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]

Darwin never proved black African pygmies were some of the earliest evidence of evolution evolution.

It is vile to pretend to be that which you are not, only to play dumb (failing to understand provided definitions and still pretending to fail to not understand the quote function here) in an attempt to vilify a group of people.
Admit it Marke... you are an atheist posing as an ignorant Christian in order to make Christians look bad. Where did the Christian hurt you? Disingenuous/fake posters do not belong here and only sully debate.

From one unbeliever calling out another. Shame on you, the gig is up.

I've seen Marke in other Christian message boards for years, so unless someone is spoofing him specifically, I think that's legitimately him.

IMO what you're seeing is the result of something I've been saying for years now....it's impossible to advocate for creationism in an honest manner. Believing in creationism is one thing, but to actually go out and advocate for it requires so much denial of reality that it's just not possible to do so honestly.

Marke: I have been debating on forums for two decades. Defending creationism is easy, scientifically supporting evolutionism, abiogenesis, and the godless big bang theory is impossible.

[The Barbarian]

Darwin never proved black African pygmies were some of the earliest evidence of evolution evolution.

Never claimed they were. He did correctly predict that the first humans would be found to have appeared in Africa. But of course, they were nothing like !Kung people.

[The Barbarian]

BTW, it turns out that muntjac deer have a really variable number of chromosomes in different species. Something very interesting is going on in that subfamily...

Wen Wang, Hong Lan, Rapid and Parallel Chromosomal Number Reductions in Muntjac Deer Inferred from Mitochondrial DNA Phylogeny, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 17, Issue 9, September 2000, Pages 1326–1333

(Sigh) I had no idea this was the case. Lots of reading to do...

[marke]

Darwin never proved black African pygmies were some of the earliest evidence of evolution evolution.

Never claimed they were. He did correctly predict that the first humans would be found to have appeared in Africa. But of course, they were nothing like !Kung people.

Marke: Darwin drew distinctions between uncivilized human savages and civilized humans and implied that evolution progress would eventually witness the civilized humans wiping out the uncivilized savages.

Darwin, Racism and Eugenics - CultureWatch (billmuehlenberg.com) 7-6-20

DARWIN, RACISM AND EUGENICS
Posted on Jul 6, 2020

With a new woke war on racism, it is time to reconsider Darwin:

There is little doubt that by today’s standards, Charles Darwin promoted racist views. So when will all the woke activists, all the Antifa militants, and all the Black Lives Matter activists start pulling down every statue of Darwin that is out there?
For some reason I do not think we will see this happening any time soon. But the evidence for such claims is not hard to find. Simply read the full title of his most famous work from 1859, The Origin of the Species. It says this: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

And of course his second most famous work is The Descent of Man, originally published in two volumes in 1871. This book simply applies to humans what he had said about animals in his earlier work. One of the more alarming quotes found there is this:
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian [aborigine]and the gorilla.

[The Barbarian]

Marke: Darwin drew distinctions between uncivilized human savages and civilized humans and implied that evolution progress would eventually witness the civilized humans wiping out the uncivilized savages.

Darwin, Racism and Eugenics - CultureWatch (billmuehlenberg.com) 7-6-20

That's what was happening at the time. The difference is that Darwin and his fellows decried it as an evil thing. To be fair, some creationists like Samuel Wilberforce joined Darwin in opposing the destruction of uncivilized societies.

With a new woke war on racism, it is time to reconsider Darwin:

There is little doubt that by today’s standards, Charles Darwin promoted racist views. So when will all the woke activists, all the Antifa militants, and all the Black Lives Matter activists start pulling down every statue of Darwin that is out there?

Probably because Darwin opposed slavery, argued that every human being deserved freedom and dignity, and outraged creationists by saying that if "savages" were brought to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishman. He was correct.

On the other hand, well into the 1990s, prominent creationists like ICR co-founder Henry Morris was publishing racist nonsense about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. Many of them in some southern states were claiming that suppression of black people was God's will.

In the early 1960s, Henry Morris revolutionized the young earth creationist world with his seminal work, The Genesis Flood. Morris unleashed what is today referred to as a “creationist renaissance” and became the father of modern young earth creationism. He was also racist—and he grounded his racism in his young earth creationist beliefs.
...
"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”
(Henry Morris The Beginning of the World, 1998)

This is a problem. Silence is not enough. Young earth creationists need to acknowledge and disavow the racism of creationism’s founding father.

This silence is not healthy.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfe ... orris.html

For some reason I do not think we will see this happening any time soon.

But the evidence for such claims is not hard to find. Simply read the full title of his most famous work from 1859, The Origin of the Species. It says this: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

"Races" in Darwin's time, meant populations of living things, not man. You've been fooled on that. It was included in an Answers in Genesis article "Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use."

It's no longer possible to be a Darwinist racist, since evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races today. But at the very end of the 20th century, racist creationists were still blathering about how the "genetic character" of black people meant that they were innately inferior to white people. This is not to say that all creationists are racists. Many, if not most of them, have rejected the racist basis of YE creationism. But looking at the major creationist organizations, none of them have been willing to openly criticize Morris and his associates for their blatant racism.

This is a continuing stain on YE creationism.

[Jose Fly]

Marke: I have been debating on forums for two decades. Defending creationism is easy, scientifically supporting evolutionism, abiogenesis, and the godless big bang theory is impossible.

Exhibit A. Marke apparently believes not a single scientist who's ever existed can/could make a scientific case for evolution.

Is that an honest, truthful statement? Of course not.

Does such dishonesty bother creationists? Of course not.

[marke]

Marke: Darwin drew distinctions between uncivilized human savages and civilized humans and implied that evolution progress would eventually witness the civilized humans wiping out the uncivilized savages.

Darwin, Racism and Eugenics - CultureWatch (billmuehlenberg.com) 7-6-20

That's what was happening at the time. The difference is that Darwin and his fellows decried it as an evil thing. To be fair, some creationists like Samuel Wilberforce joined Darwin in opposing the destruction of uncivilized societies.

With a new woke war on racism, it is time to reconsider Darwin:

There is little doubt that by today’s standards, Charles Darwin promoted racist views. So when will all the woke activists, all the Antifa militants, and all the Black Lives Matter activists start pulling down every statue of Darwin that is out there?

Probably because Darwin opposed slavery, argued that every human being deserved freedom and dignity, and outraged creationists by saying that if "savages" were brought to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishman. He was correct.

On the other hand, well into the 1990s, prominent creationists like ICR co-founder Henry Morris was publishing racist nonsense about the supposed intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. Many of them in some southern states were claiming that suppression of black people was God's will.

In the early 1960s, Henry Morris revolutionized the young earth creationist world with his seminal work, The Genesis Flood. Morris unleashed what is today referred to as a “creationist renaissance” and became the father of modern young earth creationism. He was also racist—and he grounded his racism in his young earth creationist beliefs.
...
"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”
(Henry Morris The Beginning of the World, 1998)

This is a problem. Silence is not enough. Young earth creationists need to acknowledge and disavow the racism of creationism’s founding father.

This silence is not healthy.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfe ... orris.html

For some reason I do not think we will see this happening any time soon.

But the evidence for such claims is not hard to find. Simply read the full title of his most famous work from 1859, The Origin of the Species. It says this: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

"Races" in Darwin's time, meant populations of living things, not man. You've been fooled on that. It was included in an Answers in Genesis article "Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use."

It's no longer possible to be a Darwinist racist, since evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races today. But at the very end of the 20th century, racist creationists were still blathering about how the "genetic character" of black people meant that they were innately inferior to white people. This is not to say that all creationists are racists. Many, if not most of them, have rejected the racist basis of YE creationism. But looking at the major creationist organizations, none of them have been willing to openly criticize Morris and his associates for their blatant racism.

This is a continuing stain on YE creationism.

Marke: Evolutionists are wrong to assume God did not create all life on earth in ther beginning and Christians are foolish if they think blacks are inferior to whites.

[marke]

Marke: I have been debating on forums for two decades. Defending creationism is easy, scientifically supporting evolutionism, abiogenesis, and the godless big bang theory is impossible.

Exhibit A. Marke apparently believes not a single scientist who's ever existed can/could make a scientific case for evolution.

Is that an honest, truthful statement? Of course not.

Does such dishonesty bother creationists? Of course not.

Marke: Evolutionists admit they cannot disprove the Biblical record of God's creation yet they insist God did not create fully developed species of living creatures in the beginning.

[The Barbarian]

Marke: I have been debating on forums for two decades. Defending creationism is easy, scientifically supporting evolutionism, abiogenesis, and the godless big bang theory is impossible.

Exhibit A. Marke apparently believes not a single scientist who's ever existed can/could make a scientific case for evolution.

Is that an honest, truthful statement? Of course not.

Does such dishonesty bother creationists? Of course not.

Marke: Evolutionists admit they cannot disprove the Biblical record of God's creation

yet they insist God did not create fully developed species of living creatures in the beginning.

Since the Biblical record of God's creation is consistent with evolution, and specifically asserts abiogenesis, this is a problem for YE creationism, not science. Of course God never said that he created "fully developed species in the beginning. That's something YE creationists insert in His word to make it more acceptable to them.

[The Barbarian]

It's no longer possible to be a Darwinist racist, since evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races today. But at the very end of the 20th century, racist creationists were still blathering about how the "genetic character" of black people meant that they were innately inferior to white people. This is not to say that all creationists are racists. Many, if not most of them, have rejected the racist basis of YE creationism. But looking at the major creationist organizations, none of them have been willing to openly criticize Morris and his associates for their blatant racism.

This is a continuing stain on YE creationism.

Marke: Evolutionists are wrong to assume God did not create all life on earth in ther beginning

Darwin himself asserted that God created the first living things. Remember when I told you that not understanding the Bible and evolutionary theory would trip you up? I just did again.

and Christians are foolish if they think blacks are inferior to whites.

As you see, YE creationism is based on racism. But like you, many creationists have now rejected that fundamental assumption of YE creationism.