Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[marke]

Marke: Evolutionists think life somehow poofed into existence but without God and with evolution, which is unscientific babbling nonsense.

You have some major misconceptions about the Bible and about science. That's curable, you know. Why not do some catching up and then come back and join the discussion?

Mothers bring forth children but mothers do not give children life, that comes only from God.

As God tells you, He created living things by having the nature He created, bring them forth. Why not just accept it His way?

Marke: What part of nature do you think brings forth new life without God? Do you think the Bible says nature brings forth new life without God?

Evolution is as dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to explaining how the extremely complicated process was supposed to have begun.

Pretty much like gravitational theory is as dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to explaining how the extremely complicated process was supposed to have begun. As you learned, evolutionary theory isn't about the way life began. The theory assumes that life began, and describes how it changes over time.

Marke: Humans study the facts of life and nature for greater understandings of God's creation.

You mention gravity yet unbelievers have no idea where or how gravity could have been formed in the beginning without God.

Not a problem for science, which only deals with the physical universe, not how it began.

Marke: Speculations and assumptions about life given by God are rarely accurate by those with biases against God.

When and how was DNA created?

God says it came from nature, as He intended.

Marke: God never said Darwin descended from apes.

You presume too much in error. Where does God say DNA was formed by a freak accident of nature after God created original life on earth?

The Bible says that He created the Earth to bring forth life. Why would you think that was a "freak accident?"
That's kind of disrespectful to God. But of course, God can use contingency just as surely as He can use necessity to do His will.

Marke: Plants and animals continue to bring forth new life after their respective kinds just as has been done since the beginning.

The Bible said God made different creatures after their kind to produce offspring after their same kind. Where does God say evolutionary or speciation changes would take place?

Same place He said that protons would be in the nucleus of atoms. Not everything that's true is in scripture.

Marke: No lies, like the lie of evolution, are taught in the Bible.

Of course evolutionists must take a system already created by God in order to assume natural selection took it stupidly and accidentally from there.

Darwin's great discovery was that it wasn't by chance. This goes back to your problems understanding science and scripture. Do some reading and you'll do better here.

Marke: What did Darwin discover was not by chance? God's creation of the universe or God's creation of Adam and Eve?

Has Darwin convinced you that speciation changes took place by intelligent design and not by chance?

No more than a market economy works by "intelligent design" or chance. Such things don't need either to be by chance or by design. You see, the universe is organized to produce living things with the capability of evolving new taxa. Pretty much like human economies are organized with the capability of efficiently allocating goods and services. Even if no one designed it.

Marke: Evolutionists cannot prove that God left everything to nature, chance, and blind luck after He created everything by great wisdom in the beginning.

God just created things that way. This is why engineers are copying evolutionary processes to solve very complex problems. God's way works better than design.

Did Darwin convince you that 'natural selection' has superior intelligence and miraculous powers to enact changes?

No more than a market economy has superior intelligence and miraculous powers. The "hidden hand" described by Adam Smith is mindless but efficient.

If so, why has natural selection not given mothers more hands in order to deal with large numbers of children and lazy husbands at the same time?

Excellent question. And Darwin had the answer. You see, even if we'd be better with four hands, primates couldn't evolve them, because the transitional forms would be maladaptive and therefore selected against. The transitional forms must at least not reduce fitness for any adaptation to evolve.

Marke: Did Darwin say why he thought the first humans to be formed by evolution without God were supposedly unintelligent uncivilized black Africans?

[The Barbarian]

Marke: Did Darwin say why he thought the first humans to be formed by evolution without God were supposedly unintelligent uncivilized black Africans?

Lots of errors there...
1. Darwin attributed creation to God (last sentence of On the Origin of Species)

2. Darwin did not say the first humans were unintelligent, nor did he say they were black. He did correctly predict that the first humans evolved in Africa.

3. It is true that the founders of YE creationism were inclined to say that blacks are genetically inferior in intellect and spirituality, but Darwin was not a YE creationist, nor did he believe such things.

4. Until about 9,000 years ago, even Europeans had dark skins.

Why not read up and learn about some of this, so that you can intelligently discuss the issue?

[marke]

Marke: Did Darwin say why he thought the first humans to be formed by evolution without God were supposedly unintelligent uncivilized black Africans?

Lots of errors there...
1. Darwin attributed creation to God (last sentence of On the Origin of Species)

Marke: Darwin's belief in God seemed contradictory to the Bible's depiction of God in the Garden of Eden.

2. Darwin did not say the first humans were unintelligent, nor did he say they were black. He did correctly predict that the first humans evolved in Africa.

Marke: Darwin referred to the earliest form of humans to evolve as 'savages' with limited understandings. Fellow evolutionists claimed the 'savages' first evolved in Africa and leading evolutionists in America caged black Africans with monkeys to showcase their views of early human evolution.

3. It is true that the founders of YE creationism were inclined to say that blacks are genetically inferior in intellect and spirituality, but Darwin was not a YE creationist, nor did he believe such things.


Marke: Christians who believe like I do have never believed God created humans from animals nor have we believed some humans are inferior to others. God created all men from the same blood having descended from Adam.

4. Until about 9,000 years ago, even Europeans had dark skins.

Marke: I have no way of knowing that for a fact nor do I believe it even matters.

Why not read up and learn about some of this, so that you can intelligently discuss the issue?

Marke: What book are you recommending me to read, the Bible or Darwin's book on the preservation of favored races of man?

[The Barbarian]

Marke: Did Darwin say why he thought the first humans to be formed by evolution without God were supposedly unintelligent uncivilized black Africans?

Lots of errors there...
1. Darwin attributed creation to God (last sentence of On the Origin of Species)

Marke: Darwin's belief in God seemed contradictory to the Bible's depiction of God in the Garden of Eden.

He said that God created the first living things from the Earth. Which is what God says. It's not what YE creationism says, but that's another thing entirely.

2. Darwin did not say the first humans were unintelligent, nor did he say they were black. He did correctly predict that the first humans evolved in Africa.

Marke: Darwin referred to the earliest form of humans to evolve as 'savages' with limited understandings.

"Savage" is of French origin, meaning "primitive", lacking civilization. And YE creationists generally have limited understandings of biology. Neither of these mean that YE creationists are black or unintelligent.

Marke: Fellow evolutionists claimed the 'savages' first evolved in Africa

Turns out they were right. Primitive humans evolved first in Africa, and only later spread to the rest of the world. Not just our species. All the other pre-sapiens species of human, as well.

and leading evolutionists in America caged black Africans with monkeys to showcase their views of early human evolution.

Which "leading evolutionists?" Can't think of even one. Darwin, before most creationists admitted it, argued that black people were fully human and deserved freedom and dignity. In his writings, he mentioned the exceptional intelligence of a number of black people. And yet, a hundred years later, YE creationists were writing bilge about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. Not all of them. Samuel Wilberforce, for example, was as opposed to slavery as Darwin was. And most YE creationists have repented their racism or at least abandoned the racist foundations of YE creationism. Decades ago, the Southern Baptist Convention formally apologized for their support of slavery and segregation.

It is true that the founders of YE creationism were inclined to say that blacks are genetically inferior in intellect and spirituality, but Darwin was not a YE creationist, nor did he believe such things.

Marke: Christians who believe like I do have never believed God created humans from animals nor have we believed some humans are inferior to others. God created all men from the same blood having descended from Adam.

Many, perhaps most, YE creationists would agree with you today. It would be wrong to blame all of them today for the racist foundations of their beliefs. The SBC, for example, moved on from their founding position. (Edit) To be fair, I should admit that doing so required an exceptional amount of courage and humility; that was a shining example of Christian character.

Until about 9,000 years ago, even Europeans had dark skins.

Marke: I have no way of knowing that for a fact nor do I believe it even matters.

It mattered to the founders of YE creationism. But as I pointed out earlier, not knowing about the issue is a mark of YE creationism.

Why not read up and learn about some of this, so that you can intelligently discuss the issue?

Marke: What book are you recommending me to read, the Bible

Yes. Accept it God's way. He brought forth life from the earth as Darwin pointed out.

Darwin's book on the preservation of favored races of man?

Yes. Darwin infuriated most creationists of his time by asserting that if one brought "savages" to England, the would be just like Englishmen in a few generations.

[Clownboat]

Marke: What book are you recommending me to read, the Bible or Darwin's book on the preservation of favored races of man?

I don't think that reading will help here unfortunately.
This poster has been informed many times now that evolutions has nothing to do with how life started and still is unable to comprehend this simple fact. Likely we will have to wait for people like this to die off while educating the next generation.

People, much like this poster also took issue with the earth not being the center of our solar system. Once those people were dead and the next generation was educated was the sun accepted as being in the center of our solar system.
(I debate for the readers though, so this posters struggles to understand matter not).

[Tcg]

Marke:

Genesis 1:12
And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 1:21
And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Genesis 30:39
And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.

Psalm 105:30
Their land brought forth frogs in abundance, in the chambers of their kings.

Matthew 13:7-9
King James Version
7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8 But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
9 Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Moderator Intervention

Please be advised of the following guideline for this subforum:

This subforum is designed to foster debate on issues which intersect science and religion. While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims.

viewtopic.php?p=1673#p1673

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[marke]

Marke: Did Darwin say why he thought the first humans to be formed by evolution without God were supposedly unintelligent uncivilized black Africans?

Lots of errors there...
1. Darwin attributed creation to God (last sentence of On the Origin of Species)

Marke: Darwin's belief in God seemed contradictory to the Bible's depiction of God in the Garden of Eden.

He said that God created the first living things from the Earth. Which is what God says. It's not what YE creationism says, but that's another thing entirely.

Marke: The Bible tells us that God created Adam and Eve as the first humans from whom all other humans descended. Darwin must not have believed that fact.

2. Darwin did not say the first humans were unintelligent, nor did he say they were black. He did correctly predict that the first humans evolved in Africa.

Marke: Darwin speculated that the first humans were formed in Africa, likely because he had no idea where the Garden of Eden was.

Marke: Darwin referred to the earliest form of humans to evolve as 'savages' with limited understandings.

"Savage" is of French origin, meaning "primitive", lacking civilization. And YE creationists generally have limited understandings of biology. Neither of these mean that YE creationists are black or unintelligent.

Marke: Fellow evolutionists claimed the 'savages' first evolved in Africa

Turns out they were right. Primitive humans evolved first in Africa, and only later spread to the rest of the world. Not just our species. All the other pre-sapiens species of human, as well.

and leading evolutionists in America caged black Africans with monkeys to showcase their views of early human evolution.

Which "leading evolutionists?" Can't think of even one. Darwin, before most creationists admitted it, argued that black people were fully human and deserved freedom and dignity. In his writings, he mentioned the exceptional intelligence of a number of black people. And yet, a hundred years later, YE creationists were writing bilge about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. Not all of them. Samuel Wilberforce, for example, was as opposed to slavery as Darwin was. And most YE creationists have repented their racism or at least abandoned the racist foundations of YE creationism. Decades ago, the Southern Baptist Convention formally apologized for their support of slavery and segregation.

Marke: Historical facts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga
St. Louis World Fair
American Museum of Natural History
Bronx Zoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ota Benga

Ota Benga (c. 1883[2] – March 20, 1916) was a Mbuti (Congo pygmy) man, known for being featured in an exhibit at the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri, and as a human zoo exhibit in 1906 at the Bronx Zoo. Benga had been purchased from native African slave traders by the explorer Samuel Phillips Verner,[3] a businessman searching for African people for the exhibition, who took him to the United States. While at the Bronx Zoo, Benga was allowed to walk the grounds before and after he was exhibited in the zoo's Monkey House. Benga was placed in a cage with an orangutan, regarded as both an offense to his humanity and a promotion of social Darwinism.[4]

African-American clergymen immediately protested to zoo officials about the exhibit. Said James H. Gordon,

Our race, we think, is depressed enough, without exhibiting one of us with the apes ... We think we are worthy of being considered human beings, with souls.[4]

Gordon thought the exhibit was hostile to Christianity and was effectively a promotion of Darwinism:

Hornaday considered the exhibit a valuable spectacle for visitors and was supported by Madison Grant, Secretary of the New York Zoological Society, who lobbied to put Ota Benga on display alongside apes at the Bronx Zoo. A decade later, Grant became prominent nationally as a racial anthropologist and eugenicist.[25]

It is true that the founders of YE creationism were inclined to say that blacks are genetically inferior in intellect and spirituality, but Darwin was not a YE creationist, nor did he believe such things.

Marke: Christians who believe like I do have never believed God created humans from animals nor have we believed some humans are inferior to others. God created all men from the same blood having descended from Adam.

Many, perhaps most, YE creationists would agree with you today. It would be wrong to blame all of them today for the racist foundations of their beliefs. The SBC, for example, moved on from their founding position. (Edit) To be fair, I should admit that doing so required an exceptional amount of courage and humility; that was a shining example of Christian character.

Until about 9,000 years ago, even Europeans had dark skins.

Marke: I have no way of knowing that for a fact nor do I believe it even matters.

It mattered to the founders of YE creationism. But as I pointed out earlier, not knowing about the issue is a mark of YE creationism.

Why not read up and learn about some of this, so that you can intelligently discuss the issue?

Marke: What book are you recommending me to read, the Bible

Yes. Accept it God's way. He brought forth life from the earth as Darwin pointed out.

Darwin's book on the preservation of favored races of man?

Yes. Darwin infuriated most creationists of his time by asserting that if one brought "savages" to England, the would be just like Englishmen in a few generations.

[The Barbarian]

Which "leading evolutionists?" Can't think of even one. Darwin, before most creationists admitted it, argued that black people were fully human and deserved freedom and dignity. In his writings, he mentioned the exceptional intelligence of a number of black people. And yet, a hundred years later, YE creationists were writing bilge about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. Not all of them. Samuel Wilberforce, for example, was as opposed to slavery as Darwin was. And most YE creationists have repented their racism or at least abandoned the racist foundations of YE creationism. Decades ago, the Southern Baptist Convention formally apologized for their support of slavery and segregation.

It is true that the founders of YE creationism were inclined to say that blacks are genetically inferior in intellect and spirituality, but Darwin was not a YE creationist, nor did he believe such things.

Marke: Historical facts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga
St. Louis World Fair
American Museum of Natural History
Bronx Zoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ota Benga

Ota Benga (c. 1883[2] – March 20, 1916) was a Mbuti (Congo pygmy) man, known for being featured in an exhibit at the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, Missouri, and as a human zoo exhibit in 1906 at the Bronx Zoo. Benga had been purchased from native African slave traders by the explorer Samuel Phillips Verner,[3] a businessman searching for African people for the exhibition, who took him to the United States.

So no "leading evolutionists?" We all know why, don't we? We have leading creationists claiming racism was God's will. And that's the big difference.

[Purple Knight]

I remember reading that thing about the pygmy put on display in the primate house and when people complained, they said he was just in there cleaning the cages.

I suppose it comes down to whether you throw the baby out with the bathwater if proponents of a theory end up being wrong about something. Back then, all anybody could go on was morphology, so they conclude crudely that a pygmy must be between a human and a chimp, which was a huge miss, as it would be if you found a whale fossil that still had stubby legs and said it must be the missing link between fish and land animals.

[The Barbarian]

I remember reading that thing about the pygmy put on display in the primate house and when people complained, they said he was just in there cleaning the cages.

I suppose it comes down to whether you throw the baby out with the bathwater if proponents of a theory end up being wrong about something. Back then, all anybody could go on was morphology, so they conclude crudely that a pygmy must be between a human and a chimp, which was a huge miss, as it would be if you found a whale fossil that still had stubby legs and said it must be the missing link between fish and land animals.

Thing is, pygmies are less apelike in morphology than Europeans. Likewise (and to a much greater extent) whales are less fishlike than amphibians.