Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[rightwinger]

Now you understand my contempt for the courts and atheists. A day of reckoning is coming.

God had it right.


Psa 14:1 To the Chief Musician. A Psalm of David. The fool has said in his heart, There is no God! They acted corruptly; they have done abominable works, there is none who does good.

Actually we’ve always understood the Christian right’s contempt for the Constitution and rule of law, in that it prevents you from codifying your dogma of ignorance and hate.

Has this country gotten better since since 1947 , where a few words in a letter from Jefferson were taken out of context ? That changed the history of this country and we have gone downhill ever since.

We are by far, a more "Christian" nation than we were in 1947. More tolerant of our fellow Americans regardless of race, religion, sex, disabilities and sexual orientation.

In fact, 1947 was the year Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier and set us on a path of increased tolerance

1947 was not a pleasant time if your were not white, male, christian and heterosexual.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually we’ve always understood the Christian right’s contempt for the Constitution and rule of law, in that it prevents you from codifying your dogma of ignorance and hate.

Has this country gotten better since since 1947 , where a few words in a letter from Jefferson were taken out of context ? That changed the history of this country and we have gone downhill ever since.

We are by far, a more "Christian" nation than we were in 1947. More tolerant of our fellow Americans regardless of race, religion, sex, disabilities and sexual orientation.

In fact, 1947 was the year Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier and set us on a path of increased tolerance

1947 was not a pleasant time if your were not white, male, christian and heterosexual.

Unfortunately the color barrier and civil rights should have taken place much sooner in our history,but once civil rights was dealt with we as a nation became to politically correct to our own demise.

Were there ignorant Christians yes but it was not just Christians that were ignorant. Didn't evolution make the claim black people were less evolved but we found out through genetics that was just baloney ? That happened back in darwins day if I'm not mistaken.

This countries morals were at a better state in the 50's vs now.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh and "Youwerecreated" has never even tried to answer my question of WHY do "christians" insist on preaching their scam to non-believers?

Why the constant preaching? Why not just leave people alone?

Why pretend you have some sort of proof of the existence of some Magic Sky Fairy when, clearly,

YOU

DO

NOT

have any such proof.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - You are most welcome to whatever gets you through the night. Believe what you wish and welcome to it.

But, why must you constantly try to shove your silly fantasies down the throats of others? Books and tracts and videos and pamphlets and SHIT.

I had the same idiot morms knock on my door TWICE this past Saturday. I closed the door in their faces and a while later, there they were, pounding on my door again.

When its not the damn morms, its some other wacko sect/cult. I even had one of you fools accost me in a park. I was tempted to slap her into the middle of next week.

Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy ... its all the same. You're already running a huge scam on taxes the rest of us have to pay for you. Can't you leave us in peace?

You are welcome to your nutty beliefs. Go handle snakes and speak in tongues and swoon and mutter and on and on and on Do what you want (Leave little kids alone. Go molest adults instead) , believe what you want but dammit, WHY must you rant and rave your nonsensical beliefs at other people?

This is your only post worth a response.If I really thought that Jesus Christ was a scam I would feel like you. Heck I once felt like you then I matured. We were asked to preach the gospels and the true sheep of God will listen.

God has been separating the sheep from the goats since Adam. I must ask you why if you're truly offended would you even reply to the thread ? do you need attention or something or could it be you feel a little guilty ?

Anyways no one is making you read or reply to the thread so I am at a loss for words why you posted what you did.

I notice no one is willing to step up to the plate and take a swing concerning genetics. None of you seem to know enough to defend your theory and explain to me how we are related to anything that is not a Homo Sapien.

Let's be honest, here. Your genetics information is nothing more than cliches' and slogans you scour from various creation ministries.

You should make every effort to aoid discussing science matters. The revulsion you and your creation ministries have for science causes you to promote the most outrageous and nonsensical claims that are not at all science fact.... more like warped creationist fantasy.

Take the issue on and please answer the questions

 

[Hollie]

This is your only post worth a response.If I really thought that Jesus Christ was a scam I would feel like you. Heck I once felt like you then I matured. We were asked to preach the gospels and the true sheep of God will listen.

God has been separating the sheep from the goats since Adam. I must ask you why if you're truly offended would you even reply to the thread ? do you need attention or something or could it be you feel a little guilty ?

Anyways no one is making you read or reply to the thread so I am at a loss for words why you posted what you did.

I notice no one is willing to step up to the plate and take a swing concerning genetics. None of you seem to know enough to defend your theory and explain to me how we are related to anything that is not a Homo Sapien.

Let's be honest, here. Your genetics information is nothing more than cliches' and slogans you scour from various creation ministries.

You should make every effort to aoid discussing science matters. The revulsion you and your creation ministries have for science causes you to promote the most outrageous and nonsensical claims that are not at all science fact.... more like warped creationist fantasy.

Take the issue on and please answer the questions

There's nothing to take on when you get your "science" from Harun Yahya.

What is curious is how atheistic evilutionist scientists have managed to perfom some interesting dna research on mammals now extinct.

DNA Extracted From Woolly Mammoth Hair

This is obviously a conspiracy among an international group of atheistic evilutionist scientists, but how do these conspiracies get published in peer reviewed science journals?

We know with certainty that a conspiracy is being perpetrsted. Dna from Mammoths and Mastadons which, as the conspiracy is configured, existed between 10 k and 50 k years ago. We know this is false because the planet is only 6 k years old.

Why aren't the creation ministries performing their own lab tests and doing field research to expose this latest conspiracy?

Could you email Ann Gauger and ask her to get on this? Maybe she and Doug Axe can phony-up some more green screened lab photos.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Let's be honest, here. Your genetics information is nothing more than cliches' and slogans you scour from various creation ministries.

You should make every effort to aoid discussing science matters. The revulsion you and your creation ministries have for science causes you to promote the most outrageous and nonsensical claims that are not at all science fact.... more like warped creationist fantasy.

Take the issue on and please answer the questions

There's nothing to take on when you get your "science" from Harun Yahya.

What is curious is how atheistic evilutionist scientists have managed to perfom some interesting dna research on mammals now extinct.

DNA Extracted From Woolly Mammoth Hair

This is obviously a conspiracy among an international group of atheistic evilutionist scientists, but how do these conspiracies get published in peer reviewed science journals?

We know with certainty that a conspiracy is being perpetrsted. Dna from Mammoths and Mastadons which, as the conspiracy is configured, existed between 10 k and 50 k years ago. We know this is false because the planet is only 6 k years old.

Why aren't the creation ministries performing their own lab tests and doing field research to expose this latest conspiracy?

Could you email Ann Gauger and ask her to get on this? Maybe she and Doug Axe can phony-up some more green screened lab photos.

Creationism has a model and it is supported by science hollie.

Presenting evidence for the Creation Science Model

Here is the end of the creationism model that is in blue that could not be read.

The creation model correctly predicted that the fossil record would show fully functional, "isolated" populations of organisms that resist change. Fossil evidence confirms the laboratory observations and predictions. The evidence supports the supernatural explanation for species.

Evolutionists insist that many unlimited, little changes over long periods of time amount to major changes. They cite as facts for evolution: mutation and natural selection. However, these are mere mechanisms for change. They do not indicate evidence of any kind for the amount of change that can occur.

With regard to the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection, Roger Lewin sums the conclusion of the Macroevolution Conference in Chicago writing, “The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” (Roger Lewin, Evolution Theory under Fire, Science, vol 210, 21 November 1980, p.883).

“One could argue at this point that such minor changes extrapolated over millions of years could result in macroevolutionary change. But the evidence will not support this argument…. Thus, the changes observed in the laboratory are not analogous to the sort of changes needed for macroevolution. Those who argue from microevolution to macroevolution may be guilty, then, of employing a false analogy—especially when one considers that microevolution may be a force of stasis, not transformation …. For those who must describe history of life as a purely natural phenomenon, the winnowing action of natural selection is truly a difficult problem to overcome. For scientists who are content to describe accurately those processes and phenomena which occur in nature (in particular, stasis) natural selection acts to prevent major evolutionary change” (Michael Thomas, “Stasis Considered”, Origins Research, Vol. 12, 1989, p.11).



Conclusion

The creation model offers a consistent and relevant explanation for observed phenomena and predicts that if all organisms were created each as a kind, subject to limited change, then the fossil record should show distinguishable populations of organisms. A search through the data of fossils shows attributes of population kinds easily distinguished from all other kinds. Organisms are fully developed, functional, and genetically isolated as kinds. No evidence of evolution from one kind of organism to another exists. Change is limited. Further, the mere probabilities against the natural evolution of different organism kinds favor the supernatural origin of kinds, and laboratory evidence supports limited change within each kind.

A good model is based on objectivity and scientific reasoning, and the creation model for supernatural origins of species upholds these values. Laboratory, fossil, and probability evidence supports the creation model’s theory that populations of kinds were created supernaturally: fully formed and functional. The evolution model cannot dissociate itself with obvious bias and controversy in its own ranks. Preference should be for models that explain known evidence not for models that substitute evidence with excuses for the absence of evidence. Because the creation model predicts fully formed fully functional organisms to be easily distinguished in the fossil record, the creation model both conforms perfectly to the data and is supported by the data.


http://www.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/presentation.htm

 

[Derideo_Te]

Has this country gotten better since since 1947 , where a few words in a letter from Jefferson were taken out of context ? That changed the history of this country and we have gone downhill ever since.

We are by far, a more "Christian" nation than we were in 1947. More tolerant of our fellow Americans regardless of race, religion, sex, disabilities and sexual orientation.

In fact, 1947 was the year Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier and set us on a path of increased tolerance

1947 was not a pleasant time if your were not white, male, christian and heterosexual.

Unfortunately the color barrier and civil rights should have taken place much sooner in our history,but once civil rights was dealt with we as a nation became to politically correct to our own demise.

Were there ignorant Christians yes but it was not just Christians that were ignorant. Didn't evolution make the claim black people were less evolved but we found out through genetics that was just baloney ? That happened back in darwins day if I'm not mistaken.

This countries morals were at a better state in the 50's vs now.

Your IGNORANCE is astounding. There is nothing in evolution that makes any such claim. You probably got that canard from one of your idiotic "creationist" sources.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I thought you said you don't read peoples minds ? Did you slip and hit your head ?

Why are trying to divert attention from your own unchristian comments?

Christians unfortunately commit sin and have forginess of that sin.

Must be nice to have a "get out of hell free" pass for every time you do or say something unchristian. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Or is that only for honest Atheists?

 

[Hollie]

Take the issue on and please answer the questions

There's nothing to take on when you get your "science" from Harun Yahya.

What is curious is how atheistic evilutionist scientists have managed to perfom some interesting dna research on mammals now extinct.

DNA Extracted From Woolly Mammoth Hair

This is obviously a conspiracy among an international group of atheistic evilutionist scientists, but how do these conspiracies get published in peer reviewed science journals?

We know with certainty that a conspiracy is being perpetrsted. Dna from Mammoths and Mastadons which, as the conspiracy is configured, existed between 10 k and 50 k years ago. We know this is false because the planet is only 6 k years old.

Why aren't the creation ministries performing their own lab tests and doing field research to expose this latest conspiracy?

Could you email Ann Gauger and ask her to get on this? Maybe she and Doug Axe can phony-up some more green screened lab photos.

Creationism has a model and it is supported by science hollie.

Presenting evidence for the Creation Science Model

Here is the end of the creationism model that is in blue that could not be read.

As expected, this is just a reiteration of boilerplate creationist nonsense.

I did expect that you would dump some extended cut and paste In order to avoid addressing the lies and dishonest tactics used by creationist charlatans. So in that sense, you are predictable.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We are by far, a more "Christian" nation than we were in 1947. More tolerant of our fellow Americans regardless of race, religion, sex, disabilities and sexual orientation.

In fact, 1947 was the year Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier and set us on a path of increased tolerance

1947 was not a pleasant time if your were not white, male, christian and heterosexual.

Unfortunately the color barrier and civil rights should have taken place much sooner in our history,but once civil rights was dealt with we as a nation became to politically correct to our own demise.

Were there ignorant Christians yes but it was not just Christians that were ignorant. Didn't evolution make the claim black people were less evolved but we found out through genetics that was just baloney ? That happened back in darwins day if I'm not mistaken.

This countries morals were at a better state in the 50's vs now.

Your IGNORANCE is astounding. There is nothing in evolution that makes any such claim. You probably got that canard from one of your idiotic "creationist" sources.

Not up on your history of the theory are ya ? Your ignorance knows no bounds.


The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White



The evolution of race was as simple as the politics of race is complex
By Gina Kirchweger

Ten years ago, while at the university of Western Australia, anthropologist Nina Jablonski was asked to give a lecture on human skin. As an expert in primate evolution, she decided to discuss the evolution of skin color, but when she went through the literature on the subject she was dismayed. Some theories advanced before the 1970s tended to be racist, and others were less than convincing.

Evolution: Library: The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White

Darwinism,Evolution,Racism

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Science - News - The Independent

The ape insult: a short history of a racist idea

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why are trying to divert attention from your own unchristian comments?

Christians unfortunately commit sin and have forginess of that sin.

Must be nice to have a "get out of hell free" pass for every time you do or say something unchristian. Whatever happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Or is that only for honest Atheists?

Hmm, you can have the same thing no one is perfect.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There's nothing to take on when you get your "science" from Harun Yahya.

What is curious is how atheistic evilutionist scientists have managed to perfom some interesting dna research on mammals now extinct.

DNA Extracted From Woolly Mammoth Hair

This is obviously a conspiracy among an international group of atheistic evilutionist scientists, but how do these conspiracies get published in peer reviewed science journals?

We know with certainty that a conspiracy is being perpetrsted. Dna from Mammoths and Mastadons which, as the conspiracy is configured, existed between 10 k and 50 k years ago. We know this is false because the planet is only 6 k years old.

Why aren't the creation ministries performing their own lab tests and doing field research to expose this latest conspiracy?

Could you email Ann Gauger and ask her to get on this? Maybe she and Doug Axe can phony-up some more green screened lab photos.

Creationism has a model and it is supported by science hollie.

Presenting evidence for the Creation Science Model

Here is the end of the creationism model that is in blue that could not be read.

As expected, this is just a reiteration of boilerplate creationist nonsense.

I did expect that you would dump some extended cut and paste In order to avoid addressing the lies and dishonest tactics used by creationist charlatans. So in that sense, you are predictable.

Is that not what you do ? You don't want to answer questions I will just take the easy way out and show the ignorance of your side.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Evolution as the means all species came into existence and uniformitarianism as the means the surface of the earth took form are not scientific reality but science fiction based on limited modern interpretation. With that in mind, both creationism and intelligent design are just as well thought out founded on Biblical principle.

 

[Hollie]

Creationism has a model and it is supported by science hollie.

Presenting evidence for the Creation Science Model

Here is the end of the creationism model that is in blue that could not be read.

As expected, this is just a reiteration of boilerplate creationist nonsense.

I did expect that you would dump some extended cut and paste In order to avoid addressing the lies and dishonest tactics used by creationist charlatans. So in that sense, you are predictable.

Is that not what you do ? You don't want to answer questions I will just take the easy way out and show the ignorance of your side.

As expected, you simply cut and pasted boilerplate creationist agenda.

It was a simple matter to review the credentials of Patrick Briney. As you should be aware, he is a YEC’ist and apparently just as angry and as self-hating as you are.

As was the case for Patrick Briney and for the rest of the Flat-Earth crowd, creationists just never provide any valid points at all. Briney offered nothing more than what is tediously carried in your arguments. It is time consuming to address the confusions, errors and lies inherent in creationist rhetoric, and not surprisingly, the actual content doesn’t include anything at all of genuine scientific interest. If Briney had a specific valid point in mind, he might like to bring it to a peer-reviewed journal which is the appropriate venue for considering such matters. But of course like all Christian creationist, Briney does no research, does no field work and provides nothing that the science community can address.

While YEC’ists / Flat Earth’ers such as you and the rest of the creationist cabal refuse to address the evidence, the processes of evolution leave behind large samples of evidence to be tested. By way of introducing you to the methods of science, researchers compare and contrast the features of living organisms and by doing so, we can see that genetic traits fall into a nested hierarchy of characteristics. This was known long before Darwin published, by the way. Scientists can examine the fossil evidence from stratified rock structures of different ages and it’s evident that skeletal structures have changed over time. Due to recent advances in biological sciences, scientists can now compare particular DNA sequences, immunology’s and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply that knowledge to existing knowledge of biology, genetics cell development, and so on, to obtain greater knowledge. Thus, it was no surprise that you made no attempt to address the article regarding dna samples from the Mammoth.

But of course, isn’t failing to address relevant issues that conflict with your fundie religious views precisely what you do?

If the theory of evolution was subject to any challenge, it would have been disproved over a century ago. There were more than enough tests performed and evidence collected by the early 20th century for there to be no significant doubt in biology that the theory of evolution accurately describes the diversity of life on Earth.

 

[Hollie]

Unfortunately the color barrier and civil rights should have taken place much sooner in our history,but once civil rights was dealt with we as a nation became to politically correct to our own demise.

Were there ignorant Christians yes but it was not just Christians that were ignorant. Didn't evolution make the claim black people were less evolved but we found out through genetics that was just baloney ? That happened back in darwins day if I'm not mistaken.

This countries morals were at a better state in the 50's vs now.

Your IGNORANCE is astounding. There is nothing in evolution that makes any such claim. You probably got that canard from one of your idiotic "creationist" sources.

Not up on your history of the theory are ya ? Your ignorance knows no bounds.


The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White



The evolution of race was as simple as the politics of race is complex
By Gina Kirchweger

Ten years ago, while at the university of Western Australia, anthropologist Nina Jablonski was asked to give a lecture on human skin. As an expert in primate evolution, she decided to discuss the evolution of skin color, but when she went through the literature on the subject she was dismayed. Some theories advanced before the 1970s tended to be racist, and others were less than convincing.

Evolution: Library: The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White

Darwinism,Evolution,Racism

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Science - News - The Independent

The ape insult: a short history of a racist idea

Happy to present your ignorance in a public forum, eh?

The theory of evolution makes no judgments about "race".

Not surprisingly, it is your Christian creation ministries which have promoted a slander regarding "Darwinism and racism".

CA005: Evolution and racism

Claim CA005:

"Evolution promotes racism."

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.


Response:
1. When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.


2. Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.


3. Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.


4.Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.


5. Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.


6. Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:

• George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,
The poor little fellow who went to the south
Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
And his mind became a blank.
In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).


• During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things,
that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).


• The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.


• Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).


7. None of this matters to the science of evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your IGNORANCE is astounding. There is nothing in evolution that makes any such claim. You probably got that canard from one of your idiotic "creationist" sources.

Not up on your history of the theory are ya ? Your ignorance knows no bounds.


The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White



The evolution of race was as simple as the politics of race is complex
By Gina Kirchweger

Ten years ago, while at the university of Western Australia, anthropologist Nina Jablonski was asked to give a lecture on human skin. As an expert in primate evolution, she decided to discuss the evolution of skin color, but when she went through the literature on the subject she was dismayed. Some theories advanced before the 1970s tended to be racist, and others were less than convincing.

Evolution: Library: The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White

Darwinism,Evolution,Racism

Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Africans are less intelligent than Westerners - Science - News - The Independent

The ape insult: a short history of a racist idea

Happy to present your ignorance in a public forum, eh?

The theory of evolution makes no judgments about "race".

Not surprisingly, it is your Christian creation ministries which have promoted a slander regarding "Darwinism and racism".

CA005: Evolution and racism

Claim CA005:

"Evolution promotes racism."

Source:

Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 179.


Response:
1. When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.


2. Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite.


3. Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has probably decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.


4.Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.


5. Although creationism is not inherently racist, it is based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry, and religious bigotry is no less hateful and harmful than racism.


6. Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism (Moore 2004), as is evident in the following examples:

• George McCready Price, who is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,
The poor little fellow who went to the south
Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
And his mind became a blank.
In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as degenerate humans (Numbers 1992, 85).


• During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things,
that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles' (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).
The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory (Esterhuysen and Smith 1998).


• The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.


• Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:
Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites (Morris 1976, 241).


7. None of this matters to the science of evolution.

You can't spin history monkey boy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evidently you did not read the words of racists evolutionists.

 

[Hollie]

Unfortunately the color barrier and civil rights should have taken place much sooner in our history,but once civil rights was dealt with we as a nation became to politically correct to our own demise.

Were there ignorant Christians yes but it was not just Christians that were ignorant. Didn't evolution make the claim black people were less evolved but we found out through genetics that was just baloney ? That happened back in darwins day if I'm not mistaken.

This countries morals were at a better state in the 50's vs now.

Your IGNORANCE is astounding. There is nothing in evolution that makes any such claim. You probably got that canard from one of your idiotic "creationist" sources.

Not up on your history of the theory are ya ? Your ignorance knows no bounds.


The Biology of Skin Color: Black and White



The evolution of race was as simple as the politics of race is complex
By Gina Kirchweger

Ten years ago, while at the university of Western Australia, anthropologist Nina Jablonski was asked to give a lecture on human skin. As an expert in primate evolution, she decided to discuss the evolution of skin color, but when she went through the literature on the subject she was dismayed. Some theories advanced before the 1970s tended to be racist, and others were less than convincing.

The following is what follows your abbreviated "quote". Something I've noticed with certainty is that just as your Christian creationist ministries will edit, falsify and parse "quotes", you employ the same dishonest and sleazy tactics.

The Biology of . . . Skin Color | DiscoverMagazine.com

No longer. Jablonski and her husband, George Chaplin, a geographic information systems specialist, have formulated the first comprehensive theory of skin color. Their findings, published in a recent issue of the Journal of Human Evolution, show a strong, somewhat predictable correlation between skin color and the strength of sunlight across the globe. But they also show a deeper, more surprising process at work: Skin color, they say, is largely a matter of vitamins.

 

[Hollie]

Evidently you did not read the words of racists evolutionists.

I did. Evidently you were again selectively editing "quotes". Once again, your sleazy tactics were noted.

Obviously, you offered nothing in the TOE that addresses "race".

Yet again, the Christian fundie will have to resort to more dishonest "quotes" to bolster his religious views. Is there a contradiction there? No, not for fundie whack-jobs.

 

[Hollie]

We are by far, a more "Christian" nation than we were in 1947. More tolerant of our fellow Americans regardless of race, religion, sex, disabilities and sexual orientation.

In fact, 1947 was the year Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier and set us on a path of increased tolerance

1947 was not a pleasant time if your were not white, male, christian and heterosexual.

Unfortunately the color barrier and civil rights should have taken place much sooner in our history,but once civil rights was dealt with we as a nation became to politically correct to our own demise.

Were there ignorant Christians yes but it was not just Christians that were ignorant. Didn't evolution make the claim black people were less evolved but we found out through genetics that was just baloney ? That happened back in darwins day if I'm not mistaken.

This countries morals were at a better state in the 50's vs now.

Your IGNORANCE is astounding. There is nothing in evolution that makes any such claim. You probably got that canard from one of your idiotic "creationist" sources.

I spent time looking for the data. Nowhere did I find any indication that, as stated by ywc:

"evolution make the claim black people were less evolved".


That must be because such judgments never were a part of the TOE. What a shame that ignorance is thought to be a virtue by some religious extremists.

 

[dblack]

I've never seen any pressing need to defend evolution, or otherwise produce an alternative naturalist account for the presence of life on Earth, as prerequisite for rejecting a given supernatural explanation. The basic concept of the supernatural makes any such explanation equally defensible, and equal dismiss-able. It's enough to say "I don't know, but your story sounds like bullshit." In other words, if you don't have compelling evidence to support your claim, there's no reason anyone should accept it, regardless of whether they have a 'better explanation' or not.