Evolution and Santa Claus/ /Commonalities of Illusions

JohnR7

Well-Known Member
Feb 9, 2002
25,258
209
Ohio
✟29,532.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by Smilin
I'd agree with the money that's made off of the YEC movement.  Just go to the Christians book store and see how many are cashing in.

I would not advise anyone to go to a Christian Book Store. I went to one about a month ago. I went though about half the books there and could not find any christian books. I am sure there are a few in there, but they are so hidden by all the books where people are trying to make money off of the opinions of man that has nothing to do with the Bible.

It would even be hard to find a good Bible anymore. If you did not know what you were looking for. There are so many translations now, where people are trying to cash in and make money.

The only way to find a good book is for a old timer who remembers the good ones from before. So they can tell you what book to look for. Otherwise, they have done too good of a job to hide them.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟304,171.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by John MacNeil
Santa, that jolly old fellow who lavishly distributes gifts to all the world's children, is a concept that was built on a real person's goodwill. The story of Mr.Claus has a history in several cultures and he always was presented as a benefactor of goodwill and boundless joy! While the spirit of Santa was born of goodwill, the presentation of Santa has been kidnapped by the merchants and they flog his representation, and his reputation, shamelessly in their pursuit of easy money. The whole idea of Christmas is being subjugated by merchants, which is to say Big Business, in an attempt to turn it into a crass orgy of greed in which climate they make fully a third of their yearly profits. The spirit of friendliness and love that should permeate the season is gradually being overshadowed by corporate lust for profit, as is evidenced by the ever earlier start to the holiday buying season, which now has the corporations and merchants setting up their Christmas displays before Halloween.

Natural Selection, the scientific observation that species breed and pass on their better traits to their offspring, thereby, over extended periods of time and through succeeding generations, improving the efficiency of the species and the liklihood that succeeding generations would be better adapted to their environment and hence would be more likely to have a favorable survival rate, has been distorted by some people to make their Evolution Theory. They have, for corporate and political reasons, denied the existence of all evidence that casts doubt on their evolution theory, even though such evidence is in abundance and evidence for evolution is non-existant. The proponents of evolution, for personal and professional profit, advocate for their theory even though they know it is wrong and that it is, in the long term, detrimental to the formative thought of young people and to society in general.

The two theory began with altruistic motives, Santa Claus with spreading joy among the poor children, and natural selection with describing nature for science. The fact that both of them have been misused, and, indeed, abused, is a sorry commentary on the morals of society that they would let things advance to such a sorry state.

The one, Santa, seems like a harmless lie that is told to children in countries where conspicuous consumption is now the norm. A problem it creates is that the way it is marketed it turns children into mindless consumers of much that they don't need and it ingrains that consuming behavior into them and makes it all but inevitable that they will pass on that behavior to their children. If all children in the world shared in such goodwill and wealth, then perhaps it wouldn't be so harmful.

The young people who are indoctrinated with the make-believe theory of evolution, which is willfully expanded from the recorded scientific observations of natural selection, will believe in that theory as they believed in Santa Claus, even though there is no direct evidence to prove the theory. The corporate/science controls the belief in the theory by directing funding to favorable projects and complient researchers. They control the publishers and decide what will be written in text books and they thereby control the minds of the populace by controlling what they are allowed to learn. The ultimate aim is the same for controlling Santa Claus. And that aim is money and power.

Christmas and corporate/science are two of the largest grossing cash cows that the manipulators possess. In both, money is not the only objective. A corollary to the money is control of society, and that may be as important to the greedy people as the money, for it leaves the mainstream population susceptible to other manipulations. The big problem with such societal manipulations is that it doesn't allow science to advance apace of it's collective human knowledge, but it retards it and, as it's main focus, has it investigating lines of inquiry that are predetermined to return scant knowledge.

Well, that ought to do it. I'm convinced now. Evolution has just been debunked. Thank you for the breakthrough post, John. ;)
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by John MacNeil
There are teachers and professors who pass on the evolution belief to millions of student, each of which require text books and notebooks and all the other tools for the course. Virtually every child who goes to school or university will be exposed to evolution theory and they will be spending money on it. The government finances research and that is more money coming out of citizen's pockets to finance the theory. The people who work full time at writing, publishing, teaching or researching evolution number in the hundreds of thousand and they work year round. The money for their time and the products they produce and the tools they require ultimately comes from the consumer, and while it is not so obvious, it is consistent.

The people who endorse the evolution theory do so at the expense of all other theory that might try to explain our ecological organization. ... a theory that has no scientific explanation for how we, the modern humans on this planet, came to be as we are. Without giving people an explanation that describes the evolvement from Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon, or however they believe the change took place, 

Oh, boy, where to start? This is a variant of the "evolution is an atheist conspiracy".  Instead of atheism, you have substituted commercialism. Ask yourself, if evolution isn't correct, then how do you make money off it? Anyone making money off phrenology, phlogiston, or geocentrism?  The "motive theories" like yours are always advanced to get around the central issue: the data falsifies creationism.

First, evolution is not a belief.  There are evolutionists who are theists, evolutionists who are agnostics, and evolutionists who are atheists. If you find anyone teaching evolution as atheism, please tell us and the National Center for Scientific Education.  They should not be.

Second, remember that creationism was the reigning scientific theory prior to 1831.  If it was so good, then why did scientists (most of whom were also ministers) discard it? You can't have it both ways.  If scientists are so hide-bound and mercenary as you claim, they would have stuck to creationism.  After all, the various churches were paying their salaries!  If, on the other hand, scientists are flexible enough to follow the data, then they will follow the data of creationism now and abandon evolution.  The only way the history makes sense is if 1) scientists do follow the data and 2) the data falsified creationism and supports evolution.

Third, your last point.  Neandertals didn't evolve to Cro-Magnon. Both neandertals and H. sapiens (Cro-Magnon and us) evolved from H. erectus.  But, to answer your question, people are figuring out how this happened and the specific genetic changes that took place in the transformation. See the abstract of the paper below. If you want a .pdf copy of the full paper, just e-mail me...............................................................Molecular evolution of FOXP2, a gene

involved in speech and language
Wolfgang Enard*, Molly Przeworski*, Simon E. Fisher†, Cecilia S. L. Lai†,

Victor Wieb
e*, Takashi Kitano*, Anthony P. Monac& Svante Pa¨ a¨ bo** Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Inselstrasse 22,

D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
† Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics, University of Oxford,

Roosevelt Drive, Oxford OX3 7BN, UK
.............................................Language is a uniquely human trait likely to have been a

prerequisite for the development of human culture. The ability

to develop articulate speech relies on capabilities, such as fine

control of the larynx and mouth
1, that are absent in chimpanzees

and other great apes.
FOXP2 is the first gene relevant to the

human ability to develop language
. A point mutation in FOXP2co-segregates with a disorder in a family in which half of the

members have severe articulation difficulties accompanied by

linguistic and grammatical impairment
3. This gene is disrupted

by translocation in an unrelated individual who has a similar

disorder. Thus, two functional copies of
FOXP2 seem to be

required for acquisition of normal spoken language. We

sequenced the complementary DNAs that encode the FOXP2

protein in the chimpanzee, gorilla, orang-utan, rhesus macaque

and mouse, and compared them with the human cDNA. We also

investigated intraspecific variation of the human
FOXP2 gene.

Here we show that human
FOXP2 contains changes in amino-acid

coding and a pattern of nucleotide polymorphism, which

strongly suggest that this gene has been the target of selection

during recent human evolution.
 
Upvote 0

TheBear

NON-WOKED
Jan 2, 2002
20,646
1,811
✟304,171.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by eldermike
Who are the manipulators? Do we have names? I am not sure about this thread. Is there something that can be debated here? I missed it.

LOL!!! You are absolutely correct. There is nothing serious to be debated in this thread.

It's just good clean fun, (like Santa). :D
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟32,309.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
Originally posted by eldermike
Who are the manipulators? Do we have names? I am not sure about this thread. Is there something that can be debated here? I missed it.

LOL! The "manipulators" are the scientists who work in evolution and, supposedly, all the people who work on journals connected with evolution.  MacNeil overlooks the fact that, if creationism were a valid theory, all those people would still be working but the journal names would be different and the scientists would be working on creationism instead.  Instead of the Journal of Evolution, we would have "The Journal of Creation" or instead of Molecular Evolution we would have "Molecular Similarity of Design"

It's just another conspiracy theory to explain why scientists dumped creationism and accepted evolution.  After all, it can't possibly be the data, can it?  ;)
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
No offense meant, but...

Hypothesis: People just want to make money with evolution, by selling tons of books about it.

Hm, does that mean that the most often sold book in the world was written solely with the intent to make money?

(You know what that book is, don´t you?)
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mϋzikdϋde

Simply Fabulous
Sep 19, 2002
3,970
258
60
Colorado Springs
Visit site
✟20,525.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Originally posted by Smilin
My theory would be that if you take a dollar bill...wait long enough (several billion years...it will eventually turn into a nice retirement stassh)

 

 :D :D

(humor break people)

...or you can invest in stocks and prove that things really do magically disappear...
 
Upvote 0
It is nothing to be ashamed of, or no reason to be embarrassed, for the people who've stated they can't perceive anything worthwhile to discuss in this thread. All people are different from each other and every individual has their limitations, whether that threshold be physical or mental ability. It in no way detracts from a person's worth in a free society where all people are granted equal rights under the law. Everyone who contributes to society is performing some function that is necessary, even if that function is to have others help them, as that spreads goodwill both in the giving and in the example it sets for others, especially among the young who are always in need of witnessing good deeds.

For some reason, when the unexplained theory of evolution is mentioned, the evolutionists immediately bring up the creation theory as a counter argument. They imply that evolution theory can't be challenged as long as there is a belief by anyone of creation. I have not mentioned creation anywhere in this thread, before this paragraph, because I don't believe it has any place in this discussion. This discussion is not about creation in any way and I would appreciate it if everyone would refrain from bringing creation into this thread. There are plenty of threads already where creation has been introduced and I'm sure anyone who has anything more to say about creation can easily find a more suitable thread for it than this one.

The main thrust of this thread is to discuss how the beliefs in popular culture icons have been grossly abused to the point where they have affected society adversely. Subjects that have been introduced are of course welcomed to be discussed at length even if the discussion strays onto one topic or the other for an extended period, since you cannot know a subject well unless you are familiar with all it's parts. At some point the discussion will cover all aspects of the topics introduced, or at least that is the hope. You can never be sure with topics that are controversial because oftentimes some of the participants will feel offended and resort to attack posts, or they will run out of data and quit posting because they are too embarrassed to ask questions. Let's hope that nothing like that happens and that this thread continues on for a few pages, at least.

One marked step toward progress has been reached already as, for the first time that I know of, a believer in evolution has stated their position with conviction by stating that Homo Neanderthalensis and Homo Sapiens both evolved directly from Homo Erectus. That explains where the evolutionists have gone astray with their theory and I'm glad that can be straightened out with the known fossil evidence from the Smithsonian Institution.

In the Hall Of Human Ancestors, which I'll link to below, if you click on "Go To Human Family Tree" it will take you to "Early Human Phylogeny" and there you'll see a list of the hominid specimens. If you click on Homo Erectus it will show a picture of the specimen and give a timeline for it's presence on this Earth. The description will tell you that Homo Erectus was last known to have lived 50,000 year ago, in the same age category as Homo Neanderthalensis and just a bare 20,000 year before Homo Sapiens. This, of course, does not allow for natural selective time for a conversion into the better designed Homo Sapiens, and especially it doesn't allow for evolutionary changes into Homo Neanderthalensis, with which it co-existed. You can see for yourself when you go to this link;

www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/

The Homo Sapiens pictured in that link are so radically different from all of the other examples of hominid specimens that it is evident they possess loci clusters of genes for skull design that the other examples couldn't have possessed at any time. Stanford geneticist Neil Risch published a paper that proves each individual race of human on the planet possess loci clusters of genes that are different from all other races and which proves that black people can't change into white people and white people can't change into black people. The requisite genes are not transferrable from one race to another, which makes each individual race a separate species of human. Since there are two thousand or more known human species on this planet, then there would have to be that many different species of early hominid for all the known species of human to have evolved from for the evolution theory to have even a glimmer of hope of being close to being correct. But the Smithsonian display clearly shows there are only a couple of dozen ancient hominid specimens and they mostly occured sequentially in ancient history and not coincidentally as would be required for evolution theory to work in any form.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

chickenman

evil unamerican
May 8, 2002
1,376
7
42
Visit site
✟17,374.00
The requisite genes are not transferrable from one race to another, which makes each individual race a separate species of human.

also (re)read the paper by risch, it doesn't say anything about different genes, merely different frequencies of alleles for the same genes - the fact that the different races can interbreed means that under the biological species concept, they're the same species. The fact that we're so similar at both the phenotypic and genotypic levels means that we're also the same species under the typological and phylogenetic species concepts.
 
Upvote 0

MSBS

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2002
1,860
103
California
✟10,591.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
JM,

Since you ignored this in the other thread I'll repost:

From Evolutionary Biology, 3rd ed., by Douglas Futuyma, table 15.1 page 448:

Biological Species Concepts:

A species is a group of individuals fully fertile inter se, but barred from interbreeding with other similar groups by its physiological properties. (producing either incompatibility of parents, or sterility of the hybrids, or both). (Dobzhansky 1935)

Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups. (Mahr 1942)

Evolutionary Species Concept:

A species is a single lineage (an ancestral-descendant sequence) of populations or organisms that maintains its identity from other such lineages and which has its own evolutionary tendencies and historical fate. (Wiley 1978)

Phylogenetic Species Concepts:

A phylogenetic species is an irreducible (basal) cluster of organisms that is diagnosably distinct from other such clusters, and within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent. (Cracraft 1989)

A species is the smallest monophyletic group of common ancestry and descent. (de Queiroz and Donoghue 1990)

Recognition Species Concept:

A species is the most inclusive population of individual biparental organisms that share a common fertilization system. (Paterson 1985)

Cohesion Species Concept:

A species is the most inclusive population of individuals having the potential for phenotypic cohesion through intrinsic cohesion mechanisms. (Templeton 1989)

Ecological Species Concept:

A species is a lineage (or a closely related set of lineages) the occupies an adaptive zone minimally diffent from that of any other lineage in its range which evolves separately from all lineages outside its range. (Van Valen 1976)

Internodal Species Concept:

Individual organisms are conspecific by virtue of their common membership in a part of the genealogical network between two permanent splitting events or between a permanent split and an extinction event. (Kornet 1993)

Which of these definitions of the word species do you think supports your idea that race = species?  I take it that you will again fail to answer so I'll tell you-- none of these definitions supports your point.  There is a single species of humans, and the single species is of the genus Homo and has the specific epithet of sapiens.  This results in a species name of Homo sapiens.  There are no other living species of the genus Homo.  No others.  None.  Zero.  Homo sapiens is it.  There aren't two, nor three, nor four.  There is only one.  Certainly there are not 2,000. 

Your reading of the Risch paper is grossly in error.  This has been pointed out to you several times.  You are misrepresenting what Risch said in his paper, in fact, if you have actually read the paper, I will say that you are lying about it.  Your mocking tone, implicit insults, and arrogant stance make you appear all the more foolish as you continue posting things that are obviously in error.  Do yourself a favor and stop.  It's painful to watch.
 
Upvote 0
Sadly, as expected, some of those proponents of the evolutionary theory have failed to grasp the significant opportunity to discuss their evolution theory and instead attempt to divert the discussion to the clarification of terms. So that this can be clarified once and for all, I will type up the pertinent definitions;

--Species: a class of individuals or objects having certain distinguishing attributes in common, given a common name and comprised with other similar classes in a more comprehensive grouping called a GENUS --Webster's c.1999

--Race: any of the different varieties of human beings distinguished by a) physical traits such as hair, eyes, skin color, body shape, etc. b) blood types c) genetic code patterns d) all their inherited characteristics which are unique to their isolated breeding population --Webster's c.1999

These definition of race and species describe the same traits. The larger grouping is the genus;

--Genus: a major category in the classification of animals, plants, etc., ranking above a species and below a family: it can include one species or many similar species --Webster's c.1999

I didn't address this defining of terms earlier because I thought anyone who didn't understand how I used them would have the common sense to look them up and find out what they were. Apparently, the young evolutionists are so indoctrinated to being told what to believe that they lack the ability to do even the minimalist research for themselves.

A note about the phylogenic tree as portrayed by the Smithsonian Institution: The Smithsonian Institution endorses the evolution theory and their chart is printed to reflect that belief. That chart is therefore conjecturable supposition whereas the photographs of skulls are of recovered physical fossil evidence. I base my analysis on the physical evidence and not on the suppositional chart drawn up by the Smithsonian's artists.

When the skulls are studied for even a short length of time, it becomes glaringly obvious that the bone structure is radically different between Homo Sapiens and all the other specimens. If the Homo Sapiens evolved from any of the other represented specimens, then there would be numerous intermediate genetic variations required between the Homo Sapiens and any of those other skull. If such variant natural selective specimens existed before Homo Sapiens evolved to their present form, then we would have found evidence of them. But we have found no such evidence and what we know for sure, that is scientifically, is that Homo Sapiens are radically different than all other specimens. This tells us, realistically, without having to rely on any other theory or without having to view the evidence in any other way than scientifically, that the evidence does not support Homo Sapiens evolving from any other known fossil specimen found on this planet. Therefore the theory of evolution cannot be correct because we are the prime example that proves a disconnection from the stated belief of a continuous evolvement of all life on the planet from a single reference frame.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MSBS

Well-Known Member
Jul 29, 2002
1,860
103
California
✟10,591.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I give up. Your continued insistance on a novel interpretation of race make this discussion pointless. You are now saying that biologists have no idea what species or genus mean and insisting on definitions that are outside of common usage (so far as I can tell, you are the ONLY person that uses race and species in such a fashion). It has denigrated into a semantic argument because of this, and we have failed to "grasp this significant opportunity" because the thesis of your argument has no basis in reality. It's not arguable. Your definitions are wrong and therefore your argument meaningless.

From Merriam-Webster Online:

Main Entry: race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
Date: 1580
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <THE race English>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type

Main Entry: 1spe·cies
Pronunciation: 'spE-(")shEz, -(")sEz
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural species
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, appearance, kind, species, from specere to look -- more at SPY
Date: 14th century
1 a : KIND, SORT b : a class of individuals having common attributes and designated by a common name; specifically : a logical division of a genus or more comprehensive class c : the human race : human beings -- often used with the <SURVIVAL age nuclear the in species of>d (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name (2) : an individual or kind belonging to a biological species

Main Entry: ge·nus
Pronunciation: 'jE-n&amp;s, 'je-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural gen·era /'je-n&amp;-r&amp;/
Etymology: Latin gener-, genus birth, race, kind -- more at KIN
Date: 1551
1 : a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic; specifically : a category of biological classification ranking between the family and the species, comprising structurally or phylogenetically related species or an isolated species exhibiting unusual differentiation, and being designated by a Latin or latinized capitalized singular noun
2 : a class of objects divided into several subordinate species

It would do you some good to pick up a basic text on genetics, as your grasp of the subject seems to be a bit off.
 
Upvote 0