God used Evolution to 'create' man

[dhchristian]

30 minutes ago, one.opinion said:

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Not to mention the full title of His Book, which the left likes to ignore:

“On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.”

This was a discussion about science for quite a few pages. What does “the left” have to do with anything?

That was not part of the conversation with you, but with Omega2xx, nor was it directed at you. it was an observation off topic and our discussion here. It is an observation from other times I have debated atheists, that the full title of Darwin's book really bothers them, especially the ultra leftists who are also crying racism. 

I Bring it up, because most were never taught the full title of Darwin's book in their Public school education, and this is typically a wake up call to them of the brainwashing done in Public schools/ universities, and gets them to think if they lied about this, what else was a lie. 

 

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, dhchristian said:

There is what I call definition madness in the camp. as soon as something comes up with a refutation, they alter their theory, so for example punctuated Equilibrium was a way to explain away the lack fossil records between "kinds".

YE creationist and PhD paleontologist Kurt Wise lists dozens of transitionals in a a number of series.   So you've been badly misled about the supposed "lack of fossil records between kinds."    Can you nane any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transitional form?   So far, no one's been able to show me one.   What do you have?

[The Barbarian]

6 hours ago, omega2xx said:

Agreed.  What is amusing is that Darwin was not a scientist, but the evolutionist have put their faith in him any way because they don't want to  believe in God. 

Darwin was elected to fellowship in the Royal Society, the most prominent scientific society in Great Britain.   His accomplishments in taxonomy of cirripedes and his discovery of the way Pacific atolls form would have made him one of the great scientists, even if he had never discovered the mechanisms of evolution.    And since Darwin himself attributed the origin of life to God, you've been completely misled about him and his qualifications.

Would you like me to show you any of this in some detail?

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, dhchristian said:

That was not part of the conversation with you, but with Omega2xx, nor was it directed at you. it was an observation off topic and our discussion here. It is an observation from other times I have debated atheists, that the full title of Darwin's book really bothers them, especially the ultra leftists who are also crying racism. 

"Races" is the term scientists used to use for "species."   No wonder you're so unhappy with Darwin.    In fact, Darwin was less racist than the average European of his day.   Would you like me to show you some of the reasons for that?

[dhchristian]

Just now, The Barbarian said:

"Races" is the term scientists used to use for "species."   No wonder you're so unhappy with Darwin.    In fact, Darwin was less racist than the average European of his day.   Would you like me to show you some of the reasons for that?

Looks like I struck a nerve. I Know this is not a source you care to read (AIG) but it does put this into perspective.

Darwin demonstrated how he believed evolution shaped man in his subsequent book The Descent of Man. In it, he theorized that man, having evolved from apes, had continued evolving as various races, with some races more developed than others. Darwin classified his own white race as more advanced than those “lower organisms” such as pygmies, and he called different people groups “savage,” “low,” and “degraded.”

Darwin wasn’t the first to propose biological arguments for racism, but his works fueled the most ugly and deadly racism. Even evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory” (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977).

https://answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/racism/did-darwin-promote-racism/

Read the entire article at the link. 

[dhchristian]

21 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

YE creationist and PhD paleontologist Kurt Wise lists dozens of transitionals in a a number of series.   So you've been badly misled about the supposed "lack of fossil records between kinds."    Can you nane any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transitional form?   So far, no one's been able to show me one.   What do you have?

A Quote from Kurt Wise:

Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate.^[8]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Wise

Actually, he teaches Bariminology, the following article is from RationalWiki, which is atheist in origin. 

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Baraminology

Most Young earth creationists teach baraminology, which is to say on Noah's ark there was a prototypical kind of the canine, which then diversified through microevolution into the various species of canines, etc. In Other words, there were not 30 million species male and female on the ark, but rather two archetype canines, and two archetype felines from which multiples species immerged by microevolution and adaptation. So what you say here is a false statement. There is no transition for example between canines and felines, Or between Humans and Apes. There is a prototype created "kind" such as Adam and Eve for Human kind, from which all diverse races of humanity come from.

[The Barbarian]

11 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Looks like I struck a nerve.

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?

[dhchristian]

30 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

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?

Actually I struck your nerve obviously.

Did You know Abraham Lincoln was a republican as well? Or did you know the abolitionists of the day were mostly Christians and "Creationists", or did you know the civil rights legislation of the 60's was voted for and supported by mostly conservative Christian republicans? And that most of the opposition came from southern democrats in congress? Did you also know that Robert Byrd was a leading democrat in the senate whom HRC idolized was a member (leader) of the KKK? This is all history the left is trying to rewrite, just like how you are trying to rewrite what the AIG people believed and taught. Sorry, I am not buying your lies and the attempts of the left to rewrite their own history as some sort civil rights angels. 

https://www.christianpost.com/news/ken-hams-answer-racism-believe-genesis-there-are-no-black-or-white-people-169214/

The fact is leftist regimes have been responsible for more genocide in the past 150 years or so since Darwin than total throughout History. this includes the communism of Russia, and China, as well as the Socialism of Nazi Germany, and  genocide of abortion. These are the fruit of Darwinism and Darwinian evolution, not the Christian mindset. all the religious wars that the left likes to blame the church for including the crusades and colonization pale in comparison to what transpired in the 20th century at the hands of leftist regimes and continue to this day.

They don't teach you this in history classes do they? Instead they try to make Hitler Out to be "right wing" when he was anything but, calling the Nazi's nationalist, and ignoring the fact that they were socialists. I Am not saying there are not racist overtones in modern theology, but rather that those racist tones tend to be found in the leftist churches. I Am not saying racism does not exist in the church on the right either, but in comparison to the leftist they are non existent. The church has been on the forefront of anti racism since John Newton wrote amazing grace, and abolitionists fought against slavery in the U.S. The racism of the modern age has found justification in the teachings of Darwin, not repudiation.   

[omega2xx]

15 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Darwin was elected to fellowship in the Royal Society, the most prominent scientific society in Great Britain.   His accomplishments in taxonomy of cirripedes and his discovery of the way Pacific atolls form would have made him one of the great scientists, even if he had never discovered the mechanisms of evolution.    And since Darwin himself attributed the origin of life to God, you've been completely misled about him and his qualifications.

Would you like me to show you any of this in some detail?

 

No matter what he accomplished, he wasn't a scientist and being elected to some, no matter how prominent it is, does not make one a scientist.

 

If he was such a great scientist, I would like you o how me one thing he said about evolution that has bee proved.  If you do this, please provide the science that makes it true.

[omega2xx]

16 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

YE creationist and PhD paleontologist Kurt Wise lists dozens of transitionals in a a number of series.   So you've been badly misled about the supposed "lack of fossil records between kinds."    Can you nane any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transitional form?   So far, no one's been able to show me one.   What do you have?

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

 

 So you've been badly misled about the supposed "lack of fossil records between kinds."   

 

Or you have been misled by those who need to have transitional fossils to try and reinforce the failed scienc2  of evolutionists.

 

Let me give you a quote from Ernst Mayr who some consider the dean of evolution from his book, "What Evolution is."

"Wherever we look At the living biota...discontinuities are overwhelming frequent.... The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record.  New species appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates(p, 189),

He      also say on p. 69, "The fossil record remains woefully inadequate."

 

Strephen Gould says basically the same thing.

 

Can you nane any two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, that lack a transitional form?   So far, no one's been able to show me one.   What do you have?

 

Easy.  Whale evolution and dino evolution.  For good measure I will give you one more---the evolution of man.

 

Peace and joy