The Problem With Evolution Part 2- Animals

[The Barbarian]

12 minutes ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

Ok. So I'm not sure I see how creationism is racist. I understand what you're saying that you think the founders of modern creationism were racists. Even if that's 100% true, I don't think that makes the teaching itself racist.

It's not intrinsically racist.   Most creationists today have rejected the ideas of the founders of the movement.   Astonishingly, as late as 1999, one major creationist leader (Henry Morris) was still claiming that blacks were inferior to other races and were destined to be servants to them.

There's nothing at all racist to the notion that the "days" of Genesis 1 were literal days, or that each species was poofed into existence rather than evolved from other species.

[The Barbarian]

16 minutes ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

Evolution however IS very racist.

Actually, evolutionary theory debunked the idea of racism, showing that there are no biological human races today.   

By the 1930s, Darwinians like Punnett had debunked the racial claims of creationists like Henry Morris and William Tinkel.    Darwin's major difficulty with the creationist captain of the Beagle  was in his disagreement with the captain's belief (common among creationists of the time) that black people were happier and better off as slaves.

Even then, there were some creationists who agreed with Darwin on the essential humanity of all races.    The Anglican Bishop Samuel Wilberforce was a vociferous critic of Darwin's theory, but he agreed with Darwin on the idea that all humans were equal and deserved freedom and dignity as humans.   Wilberforce is most known today for having lost a debate to Thomas Huxley on evolution, when he unwisely asked Huxley on which side of his family there were apes as ancestors.    Huxley replied that he would rather have an ape as an ancestor than a gifted and intelligent person who would introduce that sort of statement into a scientific debate.

By the time Darwin had reached adulthood, however, opinions around him were growing more equivocal. During his vision-shaping voyage on the Beagle, he was able to consult an encyclopedia which arranged humankind into 15 separate species, each of a separate origin.

By the mid-19th-century, many influential voices denied that the enslaved African was a brother, and it was broadly taken for granted that as a man, he was of an inferior sort to his white master.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/did-charles-darwin-believe-in-racial-inequality-1519874.html

Darwin thought that some groups of humans were inferior.    For example, he felt that Englishmen were superior to Frenchmen.   But he also outraged creationists by arguing that if one brought "savages" to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen.    It was a cultural assumption, fueled by his observation that Feugian natives brought to England quickly adapted to English customs and manners (and reverted back once they returned to their homes in South America).

 

 

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

More nonsense and false accusation.  Moses recorded the book of Genesis.  Since we presume he believed it, Moses was a creationist. 

Here, you're merely assuming that your interpretation of Genesis is the correct one.  You've assumed what you proposed to prove.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I'm sure Adam believed God, which makes them BOTH creationists. 

Again, you've assumed that Genesis is entirely literal history, which the text itself refutes.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

When you put into writing an accusation that the foundation of creationism is racist, you are committing libel.

I'm merely noting that the founders of modern creationism were often racists.   Would you like me to show you again?    There's nothing intrinsically racist about creationism.   And as I pointed out, most creationists today have rejected the creationist ideas of the founders of the belief.

 

 

[TrueFollowerOfChrist]

2 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's not intrinsically racist.   Most creationists today have rejected the ideas of the founders of the movement.   Astonishingly, as late as 1999, one major creationist leader (Henry Morris) was still claiming that blacks were inferior to other races and were destined to be servants to them.

There's nothing at all racist to the notion that the "days" of Genesis 1 were literal days, or that each species was poofed into existence rather than evolved from other species.

Ok. Thanks for clearing that part up. I appreciate it. I've heard of Henry Morris and I know he wrote a lot of what modern creationism taught. I read Ken Ham, who may have been a student of Henry Morris. There's an interesting debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on YouTube. Very interesting viewing.

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It's not a good idea to alter a person's statement and then present it as something that person said.

You're confusing evolution with simple adaptation.  People who live in the desert regions tend to have larger noses, which helps process heated air.  It doesn't make them any different from light skinned people in the north who have little exposure to sunny hot days.  That demonstrates the dishonesty of your religion.  You claim that EVERYTHING is evidence of evolution, and that Genesis doesn't specifically state that man was created in God's image on day six.  It's simply not true.

[RV_Wizard]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Here, you're merely assuming that your interpretation of Genesis is the correct one.  You've assumed what you proposed to prove.

As a Christian I BELIEVE in the Bible as written.

Why don't you?  Every Bible verbiage you use to make your point is incomplete and out of context, completely disproved by simply reading the entire passage.  Study your Bible and God will reveal the truth to you.

[The Barbarian]

Here, you're merely assuming that your interpretation of Genesis is the correct one.  You've assumed what you proposed to prove.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

As a Christian I BELIEVE in the Bible as written.

You believe in your particular interpretation of it.   Every Bible snippet you use to justify your new interpretation is incomplete and out of context, easily refuted by noting that the text itself says it's not a literal account.   There could be no morning and evenings without a sun, after all.    

Read it with a mind open to whatever God has to tell you, and this will trouble you no longer.

 

Edited November 19, 2023 by The Barbarian

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You're confusing evolution with simple adaptation. 

You've just confused evolution with adaptation.   Two different things.

1. your skin getting darker from being in the sun a lot is adaptation but not evolution.

2. A mutation that changes the form of a protein without altering its function is evolution, but not adaptation.

3. A mutation that allows Tibetans to live at very high altitudes is evolution and adaptation.

Does that make it easier to understand?   Remember adaptation is a change that makes it easier to exist in an environment.    Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population.    Some evolution is also adaptation, such as the evolution of high-altitude tolerance in Tibetans.    It's evolution, because it's a change in the population genome.   It's adaptation because it makes them better fit to the environment.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

That demonstrates the dishonesty of your religion. 

Jesus told us that the world would hate and slander us.   He was right.

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You claim that EVERYTHING is evidence of evolution

If you feel the need to misrepresent what I claim, isn't that a clue that you might be wrong?

2 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

and that Genesis doesn't specifically state that man was created in God's image on day six. 

As you have seen, the "days" of the creation are not literal time periods but are aspects of His creation.    Since Jesus tells us that God is a spirit, and a spirit has no body, we are in His image in our minds and souls, not in physical appearance.  

Read Genesis with a heart open to God and whatever He wants you to know.    You'll find peace with Him, then.

 

[RV_Wizard]

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Here, you're merely assuming that your interpretation of Genesis is the correct one.

 

God said, (Exodus 20:8-11)

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Was He lying??

 

7 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

There could be no morning and evenings without a sun, after all.    

You've been prove wrong on this so many times you could be a White House press secretary.  All you need is a light source (present on day one) and a rotating planet, causing evening and morning.

Did you cut the words "Let there be light," out of your Bible as well?

[The Barbarian]

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

Was He lying??

No.   You were just trying to convert a figurative story into a literal history.  

There could be no morning and evenings without a sun, after all.  

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You've been prove wrong on this so many times you could be a White House press secretary.

You've  abandoned any attempt to make a believable excuse and are now merely in denial.  That won't help, either.

3 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

All you need is a light source (present on day one) and a rotating planet, causing evening and morning.

If that were true, moonrise would be morning.   Sorry.

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by The Barbarian