₦airaland Forum

3 stoogies, the axis of good, whatever you want to call them. Anony, SNCOQ3 and Him enigma. Tbaba's of the xtian community in a sense, as they're more or else head house slaves. Well, to be fair, they're not as bad as tbaba with his dedication to keeping his sheeple in line (make sure to pray magrib rather than watch the afcon final, you hear??!! Else allah will strike you down!!! He's a bit jealous of keshi!!! [s]Never spank the monkey, nevah tame the one eyed snake. Perhaps he's jealous of the attention that tool garners as well..[/s] etc etc). I kid, sorry. Anony probably would be as bad if he had the chance. All of them fond of some rather risible shortsighted 'logic' littered with silly assumptions, LALALALALA, etc. The willful blindness though is the trait that most entertains.

Anyways, away from silly detours, here's an example of good logic. Observe evidence for the case that people become atheists because of hedonism

SNCOQ3: The Apostle Paul wrote that in the end times, men would be lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God

I'm sure it's beyond my comprehension levels, understanding this bit of nonsense, abi? Indoctrination is a powerful drug, explains why even bored born agains need not get high.

Keep up the good fight against the atheist devil!!! I'll be rooting for you!!!

edits

SNCOQ3: I read your comment on the subject; you said it all.

He did? That's your case? hehehehheheh

Reyginus: Yawns.

Why are you wasting bandwidth? Who gave you the impression one was interested in hearing you yawn? ANSAH THE QUESTIONS. AND TELL THE TRUTH. YOU BELIEVE IN THE DEVIL NO? SO TELL THE TRUTH AND LET THE DEVIL BE ASHAMED!!!

Really... Worst your fellow religionists could do is brand you a pretentious heretic for using your brains, it's not the end of the world.

ooman: Evolution is justified after-all.

It always was...

Reyginus: You have to understand yourself before I answer you. Even something wrong can follow a consistent train of thought.

See dodging, che...anony himself go fear

You know this applies to you, yes?

@reyg, are you going to answer my question? Why na?

Enigma: +1

Got it in one!

That point is also made in this post on that other thread where the evangelical atheists did not realise in time that they were shooting themselves in the foot with the thread and their 'arguments' on it. https://www.nairaland.com/1210342/christians-agree/2#14553405

You still don't get it Him. It's a ridiculously foo.lish point, in whatever language.

jayriginal:

Thats really funny.

Random rant alert

To be fair, I never actually read his post. Then again, they usually are rather poor and this one is no exception.

It seems to boil down to the usual transcendant vs subjective (I really can't be bothered to pay too much attention to it, so I may be wrong). There's no such thing as transcendant morality that is genuinely objective, but that has never stopped them from making these arguments.

Every god has his own 'objective' morality based around the god's goals, goals are determined by emotions, need I say more? They then claim morals built on the subjective whims of a god are objective? Interesting.

Yah-weh once wanted anyone with the temerity to work on sabbath put to death then roasted in hell for the rest of time. He then has a change of heart for seemingly no good reason and scraps that, now (thankfully) decreeing things like one should turn the other cheek after getting slapped. Great work there objective (and omniscient) yahweh. What do I hear? Long term goals? The original plan never changed in the larger scope of things? Those sinful 'humans' were not real humans, they didn't matter despite their possessing free will. God is also under no obligation to be moral to his creations. Just like a mai-guardie with 10 kids, a 10,000N monthly salary, that somehow manages the impossible feat of sleeping in one room with all those kids and still magically produce more. The mai-guardie is of course is under no obligation to be moral to those kids. Anyways, the only thing objective about their 'objective' morality is the slavishness and blind devotion to the god, it's the only constant.

Just as they assume god can show up from nowhere while somehow nature/energy can't, they assume gods are capable of shaping morals yet for some mysterious reason we are incapable of doing the same. I believe consciousness is all that's necessary to mold a moral code, and we happen to have that, no? In fact, as already pointed out, even if say xtian god existed, we already use man made morals. Everyone who isn't xtian (and perhaps jewish) uses man made moral codes as far as they're concerned, but I suppose they cannot be moral. Secular moral codes are also moot. These codes are not 'real' moral codes and thus they somehow don't matter in these debates.

I could go on and on, folly compounding folly. But really, what's atheism supposed to do with morality? Or, as already asked, theism? All theists get their moral codes from a god by default, hmmm?

yadda yadda yadda

Enigma: ^^^Obviously, you are too daft to follow the argument; and you are blind to see my post that presaged the one you are addressing.

In any event, you are similarly too daft to realise that you are actually making the point that I have argued on this thread.

I'm also pretty sure that idiocy runs in your family and it shouldn't be difficult to guess who you inherited your idiocy from.

Please do explain then, mr fabulous. I'll be waiting. Else, again, why not consider shutting up? That's not so difficult, abi?


edit: and btw, where do I make a point? please show that as well.
edit again: ahh, my point, I see what point you're talking about. So, please, demonstrate.

Enigma: ^^ If you want to engage in insult, carry on ---- it is standard for idiotic amoral atheists.

If you want to tell us that atheism and morality have no relationship. Come out with that.


Hmmm, no need for any exertion beyond that earlier post.

Eediocy is not cured with a single post, so of course I didn't expect you to address the question. Choosing to be an eediot is your prerogative though, so more power to you.

Enigma: ^^ If you want to engage in insult, carry on ---- it is standard for idiotic amoral atheists.

If you want to tell us that atheism and morality have no relationship. Come out with that.

I did not insult you brah. I claimed you were ignorant, probably willfully as you've been here a while yet you seem to make some of the more asinine posts in this section with admirable frequency. You just implied I'm an 'eediotic amoral' atheist now though, so allow me to indulge from here on out. I don't really require much encouragement. Thanks

So, this, more or else, is atheism good ser

wiki: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Can you explain to me how that's related to morality? If you can't, perhaps you should shut up? That's what I'm trying to say, see?



Random: Please try to not be so laughably silly, though I do understand that's difficult for someone like you. Consider you have this cartoonish bad guy quality complete with the name 'enigma'. What exactly do you think of yourself? Mysterious ? Dangerous ? Awesome ? Fine ? Brilliant ? Unique ? The very bestestest of the best ? You kind of remind me of the guy in the picture below. He sort of thinks himself as being all those things as well, complete with the constant smiles, posing and enigmatic name 'Him', rather like you. Can you see the similarities? Never mind that too much though as you probably don't know who he is. I'll just leave the pictures here for my personal giggles though. If you could answer the question above that would be appreciated. Thank you.


edits

Enigma: Can anyone point to ONE SINGLE thing that is immoral due to atheism?

The same question in a different way: is there one single thing that is immoral on the basis of atheism?

I do not think you know what atheism is. You shouldn't be airing your opinions when ignorant, willfully or no.

Perhaps you can show us how atheism is related to morality.

toba: use context when u want to describe the character of what u believe is not existing? I dont believe in magic, yet i still criticise the magician for doing a bad magic. Maybe im missing something

Depending on the nature of the argument you may have chosen to accept some parameters. I don't believe black fire breathing dragons exist but if someone claimed they didn't exist in the universe of a sword of ice and fire I'd point out he was wrong. Using that universe as context, dragons exist. If he said there was no magic in the harry potter universe I'd do the same, and perhaps even show him the 'abracadabras' in the books if necessary.

I could have read those books for a variety of reasons, reading them just because I believed in magic is not the only option. Actually, I would think most people who read those books do not believe dragons and that kind of magic exist, do they?

musKeeto: Claim their acts were unchristian, doesn't matter that they had the Bible for support and the cross as a whip...

Ah, heretic frosbel, catholics aren't real xtians. I see.

MsDarkSkin: Because Mud/dirt/soil is an essential part of life.

Soil acts as the womb to all life forms on earth.

Aside from water, it is the most important natural resource vital to the survival of all of mankind/earth's life forms. As said in the bible, from the soil we came and to the soil we will return.

Sounds far fetch eh? Well, we have all sorts or arteries, layers or skin, liquids etc within us. When we are alive they all play their part in keeping our physical forms active and functioning. It is when we die however, that all of these things literally decompose until our remains are dust like. You can use a fully decomposed corpse/human ashes as fertilizer In fact even animals apply to this rule. They too become part of the earth (literally) post death.

Dinosaurs...fossil fuels anyone?

Now to answer the question Mud is here because it is NECESSARY to keep the world going. Everything needs mud to survive. From earth worms, to fishes, to me, to you, to even birds. It's like a car's transmission. Without it, there is no purpose!

I think the REAL question should be though, "if we came from monkeys/apes...[insert inability to breed with them/why are some morphed into homo sapiens and others not; etc etc]"

Fossil fuels != mud. You'd need something alive to die and (usually) stay dead for a long time before you get fossil fuels, no? You also typically need other live organisms to decompose the poor dead organisms, yes? (I think so, can't remember).

Man could survive without fossil fuels, but certainly not as well, for now. We've not actually used fossil fuels for heavy energy purposes for most of our history. It might be the fastest/easiest way we can think of to attain our modern type of industrialization, but soon enough we'll be rid of them as the supplier of our energy needs (and they won't be missed). They're not essential for survival.

But yes, I suppose soil, not fossil fuels, is necessary for our sort of life to exist for other reasons. Equally important though is biodiversity. A critical component of any ecosystem, which includes of course; 'mud'. So even following your sort of reasoning, why does evolution need exist? To provide biodiversity. This should be as obvious as needing say soil for our kind of life, else what are you going to plant? Humans?

Note, if one wants to claim we were all ready made 6000 years ago complete with biodiversity, other life, etc, already 'designed' thereby making evolution superfluous, you'd be ignoring the fact that we and other life forms see and use micro-evolution (and we'll probably use/see macro-evolution if we're lucky) all the time. Arguably more so than we've used say fossil fuels. Then again, this is moot, as the average evolutionist does not think of the earth as having been made 6000 years ago, therefore evolution is a vital part of his world view, just as important as soil. So, depending on the context, questions that might seem reasonable to you would still come across as being of the 'ape-man' caliber of silly.


And all this supposes there's some sort of master plan anyway, ie, mud was put there just for our sake, animals created just so we could slaughter and eat them, etc. An evolutionist certainly need not see it that way, but of course we've been just avoiding that.


As for the real question, why some morphed and others didn't? Like I said earlier on, natural selection, etc. Just as we have different skin colors, hair colors etc. Mostly a combination of environment and mutations, factors largely steeped in chance.

If you want details though these are better question to ask, true. What conditions led to these mutations success? How was a feature evolved over time? Etc, etc. Note the overall logic of evolution still remains sound even if some details need work. Man-ape type questions on the other hand are just pure silly or ignorant (can't blame uneducated for being ignorant though).

musKeeto: Ah, too easy for Frosbel..

Oooh, what's the common defense?

Ah, I see, the old atheism is a religion stuff.

Unwritten doctrine or philosophy we all follow, as that's the only possible way it could be. Everything built around petty, slavish clans, yes. Worldwide agendas, etc.

I'll be off then

toba: we don't believe in the Christian God and we also believe the bible is false, yet we use the same bible to attack God that doesn't exist

For those that frequently do this, so? You expect them to not use context if necessary?

musKeeto: Edited. Fixed.

I've not even read the thread yet, so I could be off, but this is a true 1000000+likes.

Random semi-off-topic, more religiomatics/religiologic: If all those shootings were a result of god being banned from schools, then why all the xx.xx with boys in catholic parishes?

Reyginus: Considering the fact that what most christains ask for is not an annihilation of the apes, but a continual evolutionary trend that led to our metamorhosis to surface, placing the question as a challenge to all christains is dumber.
The question could have been reasonable if christains as a whole ask the corelation you're linking from. You don't challenge an entire group of people to a duel based on the individual definition of a particular member on a subject matter. Wisemen don't do that.

Your claim that "most christains ask for is not an annihilation of the apes, but a continual evolutionary trend that led to our metamorhosis to surface", how do you know this for a 'fact'? Na wa. Did you google to find out how many of your bretheren ask this question? On this site alone, please feel free to try the link I posted earlier, here it is

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=site%3Anairaland.com+++religion+why+monkey+exist+evolution&sa=Search

Or you've not noted how insulted you guys are anytime anyone mentions that we're descended from apes, my honest and non-trolling upstanding gentleman? I'm pretty sure even you do not accept that you descended from other apes.

Also, the f**k you know what 'wisemen' do? Where do I even claim to be that (whatever it is) anyhoo?

Besides all that, I placed it as a challenge to all xtians, where? Do you read anything at all?

wiegraf: Facing the real issue with the question, assuming you genuinely missed it (it happens to the best of us) and are not trolling in some manner or the other, if you're a creationist that asks this question to evolutionists; "if man evolved from monkeys (note: we didn't, but we can ignore that for now), why are there still monkeys?", can you now see how silly the question is?

This is the question in my sig sef

"Serious question here creationists, if God made humans from mud then why is mud still here?"

It isn't even directed at xtians, it's directed at creationists. The examples of your fellow religionists I allude to above include a muslim, no? And even at that, anyone with half a brain (especially as it's an obviously facetious question) would be able to tell I refer to creationists that ask the 'ape-man' question. There are creationists that have no problem with us being descended from apes, you do know this, yes? They believe evolution stands, but was somehow guided, yes? Even among those who don't and believe we just magically showed up ready made 6000 years ago, some don't ask the 'ape-man' question as the answer is rather obvious. Just as the answer to the question in my sig is BLATANTLY obvious. They just choose to ignore evolution for whatever reasons (usually religious), but they do not claim it is illogical or ask silly questions (they may have better questions though).

Really, wtf is wrong with you?

Now, ansah the question.

wiegraf: So, considering your fellow religionists frequently ask this question, that would mean they usually ask, in your own words, the "dumbest question I've heard this year" (or any other year, for that matter). You also imply of their behavior as being "way too dumb". Again, your words, not mine. Yes or no pls?

Ansah! OWN UP TO YOUR FOLLY AND THAT YOUR FELLOW RELIGIONISTS. DO IT, SLAVE!!!

Reyginus: Dude, you have nothing. Just chill.

Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? I was chilled, not so atm. Do you need a diagram as well before you understand this?

This is really.really.really.^.simple. Have you heard of the expression 'tongue in cheek'? The question is supposed to be stoopid, to highlight how it sounds to evolutionists when asked 'ape-man' questions.


Taking a cue from you;

Reyginus: You know I don't troll. The truth is that you don't even understand what you're asking. Let me dumb down a little to help your understanding.

You assume I don't know what I'm asking, and being as I'm so dumb, you're going to give me other examples of questions as silly as the one in my sig to better highlight my folly, yes? . And these are...

Reyginus: Let me take it to the scientific level (NOTE: not sure how science is dumber though, but meh). If man came from apes why are there still apes? If the big ba.ng started it all, why is our universe still expanding? If babies are made from matured zygotes, why can we still have zygotes?

Look at that nice bold one. Go back to my previous post where I show your religionist brah's asking this very question in one form or the other (and other similar ones as well).

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

Reyginus: Truth be told, this is the dumbest question I've heard this year. Wiegraf, so appalling! This is way too dumb. I may decide to dumb down and ask too: if man built houses with sand, gravel and portland, why do we still have all three?

So, considering your fellow religionists frequently ask this question, that would mean they usually ask, in your own words, the "dumbest question I've heard this year" (or any other year, for that matter). You also imply of their behavior as being "way too dumb". Again, your words, not mine. Yes or no pls?



Do.you.understand.now.ffs? Gaddamit what sort of comprehension problems do you have. EVERY.SINGLE.PERSON.ON.THIS.THREAD.GETS.IT...
sheesh...

kmcutez: Hehe, but we needed a female for that command to work. Those sphagetti monsters giving the command looks like Mr Anony and Mr Ihedinobi.

Despite being omnipotent they gave birth to heretics, in the spirit of their logical mastah yah'weh of course.

davidylan: that is quite a funny signature.

Lets turn the tables atheists... if man is a product of evolution then why do single-celled organisms still exist?

God did it.


Thare you go, I just saved us 15+ pages of needless back and forth. Genius, don't you think?

And I didn't look hard, but I didn't find a post featuring you asking the man-ape question. You sly one you, you avoided that one, hmm?

seyibrown: @wiegraf :

Making man from mud cannot be compared with a monkey evolving into man. Creation cannot be compared with Evolution. That was my point of the analogy you were trying to make between the two. I could have tried to understand your logic, if evolution from monkey to man was a re-creation of a refined specie at every stage of the evolution. Creation was ONE STEP; Evolution wasn't!

Man was made man from the start; monkey was made monkey from the start. A monkey will never become a man in a million years.

BTW, I did enjoy your comment about those untruthful engineers!

Ahh, I sort of see what you mean I think. Do you mean we're starting from different places? That's cool, but when you ask evolutionists the ape-man question, you're ignoring the fact that he's starting from billions of years ago. So to him, the question will still come off as rather silly, like the question in my sig.

I could see a case for wanting some more details about evolution, like how (perhaps superficially) radically different species evolved, the jump from single celled to multi-celled organisms and abiogenesis (which isn't evolution, actually), but questioning the process with the ape question is silly, as the answer to that is very obvious. That's why earlier I'm careful enough to state you will need better questions to tackle evolution, not that it cannot be tackled (I'm on mobile now, I'll quote it when I get a PC). Actually, one of the beauties of science is you can question anything, so long as you aren't being silly (read: including subjective), you'll be taken seriously.

So, still, imo, when one wants to question evolution, they need to come up with better questions, not ones akin to the 'crockoduck' or man-ape which sometimes makes debaters lol despite their best efforts. But true, the fact that the evolutionist isn't using the bible as a reference (thereby discarding 6000 year old earth completely from his approach), probably causes confusion. The creationist approaches the problem assuming the earth is 6000 yrs, old, yahweh, etc, so the question might seem reasonable. On the other hand, the evolutionist would be wondering just what (usually) religious babble has crippled the creationists brain as his reference point is very different, no bibles, etc involved. When faced with an incredulous stare from the evolutionist, it's now time for the creationist to wonder what sort silly science has deluded the poor 'fo.ol' (in biblical parlance). It's a vicious circle I tell you.

Reyginus: What previous post is this revelation inscribed in? Wiegraf, I understand what is happening to you. I've given you an escape line, isn't it?
Wiegraf, you want the ape-man arguement? I'm willing to give it to you. You will have it, but come loaded. All I ask for is an apology from you for asking the most senseless question this year or make sense out of it. The wiegraf wee-wee challenge indeed.

Do you have aspergers?



Edit: btw, I hope you're not doing this to avoid having to explain calling your fellow religionsts askers of the "dumbest question all year", hmm?

Logicboy03: /weigraff?

I can understand your reply but that edit was full of butthurt. How could you betray me? You even use that word "evangelism"!! Wiegraff? Why? Do you really feel that way about my threads? Weak arguments? We used to be pals?



Moving away from the edit,

I said that IQ and intelligence has little to do with race/evolution. You put an article on hereditary and IQ but that has little to do with race and evolution. t is talking generally about inheriting traits from parents. Also, it would do you well to read the caveats and conflicting studies on that article because nuture (envvironment) plays a huge role in Intelligence.



So, I want to know what you really are saying-

here is my position;
-Asians on average will have higher IQs because they generally have a better society and a higher level of education than blacks in Africa/America


is this your position
-Asians have higher IQs due to genetics?

This is nature vs nurture, again. Both play a role.

Genes responsible for IQ in particular have not been identified afaik, so it's too early to say anything definitive. What is known though is that they play a role, to what degree remains to be seen.

The second obviously plays a role. It probably can be improved via nurture, collectively, just like how height was. So people's potential could be unlocked, but you don't expect adults to grow any taller, yes? (It takes work, if there's a perceived problem, burying your head in the sand isn't the way to go. But again, this is IQ, just IQ, its importance is probably overrated).


You accusing me of eugenics brah. That's extreme, but meh.

Reyginus: Now, you are begging to drink from straws. Wiegraf, do you even understand the point you're trying to pass across? Because I don't think you do. I'm not venturing into any debate on the ape-man until we erase this erroneus question. You have two options. One, accept you're wrong and then establish a proper link which appreciates your question(which you've agreed to be illogical) and the ape-man. Two, you can explain to me how a buiding exterminates its materials when actually it is the material in another form.

Hmmm? This could be a very good troll...

So you do believe the ape-man is a valid question? Yes or no, pls?

Also, take the time to read my previous post carefully if you can...

Logicboy03: I'm hurt? Lmao.


I'm telling you to stop your reetarded Eugenics. You claimed that Asians are similar to the advanced aliens. They have bigger brains amd smaller? bodies? Only a eugenic reetard would bring up Asians IQ in an evolution discussion. What does the Asian races IQ have to do with evolution? Do you consider an afghan person an asian?

While some socieities would have higher IQs, it has nothing to do with race or evolution but rather the nurture of parenthood/society.


As for your claims of butthurt, I am only concerned that with such diagrams and eugenics, we give the theists a chance to claim that evolution is racist.


Anyways, you're still my guy. I jus needed to butthurt some commonsense into you.

Brah, again, I never said it was my view. That's a really, really silly thing you state there.

They are more 'advanced' as far as stereotypes are concerned, FACT (note: stereotypes). Or are the average asians more muscular, athletic and possessing of a smaller head size to body ratio than the rest of us?

As for IQ, are you claiming genetics isn't involved, at all?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

Deal with it if it makes you sad. Can't see why it should though as you seem to be implying it does not really matter. I would think most of us poor, uneducated blacks know that, yes? Or are we so miserable that the average black man is unaware of the fact that we evolved first? We're not babies, we can think for ourselves, and should be confident enough to not see conspiracies everywhere. Don't belittle our intelligence.

So, don't bring race into issues that do not concern it, like the op. That makes you, not me, the racist. Black man must be there because? You say so? I don't think it was meant to show the evolution of races, or was it? It's about species. They should be forced to follow your view because? Don't portray us as hypocrites if you can.

If you must know my general opinions on these matters, look through my posts. You'll note I've gone through great pains to stress there are various types of intelligences. IQ is just one, and not necessarily a crucial bit. A synergy of various factors is where it's at. And if you must focus on IQ, it can be worked on, just like better nutrition increased the average height of our species. That's too much to get into, but to summarize the potential is there but it's locked away.



BTW, don't go about claiming I give theists a chance to attack us by stating FACTS when you go around constantly skirting the borders of evangelism and tossing weak arguments around as wantonly as dame patience abuses inglis. If one chooses to bury his head in the sand, his prerogative, just as mine is to face issues head on.

5 is message

4 is far too vague. Thoughts? Life (well you do see life, in a sense)? Lots of abstract concepts could fit in

3 is gadddamit..I'll figure it out

Logicboy03: You sir, are quite a reetard when it comes to race. Yes, it may surprise you that I am insulting you but what kind of educated person makes the comment that

-asians are the most "advanced" version of man?
-asians have higher IQ?, biger brains etc

We as human beings have the same brain and potential intelligence. What seperates us is how we are nurtured by parents and society. IQ is a very dangerous measure when using it as a measure of intelligence and comparing it to races and evolution-you are entering eugenics


One has to be careful.



Just accept that the pic didnt put blacks as the first homo-sapiens. Skin colour is a result of the sun and environment over the years.

Did you notice that advanced was in quotes? Like this; "advanced". Hopefully I don't have to explain what quotes in contexts of that nature imply, do I? For one, note, that means the statement is not necessarily true. It also implies we've not settled on a proper definition of the word, yes?

Must you insist that the black man be in the picture? Why? Low self-esteem? Anyone with half a brain knows black man evolved before the others. You don't have to go around shouting that out because you're insecure, it makes you look silly. You perpetuate the problem, not solve it, when you insist on bringing race into places where it's a non issue.

Now here's a fact, far east asians have the highest mean IQs (again, other than some european jews). What that implies, I do not know, but it is a FACT. If that makes you sad, go birth some intelligent babies or become a teacher or something (though I fear you'll probably fail), don't direct eediocy at me. Some people use that to claim asians are the most 'advanced'. Asians are also the ones that fit the alien stereotype the most; smaller bodies, bigger brains, etc. This is what some people assume is the way homo sapiens will evolve. Note, I never said it was my view. I also state that the hypothetical next step in our evolution is not science (it's more science fiction).

Why was this even mentioned? Because you seem but.thurt that black man was not represented in that pic. Well, then asians also have a case, no? If indeed they were the last to have evolved, they could also claim whitey discriminating against them, especially as they are the last to have evolved. On the other hand, whitey could claim that since they evolved after us yet before them, they just used themselves as a sort of median (also, I believe most of the world is white, not so sure though).

Either ways, race is a non-issue as far as that picture is concerned. Completely. As we're all HOMO SAPIENS, and that is the point. It's a look at species, not race.

Now, my good ret.ard, do try to reason before you post. Don't just post with blind emotion, it's foo.lish.

Edits

Logicboy03: The picture is wrong because the first men/homo sapiens were black.


Evolution is still true.


However, the religious fools will use this pic to say that it represents what scientists think about evolution?

They imply that apes are black (and they aren't really, as my link shows, they have black HAIR, not skin, skin is usually lighter), and that somehow means evolution is false. We didn't even evolve from current day apes. There are far too many things wrong with this eediotic notion.

And the picture is not necessarily be wrong, they could simply have skipped black man and jumped to white, they probably skipped other steps as well. Iirc, certain theories hold that asians are the last to have evolved, or at least the most 'advanced' version of man, in a sense. (on a side note, not science, but when people imagine aliens they more or else imagine what we'd evolve to and project that as aliens; small bodies, less muscle, bigger brains (thus head). Of all the flavors of man asians are the ones most similar to that, and they even have the highest average IQ's in east asia to back that up (save for european jews)).