[__ Science __ ] One of Evolution’s Most Famous Stories Gets a Rewrite

[Vaccine]

Actually, "races" in his day was applied to species of animal. Your misunderstanding made it on the list of AIG's "arguments we do not think creationists should make."

Show is that.

Regardless what you think, Darwin's title was "Favoured" races." In which Darwin wrote the most racist things I've ever read outside of the session papers.

 

[Vaccine]

Only the redeemed are given immortality.

Darwin's beliefs excluded certain humans from salvation. He believed certain humans couldn't think abstractly or had any self-consciousness. Which would preclude them from understanding the gospel or being given immortal life. We know today what Darwin believed was nonsense.

In some ways, humans can be genetically similar to plants, but that doesn't mean Mr. Potato Head is our ancestor.

Kidded by who and for what reason?

Darwin couldn't reconcile a good God with evil in this world. He wrongfully assumed God created a system of "natural selection" (survival of the fittest) to explain atrocities.
For instance starvation. The unsaved don't seem to understand that our good God gives us everything we need to to feed ourselves and expects us to share with the poor. It's easier for the ungodly to think of God as evil, instead of becomming more like him.
In fact our Savior proved "survival of the fittest" as science defines it isn't true.

Good points.

 

[Vaccine]

Comes down to evidence. Reality doesn't care what we wish.

That's funny considering how much evidence of Darwin's racism has been ignored in this thread.

 

[journeyman]

Darwin's beliefs excluded certain humans from salvation. He believed certain humans couldn't think abstractly or had any self-consciousness. Which would preclude them from understanding the gospel or being given immortal life. We know today what Darwin believed was nonsense.

The only people precluded from understanding are those who can't understand,

if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 1Jn.3:17

 

[Vaccine]

The only people precluded from understanding are those who can't understand,

if anyone has the world’s goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God’s love abide in him? 1Jn.3:17

True.

Also, Darwin was well aware what he was doing:
"Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." -Descent of Man

 

[Barbarian]

The fact is, we are genetically primates. Among the apes, we and chimps are more closely related to each other than either of us is to any other animal.

That's funny considering how much evidence of Darwin's racism has been ignored in this thread.

I get how much you want to believe it. But evidence still shows what it does.

The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

 

[Barbarian]

Tell that to people who who have evidence that a 3 day old dead body can't be reanimated. That's the gospel, regardless of mans' evidence.

You're just assuming that science rules out miracles. It can't. The very methodology of science makes it unable to assert or deny God. If you wanted to argue that man could reanimate a 3 day old dead human, science would show you that you're wrong. But if you said that Jesus miraculously rose from the dead after 3 days, science can't say anything at all about it.

But scientists can. We know that's true, even if science can't comment on it. The problem is your confusion, not any conflict between the supernatural and science.

 

[Barbarian]

In some ways, humans can be genetically similar to plants, but that doesn't mean Mr. Potato Head is our ancestor.

Chimpanzees are very close genetically to humans. Plants are much less close to us, but are genetically closer to humans than bacteria are. This doesn't mean humans evolved from chimpanzees or from plants. It merely means that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor much more recently than plants and animals diverged from a common ancestral eukaryote. In fact, genetic analyses give us pretty much the same family tree for living things that was first noted by Linnaeus hundreds of years ago, using anatomical data only.

Cool, um?

 

[journeyman]

True.

Also, Darwin was well aware what he was doing:
"Some of those who admit the principle of evolution, but reject natural selection, seem to forget, when criticising my book, that I had the above two objects in view; hence if I have erred in giving to natural selection great power, which I am very far from admitting, or in having exaggerated its power, which is in itself probable, I have at least, as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations." -Descent of Man

Darwin couldn't have had a good understanding of scripture, because the Bible portrays the weak as strong and Christ is the best example of that. What Darwin thought of as mighty was obliterated by the humble Messiah.

 

[journeyman]

The very methodology of science makes it unable to assert or deny God.

No it doesn', because scripture tells us people can know God exists by what he made. It says his attributes,

are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power Rom.1:20

Eternity stares us in the face daily. It's inescapable when we see creation this way,

I know that whatsoever God doeth, it shall befor ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him. Ecc.3;14

As far as science can determine, what is was always here in some form, but they don't fear the One who created it. Maybe because random selection makes people irresponsible.

If you wanted to argue that man could reanimate a 3 day old dead human, science would show you that you're wrong. But if you said that Jesus miraculously rose from the dead after 3 days, science can't say anything at all about it.

But scientists can. We know that's true, even if science can't comment on it. The problem is your confusion, not any conflict between the supernatural and science.

The problem is "christian" evolutionists can't accept the creation of life on earth as Gen.1 describes it because everything in Gen.1 is miraculous.
I have no problem with the supernatural creation of Adam from the ground, not from evolution.
It's scientific theory that is in conflict with the supernatural.

 

[journeyman]

Chimpanzees are very close genetically to humans. Plants are much less close to us, but are genetically closer to humans than bacteria are. This doesn't mean humans evolved from chimpanzees or from plants. It merely means that humans and chimps diverged from a common ancestor much more recently than plants and animals diverged from a common ancestral eukaryote. In fact, genetic analyses give us pretty much the same family tree for living things that was first noted by Linnaeus hundreds of years ago, using anatomical data only.

Cool, um?

I'm just glad none of my ancestors were turnips.

 

[Barbarian]

I'm just glad none of my ancestors were turnips.

Evidence indicates the last common ancestor of plants and animals (a protoctist) was about 750 million years ago. Turnips and people evolved a lot later.

 

[Barbarian]

The problem is "christian" evolutionists can't accept the creation of life on earth as Gen.1 describes it because everything in Gen.1 is miraculous.The very methodology of science makes it unable to assert or deny God.

No it doesn',

It does. Science is limited only to evidence from the physical universe. It's like plumbing, a method. Plumbing can't assert or deny God, either. But plumbers and scientists can. If this puzzles you, you're on the path to enlightenment.

because scripture tells us people can know God exists by what he made. It says his attributes,

are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power Rom.1:20

Yep. Plumbers and scientists, for example. But neither plumbing nor science can do it. If faith and the evidence of creation won't do it for you, neither science nor plumbing can help you.

As far as science can determine, what is was always here in some form, but they don't fear the One who created it.

That's the thing about methods; they don't fear or have any emotions about anything.

Maybe because random selection makes people irresponsible.

You're still having trouble distinguishing plumbing from plumbers.

The problem is creationists can't accept the creation of life on earth as Gen.1 describes it because they don't think God is powerful or wise enough to make a world in which the earth can bring forth life as He tells us it did.

I have no problem with the supernatural creation of Adam from the ground, not from evolution.

You just don't approve of the way God did it. God used nature to make Adam just as He used it to do almost everything else in creation. Only God directly gives each of us a living soul. That's the great miracle.

It's YE creationism that's in conflict with His creation. Fortunately, it's not a salvation issue. Creationists are no less Christians than the rest of us, unless they make an idol of creationism and insist that all Christians must believe it to be saved.

 

[Vaccine]

I get how much you want to believe it. But evidence still shows what it does.

The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man

Mostly I'm entertained by how anyone can cling to the misinterpretation of one quote, while ignoring several passages telling a different story:

"The variability or diversity of the mental faculties in men of the same race, not to mention the greater differences between the men of distinct races, is so notorious that not a word need here be said." --Descent of Man

"Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties." -Descent of Man

"natural selection could only have endowed the savage with a brain a little superior to that of an ape." -Descent of Man

"The chief causes of the low morality of savages, as judged by our standard, are, firstly, the confinement of sympathy to the same tribe. Secondly, powers of reasoning insufficient to recognise the bearing of many virtues, especially of the self-regarding virtues, on the general welfare of the tribe." -Descent of Man

"Nevertheless, at this early period, the intellectual and social faculties of man could hardly have been inferior in any extreme degree to those possessed at present by the lowest savages; otherwise primeval man could not have been so eminently successful in the struggle for life, as proved by his early and wide diffusion."-Descent of Man

"On the other hand, as Buchner has remarked, how little can the hard- worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses very few abstract words, and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence."-Descent of Man

There's one quote that almost sounds like he's aware of some equality, at least until we read the entire quote:
"Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races."
"The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man." -Descent of Man

So any similarity is unimportant in Darwin's view. The important thing is the majority of the quotes are Darwin's thoughts about how white people were superior to everyone else as far as physical and mental faculties. The idea Darwin thought otherwise is so preposterous it's.....well I'll just say I find it entertaining.

 

[Vaccine]

Darwin couldn't have had a good understanding of scripture, because the Bible portrays the weak as strong and Christ is the best example of that. What Darwin thought of as mighty was obliterated by the humble Messiah.

I see what you mean now about survival of the fittest. Our humble Messiah is risen indeed!

 

[journeyman]

Evidence indicates the last common ancestor of plants and animals (a protoctist) was about 750 million years ago. Turnips and people evolved a lot later.

I believe the evidence shows a common Creator who made things out of nothing around 7 thousand years ago.

 

[journeyman]

It does. Science is limited only to evidence from the physical universe. It's like plumbing, a method. Plumbing can't assert or deny God, either. But plumbers and scientists can. If this puzzles you, you're on the path to enlightenment.

Yep. Plumbers and scientists, for example. But neither plumbing nor science can do it. If faith and the evidence of creation won't do it for you, neither science nor plumbing can help you.

That's the thing about methods; they don't fear or have any emotions about anything.

You're still having trouble distinguishing plumbing from plumbers.

The problem is scientists wrongfully concluded that Adam was formed from other living things, instead of how God created him fully formed, but without life.....until God breathed into him.

The problem is creationists can't accept the creation of life on earth as Gen.1 describes it because they don't think God is powerful or wise enough to make a world in which the earth can bring forth life as He tells us it did.

You just don't approve of the way God did it. God used nature to make Adam just as He used it to do almost everything else in creation. Only God directly gives each of us a living soul. That's the great miracle.

It's YE creationism that's in conflict with His creation. Fortunately, it's not a salvation issue. Creationists are no less Christians than the rest of us, unless they make an idol of creationism and insist that all Christians must believe it to be saved.

The earth "brings forth" because God created living things to reprobuce.....after their own kind.

 

[journeyman]

I see what you mean now about survival of the fittest. Our humble Messiah is risen indeed!

Amen! What evolution proposes is completely contrary to what God says,

...my power is made perfect in weakness...
2Cor.12:9

 

[Barbarian]

The problem is scientists wrongfully concluded that Adam was formed from other living things, instead of how God created him fully formed, but without life.....until God breathed into him.

You're assuming that Genesis cannot be figurative, when the text itself tells us that it is.

The earth "brings forth" because...

God created it to do so. Adam's body was made by natural means, his soul was given directly by God.

 

[Barbarian]

Amen! What evolution proposes is completely contrary to what God says,

Since we observe evolution going on all around us, I'm pretty sure that God is right and you are wrong.