Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97882 Aug 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>Oh STFU. You lecturing us on evolution is the height of arrogance. You know damn little about the subject except what you read on your moronic fundie sites.

But thanks for solving my problem. You are pitiful.
http://creation.mo bi/evolution-is-inherently-rac ist

Evolutionary images affect the way you think of other people, even if you find the idea of racism abhorrent. They subconsciously influence you to associate dark-skinned people with animals.

That is why folk are stunned by real-life pictures of real-life people like the two-tone twins, born in the UK in April 2005. These two beautiful girls are twins, but one is ‘white’ and the other ‘black’. Personally, I think ‘white’ and ‘black’ are misleading terms and should be scrapped. I prefer to use ‘dark’ and ‘fair’.

This simple, factual image blasts the evolutionary stereotype. No longer can we connect skin colour with ‘primitive’ or ‘advanced’. It’s simply a matter of genetics—not evolution.

Both girls are fully human—both are made in the image of God.

It’s about time evolution was recognized for what it is—a degrading, racist, philosophy that is not supported by the scientific evidence, but by clever artwork. Don’t let them subconsciously turn you into a racist with their subtle evolutionary icons.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97883 Aug 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>Oh STFU. You lecturing us on evolution is the height of arrogance. You know damn little about the subject except what you read on your moronic fundie sites.

But thanks for solving my problem. You are pitiful.
CROSSROADS BIBLE COLLEGE, Ind.- Darwin's book on human evolution, The Descent of Man, revealed him as what John West calls "a virulent racist."
"He did write extensively about how evolution by natural selection creates unequal races, and that in the evolutionary scheme of things, blacks are the closest to apes," he explained. West is the author of Darwin Day in America.
"It's not just residual racism," he added. "He's using his scientific theory as a justification for racism and countless scientists after Darwin latched on to that."
Hosea Baxter directs reconciliation ministries at Crossroads Bible College. He says racism had always been around, but Darwin gave it an air of scientific legitimacy.
"Darwinism is one of the most dangerous ideas in the world today," Baxter claimed.
"Blacks and Native Americans would be portrayed as savages, ignorant or people who could not be civilized [and had] no hope of being civilized," he added.
Making Racism 'Popular'
Baxter works with Charles Ware. He and Ken Ham co-authored Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots. They contend Darwin did more than anyone else to popularize racism.
On the last page of his book, Darwin expressed the opinion that he would rather be descended from a monkey than from a "savage."
In describing those with darker skin, he often used words like "savage," "low" and "degraded" to describe Native Americans, pygmies and almost every ethnic group whose physical appearance and culture differed from his own. In his work, pygmies have been compared to "lower organisms."
One professor in the 1880s wrote, "I consider the negro to be a lower species of man and cannot make up my mind to look upon him as 'a man and a brother,' for the gorilla would then also have to be admitted into the family."
"Since blacks were somewhere in the evolutionary scale between apes and men, they did not have souls," Ware explained. "And since they didn't have souls, some argued,'We don't even have to preach the gospel to them.'"

http://m.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/February/Con...

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97884 Aug 17, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>Oh STFU. You lecturing us on evolution is the height of arrogance. You know damn little about the subject except what you read on your moronic fundie sites.

But thanks for solving my problem. You are pitiful.
Building a 'Better Breed'
Slavery and segregation kept the races apart, but maybe even more dangerous was how Darwin's theories led to active eugenics.
"[It's] the idea of trying to breed a better human being, often by trying to get the people considered defective not to be able to breed or have children," Baxter explained. "And this was a worldwide phenomenon but the U.S. really pressed it further than anyone else until Nazi Germany."
It led to the forced sterilization of 70,000 Americans, many of them blacks.
Then along came Margaret Sanger, founder of what would become Planned Parenthood.
"Margaret Sanger was very Darwinian and very much inspired by this overall idea," Ware said.
"Part of the impetus behind abortion was to annihilate the black race," Baxter added.
The 'Concern' of Interracial Marriage
There were also many laws to keep blacks from marrying whites. Baxter says lawmakers were made afraid by arguments in books like 1907's Race Mongrels.
"If we don't create this separation of the races, we're going to create this mongol race, this race of, say, retards," Baxter said of the book's content.
But Ware, the father of four interracial children, says that fear was ridiculous.
"People used to say interracial marriage is horrible.[That] it's going to destroy racial groups," he said. "It hasn't destroyed anything. We're still human beings."

http://m.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2009/February/Con...

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97885 Aug 17, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
<quoted text>If evolution does not happen, and a species cannot change, then where do different breeds of domestic animals come from? Did God make the chihuahua on the sixth day or is it a work of Man using the tool of selection?
Still confused on Kind I see.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97886 Aug 17, 2013
replaytime wrote:
This looks pretty cool.

If the Moon were replaced with some of our planets as close as the moon.

Day version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =usYC_Z36rHwXX

Night version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Thanks

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97887 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Still confused on Kind I see.
I know enough to say it is not a classification used by scientists.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97888 Aug 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>Is that the same Ken Ham who is in prison for tax fraud?
Until 2017.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97889 Aug 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>My mistake. You're correct.

I was thinking of Hammy's buddy, Kent Hovind.
Oops got me too

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97890 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Baxter works with Charles Ware. He and Ken Ham co-authored Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots. They contend Darwin did more than anyone else to popularize racism.
No, that would be the Bible that popularized racism.

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Leviticus 25:44-46

New International Version (NIV)

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97891 Aug 17, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>And even more shockingly, the only people who know this are a handful of American Protestant fundamentalist Christians who know nothing about science! Praise Cheeses! It's a miracle!
Scary isn't it?

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97892 Aug 17, 2013
If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97893 Aug 17, 2013
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#97894 Aug 17, 2013
I could go on if you want.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#97895 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Still confused on Kind I see.
Yes. That is because your side has never defined them properly.

Are bacteria a kind?

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97896 Aug 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. That is because your side has never defined them properly.

Are bacteria a kind?
Yes

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97897 Aug 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. That is because your side has never defined them properly.

Are bacteria a kind?
"Where are the "Biblical kinds" of animals defined?
One of the common creationist arguments, when confronted with evidence of what they call "micro-evolution", goes like this: "Sure, organisms can adapt to their environment -- like growing longer beaks or becoming resistant to poisons -- but they all stay part of the same 'kind'. I've never seen one animal give birth to another 'kind' of animal."

I've seen this argument on Askville, as well as other sites. But no one ever defines what the "kinds" of animals are, even when I've asked in discussions. Clearly, a "kind" is something different from a species, but what is it? Is there a list somewhere?

Is a liger a different "kind" from a lion and a tiger? How about mules, donkeys, and horses? Are all bacteria part of the same "kind"? How about different breeds of dog?(I've never seen two poodles beget a dachshund!)"

Biblical kinds are a broader category than species, yet that was not always the case ...
Genesis 1 gives us the general idea about Biblical kinds, defined or described according to reproduction. Adaptation and mutation allowed them to change and yet genetic information is not added. A bird does not turn into a elephant / dinosaurs do not evolve into birds. There are limits to adaptation which we observe in nature and in the fossil record.
resident

Portland, TN

#97898 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You never heard of the CIA?
Figures.
I bet they're watching you.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97899 Aug 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. That is because your side has never defined them properly.

Are bacteria a kind?
Part 2

Jonathan Sarfati explains this quite well -

"Creationists, starting from the Bible, believe that God created different kinds of organisms, which reproduced ‘after their kinds’(Gen. 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25). Thus the biblical kinds would have originally been distinct biological species, i.e., a population of organisms that can interbreed to produce fertile offspring but that cannot so breed with a different biological species.
But creationists point out that the biblical ‘kind’ is larger than one of today’s ‘species.’ Each of the original kinds was created with a vast amount of information. God made sure that the original creatures had enough variety in their genetic information so that their descendants could adapt to a wide variety of environments.
Based on the biblical criterion for kinds, creationists have made several deductions about the modern descendants of the original creations. They deduce, for example, that as long as two modern creatures can hybridize with true fertilization, the two creatures are descended from the same kind.3 Also, if two creatures can hybridize with the same third creature, they are all members of the same kind.4 The hybridization criterion is a valid operational definition, which could in principle enable researchers to list all the kinds. The implication is one-way—hybridization is evidence that two creatures are the same kind, but it does not necessarily follow that if hybridization cannot occur then they are not members of the same kind (failure to hybridize could be due to degenerative mutations). After all, there are couples who can’t have children, and we don’t classify them as a different species, let alone a different kind.
The boundaries of the ‘kind’ do not always correspond to any given man-made classification such as ‘species,’ genus, family, etc. But this is not the fault of the biblical term ‘kind’; it is actually due to inconsistencies in the man-made classification system. That is, several organisms classified as different ‘species,’ and even different genera or higher groupings, can produce fertile offspring. This means that they are really the same species that has several varieties, hence a polytypic (many type) species. A good example is Kekaimalu the wholphin, a fertile hybrid between a male false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a female bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), i.e., between two different so-called genera.5 There are more examples in reference 3.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#97900 Aug 17, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Yes. That is because your side has never defined them properly.

Are bacteria a kind?
Part 3

Biologists have identified several ways that a loss of genetic information through mutations (copying mistakes) can lead to new species—e.g., the loss of a protein’s ability to recognize ‘imprinting’ marks,‘jumping genes,’ natural selection, and genetic drift. When these mutations take place in small populations, they can sometimes result in sterile or nonviable offspring. Or changes in song or color might result in birds that no longer recognize a mate, so they no longer interbreed. Either way, a new ‘species’ is formed. Thus, each created kind may have been the ancestor of several present-day species.
But again, it’s important to stress that speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because it involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information.
The biblical model predicts rapid speciation
The biblical creation/Fall/Flood/migration model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because all the modern varieties of land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. In contrast, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the biblical model.
Biologists have identified several instances of rapid adaptation, including guppies on Trinidad, lizards in the Bahamas, daisies on the islands of British Columbia, and house mice on Madeira.6 Another good example is a new ‘species’ of mosquito that can’t interbreed with the parent population, arising in the London Underground train system (the ‘Tube’) in only 100 years. The rapid change has ‘astonished’ evolutionists, but should delight creationists.7 Scientific American admits as much.
These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches).[SA 80]
And why should creationists deny such things? All of this so-called microevolution is part of a created and fallen world, but has never been observed to add new genetic information. In fact, the sorts of changes which are observed are the wrong type to drive the evolutionary story.8 Scientific American is forced to make a pointless claim about evidence of ‘profound’ changes:
Natural selection and other mechanisms—such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis, and hybridization—can drive profound changes in populations over time.[SA 80]
Again, do these profound changes increase information? No—populations are seen losing information, and adapting within the constraints of the information they already have. In contrast, goo-to-you evolution requires something quite different—the progressive addition of massive amounts of genetic information that is novel not only to that population, but to the entire biosphere."

For the entire article see -

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2...

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#97901 Aug 17, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Still confused on Kind I see.
Not hard to be confused on a meaningless term. You don't really notice since confused seems to be your resting state.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 40 min -Lea- 7,012
Favorite Oldies Songs (Jun '10) 42 min johnny belinda 18,639
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 54 min wichita-rick 149,525
Google Wants to Search Your ... Bloodstream? 57 min Spotted Girl 5
Dave's bar and grill,is now open. (May '13) 1 hr Katie 5,307
Police: Teletubby break-in suspect faces charges 1 hr Spotted Girl 1
2 New York City Houses Go All Out With 'Party R... 1 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 1
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 hr -CatCiao- 22,505
Goats Milk with Princess (Jan '10) 4 hr Paisley_Posey 46,048
True or False Game 4 hr Old Sam 610

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE