seldom is a non-human animal judged by a court before being killed by an officer of the law, but it does happen that a non-human animal gets its day in court. Usually, it is some rich person's dog that has bit a child.

Likewise, humans also can be judged to not be responsible for a crime they clearly have committed. It seems to me that the line between non human and human animals is very blurred, at least in principle, if not in practice.

Certain rights are only legally granted to humans by the law. For example, a donkey can not vote, but back in the 1800s one was elected as governor of Kansas, as I recall reading. If being allowed to vote is a privilege of humans only, then until about 100 years ago in USA, women were only animals, not human.

 

[S.A.M.]

In that case, will you be campaigning for equal rights of suffrage for the donkey?

 

[Billy T]

In that case, will you be campaigning for equal rights of suffrage for the donkey?

only if it is a male.