God used Evolution to 'create' man

[The Barbarian]

I apologize if I upset you; that wasn't my point.   Darwin assumed (as pretty much all Englishmen did at the time) that Englishmen were superior to all other humans.   However, as you learned, "races" in his time meant what we call "species" today.   AIG used to have a warning on that issue for creationists, to keep them from looking foolish. (Barbarian checks)  Not there, now.   Ironially, Darwin was racist in the same sense that Abraham Lincoln was racist; they both thought that all races were entitled to freedom and respect as humans, but did not think that any races were as good as their own.   Darwin, however, argued that if you brought "savages" of any race to England, after a few generations, their descendants would be indistinguishable from Englishmen.

Of course, since modern evolutionary theory shows that there are no biological human races, there aren't many racist biologists.   On the other hand as recently as the 90s, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research was writing garbage about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.    And his co-founder was an enthusiastic promoter of eugenics, long after Darwinian scientists had debunked those ideas.  This is one of the important differences between science and creationism.   Would you like me to show you those?

Again, I apologize if you struck a nerve reading this; but it is true.   Would you like to see more evidence?

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Actually I struck your nerve obviously

 You seemed to be very upset when we discussed the racists who founded YE creationism.

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Did You know Abraham Lincoln was a republican as well? Or did you know the abolitionists of the day were mostly Christians and "Creationists"

Yes, prior to the 1970s, republicans were much more liberal than the very conservative southern democrats.   There's been quite a change in the last few decades.    Darwin, for example was a strict abolitionist when many conservatives in England favored slavery.   But there were exceptions.    Creationist Samuel Wilberforce (who was embarrassed by Huxley in a famous debate) was as strong an abolitionist as Darwin.  The connection between racism and creationism in the United States is more a matter that creationists and segregationists in the United States tend to be politically conservative.   That the founders of YE creationism were racists and eugenicists is not evidence that racism is an essential doctrine of YE creationism.    There are YE creationists who are not racist at all.  And the lack of racism among scientists is more due to the fact that evolutionary theory shows there to be no biological human races than to intrinsic goodness on the part of scientists.

[dhchristian]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

On the other hand as recently as the 90s, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research was writing garbage about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.    And his co-founder was an enthusiastic promoter of eugenics, long after Darwinian scientists had debunked those ideas.  This is one of the important differences between science and creationism.   Would you like me to show you those?

yes please. From the source please, and not a hit piece.

[The Barbarian]

On the other hand as recently as the 90s, the founder of the Institute for Creation Research was writing garbage about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people.    And his co-founder was an enthusiastic promoter of eugenics, long after Darwinian scientists had debunked those ideas.  This is one of the important differences between science and creationism.   Would you like me to show you those?

8 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

yes please. From the source please, and not a hit piece.

 

"Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites. "

ICR co-founder Henry Morris, The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991)

It should be worth mentioning there seems to be credible evidence a few creationists have also supported eugenics.

Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.

Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves” , producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population” [8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution:

It is an excellent plan to keep defective people in institutions for here they are not permitted to marry and bear children.[8, p. 131]

and

[Scientists who are working at the task of improving the human race] would like to increase the birth rate of families having good heredity, while those people having poor heredity should not marry at all.[8, p. 131]

https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/creationist-support-of-eugenics-and-genocide-in-the-past/

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by The Barbarian

[dhchristian]

Just now, The Barbarian said:

2 hours ago, omega2xx said:

YE creationist and PhD paleontologist Kurt Wise lists dozens of transitionals in a a number of series.

No they don't.  The list fossils they consider transitional

Well, let's take a look...

Some Quotes from Kurt wise, some ten or fifteen years after he wrote the article you quoted... as I said in a previous post his views have changed over time, and the article you quote is from 1995.

Dr. Kurt Wise: Analogous to the situation we see in major groups; in major groups we see major groups of organisms coming into existence with gaps in the record and no fossils that connect that organism with any other organism. We see the same thing in the human record. Even if you accept Australopithecine in the lineage of man, as some people do, there is a big gap between Australopithecines, which are thought to be the ancestors to man, and whatever primate, ape or whatever, that Australopithecus supposedly evolved from.

If I were to be judged by what I believed in 1995 then you would see a far different debate, as Back then I believed in theistic evolution, and debated for that. My Views began to change in 1996/7 when I watched a video on the probability (Mathematically) of evolution, and the fact that no matter how many millions of years you have for life to evolve, the odds are non existent. That woke me up to the lie that had been pounded in my head from grade school on. Evolution is a mathematical improbability. 

https://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)²⁰⁰, or one chance out of 10⁶⁰. The number 10⁶⁰, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 10¹⁸ seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 10¹⁴ square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 10⁹) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 10¹⁸ seconds, there can, therefore, be 10¹⁸/10², or 10¹⁶, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 10¹⁴ (10⁹) (10¹⁶), or 10³⁹ attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 10⁶⁰, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 10³⁹ attempts might be successful is only one out of 10⁶⁰/10³⁹, or 10²¹.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

[dhchristian]

25 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

"Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites. "

ICR co-founder Henry Morris, The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991)

It should be worth mentioning there seems to be credible evidence a few creationists have also supported eugenics.

Even more problematic for the claim that “Darwinism” was critical and instrumental in the development of eugenics is the uncomfortable fact that eugenics was also openly embraced by opponents of evolution (the first eugenics sterilization laws in the world were passed in 1907 Indiana, hardly a hotbed of “Darwinists”). The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.

Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves” , producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population” [8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution:

It is an excellent plan to keep defective people in institutions for here they are not permitted to marry and bear children.[8, p. 131]

and

[Scientists who are working at the task of improving the human race] would like to increase the birth rate of families having good heredity, while those people having poor heredity should not marry at all.[8, p. 131]

https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/creationist-support-of-eugenics-and-genocide-in-the-past/

That is called honesty in dealing with the facts, something Darwinists often lack. Instead they view Darwin as this aloof objective scientist incapable of Human errors. The facts are that what you point to are the minority in the YEC community. Up until this comment I had never heard of Dr. Tinkle. Morris I am familiar with, but the quote he wrote is removed from its context. I Do not agree with his Hamite beliefs, and have opposed them myself in conservative circles (I Am not negating them nor stating them to ignorance), But Morris also gave credit to the Hamites which many in secular circles have not and way ahead of its time. 

“The Hamites have been the great ‘servants’ of mankind in the following ways, among many others: (1) they were the original explorers and settlers of practically all parts of the world, following the dispersion at Babel; (2) they were the first cultivators of most of the basic food staples of the world, such as potatoes, corn, beans, cereals, and others, as well as the first ones to domesticate most animals; (3) they developed most of the basic types of structural forms and building tools and materials; (4) they were the first to develop fabrics for clothing and various sewing and weaving devices; (5) they were the discoverers and inventors of an amazingly wide variety of medicines and surgical practices and instruments; (6) most of the concepts of basic mathematics, including algebra, geometry, and trigonometry were developed by Hamites; (7) the machinery of commerce and trade—money, banks, postal systems, etc.—were invented by them; (8) they developed paper, ink, block printing, moveable type, and other accoutrements of writing and communication. It seems that almost no matter what the particular device or principle or system may be, if one traces back far enough, he will find that it originated with the Sumerians or Egyptians or early Chinese or some other Hamitic people. Truly, they have been the ‘servants’ of mankind in a most amazing way"

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2018/08/on-the-racism-of-creationist-henry-morris.html

So I would hardly call this a negative racial statement.

 

[omega2xx]

32 minutes ago, dhchristian said:

Some Quotes from Kurt wise, some ten or fifteen years after he wrote the article you quoted... as I said in a previous post his views have changed over time, and the article you quote is from 1995.

Dr. Kurt Wise: Analogous to the situation we see in major groups; in major groups we see major groups of organisms coming into existence with gaps in the record and no fossils that connect that organism with any other organism. We see the same thing in the human record. Even if you accept Australopithecine in the lineage of man, as some people do, there is a big gap between Australopithecines, which are thought to be the ancestors to man, and whatever primate, ape or whatever, that Australopithecus supposedly evolved from.

If I were to be judged by what I believed in 1995 then you would see a far different debate, as Back then I believed in theistic evolution, and debated for that. My Views began to change in 1996/7 when I watched a video on the probability (Mathematically) of evolution, and the fact that no matter how many millions of years you have for life to evolve, the odds are non existent. That woke me up to the lie that had been pounded in my head from grade school on. Evolution is a mathematical improbability. 

https://www.icr.org/article/mathematical-impossibility-evolution/

But let us give the evolutionist the benefit of every consideration. Assume that, at each mutational step, there is equally as much chance for it to be good as bad. Thus, the probability for the success of each mutation is assumed to be one out of two, or one-half. Elementary statistical theory shows that the probability of 200 successive mutations being successful is then (½)²⁰⁰, or one chance out of 10⁶⁰. The number 10⁶⁰, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Lest anyone think that a 200-part system is unreasonably complex, it should be noted that even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts."

The evolutionist might react by saying that even though any one such mutating organism might not be successful, surely some around the world would be, especially in the 10 billion years (or 10¹⁸ seconds) of assumed earth history. Therefore, let us imagine that every one of the earth's 10¹⁴ square feet of surface harbors a billion (i.e., 10⁹) mutating systems and that each mutation requires one-half second (actually it would take far more time than this). Each system can thus go through its 200 mutations in 100 seconds and then, if it is unsuccessful, start over for a new try. In 10¹⁸ seconds, there can, therefore, be 10¹⁸/10², or 10¹⁶, trials by each mutating system. Multiplying all these numbers together, there would be a total possible number of attempts to develop a 200-component system equal to 10¹⁴ (10⁹) (10¹⁶), or 10³⁹ attempts. Since the probability against the success of any one of them is 10⁶⁰, it is obvious that the probability that just one of these 10³⁹ attempts might be successful is only one out of 10⁶⁰/10³⁹, or 10²¹.

All this means that the chance that any kind of a 200-component integrated functioning organism could be developed by mutation and natural selection just once, anywhere in the world, in all the assumed expanse of geologic time, is less than one chance out of a billion trillion. What possible conclusion, therefore, can we derive from such considerations as this except that evolution by mutation and natural selection is mathematically and logically indefensible!

The problem of trying to link mutations as a  mechanism for evolution is not possible.  Mutations can only alter a trait the kid would have gotten if the mutation had not occurred.  The  cat with a mutation is still a cat and it will only produce more cats.  There are no examples of a mutation causing a change of species.  That is why they have to put it way into the future,

 

Peace and joy

[one.opinion]

Darwin’s personal opinions are irrelevant to the scientific evidence for evolution. This is a known fallacy called “poisoning the well”. There is considerable evidence in multiple areas of science.

For those in this thread that hold to YEC, why not try a different tactic and use evidence to support your conclusion that the earth is 6,000-10,000 years old. Constant dismissal of evidence based on personal opinions, and not evidence, is tiresome.

[The Barbarian]

(Barbarian notes the racism and eugenic foolishness of the men who founded YE creationism)

14 hours ago, dhchristian said:

That is called honesty in dealing with the facts, something Darwinists often lack. Instead they view Darwin as this aloof objective scientist incapable of Human errors.

No scientists think of Darwin as incapable of human errors.   Modern evolutionary theory has been modified several times as all successful theories have been.  

Eugenics and racism are not "honesty"; they are, at best, poor thinking.   Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races, and Darwinists showed long ago that eugenic ideas would not work in practice.   As I said, it's not a coincidence that racism is most alive in areas where YE creationism is common.    It's purely racist to suppose that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other peeople.   If you find Morris's racism and Tinkel's eugenic fantasies to be wrong and offensive, then you're on your way to a rational and Christian outlook.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

14 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Some Quotes from Kurt wise, some ten or fifteen years after he wrote the article you quoted... as I said in a previous post his views have changed over time, and the article you quote is from 1995.

Dr. Kurt Wise: Analogous to the situation we see in major groups; in major groups we see major groups of organisms coming into existence with gaps in the record and no fossils that connect that organism with any other organism. We see the same thing in the human record. Even if you accept Australopithecine in the lineage of man, as some people do, there is a big gap between Australopithecines, which are thought to be the ancestors to man, and whatever primate, ape or whatever, that Australopithecus supposedly evolved from.

Let's see... I can bellieve what Wise himself wrote, with a link to the creationist journal in which he wrote it, or I can believe an uncited claim on a message board about what he said.   Not much of a choice, is it?    Get a checkable link and we'll see what it actually says.   You didn't get a link where you read that, did you?   Can you guess why?

 

14 hours ago, omega2xx said:

If I were to be judged by what I believed in 1995 then you would see a far different debate, as Back then I believed in theistic evolution, and debated for that. My Views began to change in 1996/7 when I watched a video on the probability (Mathematically) of evolution, and the fact that no matter how many millions of years you have for life to evolve, the odds are non existent. That woke me up to the lie that had been pounded in my head from grade school on. Evolution is a mathematical improbability. 

That was your first error.   One does not "believe in" a natural phenomenon.   One accepts it or rejects it, based on evidence.

And let's take a look at the math you thought was so persuasive.    It says there's a huge improbability in getting the exact result we have today.   Which is very true, but it proves nothing.    Take a deck of cards, shuffle it carefully, and then deal them out one at at time, noting the order.    The likelihood of that hand is 1 divided by 52! or about 1.2 X10^-68.   So unlikely as to be effectively impossible.   And yet it happens every time.    If you calculate the likelihood of you, given the genes of your great-great-great grandparents, you get something nearly as unlikely.    So your creationist mentor has "proven" that shuffled cards and you are impossible.   Does that suggest why the creationist probability story is such a loser?

[dhchristian]

25 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Eugenics and racism are not "honesty"; they are, at best, poor thinking.   Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races, and Darwinists showed long ago that eugenic ideas would not work in practice.   As I said, it's not a coincidence that racism is most alive in areas where YE creationism is common.    It's purely racist to suppose that blacks are intellectually and spiritually inferior to other peeople.   If you find Morris's racism and Tinkel's eugenic fantasies to be wrong and offensive, then you're on your way to a rational and Christian outlook.

No I find their racism to be no more or less than that of Darwin. What I have seen is a maturation process with regard to the YEC creationists, to a theory that is totally devoid of racism. Whereas those in the evolutionary and Darwinist camp still hold to the favored species and descent of man teachings in their assumptions that Darwin espoused. 

In Other words, what the YEC theory has "evolved" into is totally devoid of this racism. What the Darwinists concede is that man can evolve into higher forms from where they are now and thus superior forms, making the old obsolete, thus the underbelly of racism still exists there. You now have technology to back this up with designer babies, gene editing, cloning etc. to make these "superhumans" along with transhumanism and the like, which is creating a class of humans who can afford it that are superior to the common man without any ethical or moral implications being considered, because this superhuman is said to be part of human evolution. The theory of Darwin is rotten in this respect. This is the same thing that eugenicists such as Margaret sanger, and aryan nation theories espoused by Hitler used to justify the killing of millions, and couple this with the whole man made global warming fiasco and soon they will be justifying the slaughter of all lesser humans who are producing CO2 into the environment and down you go into the same slippery slope we went into in the 1930's... and as the saying goes history will repeat itself if we forget that history.

In the 1940's we still had nations to stand against this sort of tyranny, But this last tyranny as foretold of in the Bible will be worldwide and "who is able to make war with him?"(Rev. 13:4) Then there will only be the tyrant and those who will go against him which will either be killed, or imprisoned and persecuted by him.... Think Hitler only worldwide. So the question I ask you is which side will you be on? Allegiances are already being made in this regard, and this whole debate is one of the arenas on which those allegiances are based, accepting the lie of climate change being the other. This is the reason why these debates matter to me, and should matter to you if you are a Christian.

God Bless. You can have the last word.