How Can We Improve Origins Theology > Creationism?

Omacron · Dec 4, 2005

I am happy that flames in this forum will not be tolerated no matter who posts them. Flaming is a way of hating and of hurting. I do beleave open debate is healthy and opens the road to understanding. I don't think it is important to God weather you beleave he created the universe 5000 years ago or 13.5 billion years ago. I do beleave it displeases him when people hate each other over the subject. When people do that they are not following Gods 2nd most important law. To love one another.

On the other hand I don't see the point of having a forum where only one side of an argument is allowed posts. Perhaps I missunderstand the purpose of this forum.

john crawford · Dec 5, 2005

Omacron said:
On the other hand I don't see the point of having a forum where only one side of an argument is allowed posts. Perhaps I missunderstand the purpose of this forum.

There are many different POV's within the creationist camp. For instance, some creationists favor and choose having Neanderthal ancestry as opposed to neo-Darwinist racial classifications like Homo sapiens and Homo erectus etc. In what neo-Darwinist 'species' would you consider yourself best labeled as?

Omacron · Dec 5, 2005

john crawford said:
There are many different POV's within the creationist camp. For instance, some creationists favor and choose having Neanderthal ancestry as opposed to neo-Darwinist racial classification, like Homo sapiens and Homo erectus etc. In what neo-Darwinist 'species' would you consider yourself best labeled as?

Brother, please look into your heart and consider the spirit in which you wrote this. Would God approve of your intentions?

I think if you would read my post again you would have the answer to your question.

Please have peace in your heart,and may God bless you.

john crawford · Dec 5, 2005

Omacron said:
Brother, please look into your heart and consider the spirit in which you wrote this. Would God approve of your intentions?

Genesis 6 gives us some preliminary insight into God's intentions for 900 year old Neanderthals and the "spirit" in which I write.

mark kennedy · Dec 18, 2005

Actually, Darwin's 'The Decent of Man' is rather racist. He claims that there are subspecies of humans which is nonesense. Modern evolutionists have abandoned this concept, at least formally. What they found was that genetically we are more simular to other races then we are to our own. The differences between men and women are actually greater then the ones between races. The way the X chromosome mutates being on of the primary reasons for this.

Darwin considered the Irish and Aborigines to the sub-species of humans. This is clearly racist and no self respecting evolutionist would dare suggest such a thing. Ernst Mayr suggested once that evolution was nessacary to overcome racism. He said that we have found that genetic differences occur in every human being, making them unique. Neodarwinism is nothing more then the blending of genetics and Darwinian natural selection. Scientists even have a way of measuring the selective coefficients through ratios like synonomous and nonsynonomous genes. Neodarwinism and Darwin's 'Descent of Man' are really two seperate issues, here is a little poem by a leading Darwinian.

The itenerate selfish gene
says many a body I've seen,
You think your so cleaver
but I'll live forever,
Your just a survival machine.

(Sean Dawkins, the Itenerate Selfish Gene)

Notice the emphasis is no longer on the races but on the genes.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Omacron · Dec 18, 2005

mark kennedy said:
Actually, Darwin's 'The Decent of Man' is rather racist. He claims that there are subspecies of humans which is nonesense. Modern evolutionists have abandoned this concept, at least formally. What they found was that genetically we are more simular to other races then we are to our own. The differences between men and women are actually greater then the ones between races. The way the X chromosome mutates being on of the primary reasons for this.

Darwin considered the Irish and Aborigines to the sub-species of humans. This is clearly racist and no self respecting evolutionist would dare suggest such a thing. Ernst Mayr suggested once that evolution was nessacary to overcome racism. He said that we have found that genetic differences occur in every human being, making them unique. Neodarwinism is nothing more then the blending of genetics and Darwinian natural selection. Scientists even have a way of measuring the selective coefficients through ratios like synonomous and nonsynonomous genes. Neodarwinism and Darwin's 'Descent of Man' are really two seperate issues, here is a little poem by a leading Darwinian.

The itenerate selfish gene

says many a body I've seen,
You think your so cleaver
but I'll live forever,
Your just a survival machine.

(Sean Dawkins, the Itenerate Selfish Gene)

Notice the emphasis is no longer on the races but on the genes.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Good point. I think people were more predisposed to racism in the past, than the people are of today, or I hope that is the case. But clearly all people, of the planet Earth today, are of one species. Just because there are some minor differances in the genetic makeup of one race to another, or from men to woman, doesn't make one better or superior to the other. They have only adaped over the years to different ecological niches. I think it is important for the scientists and theologians of today to carry out research with unbiased minds, and not with preconceived notions. Also, I think people, when arguing a point, shouldn't throw in statements or buzz words like "racist" or "homophobic" in order to bolster their argument. There may very well be no thoughts from the opposition concerning that and it only serves to inflame and make the discussion less valuable.

God bless you all.

david_x · Dec 18, 2005

Peace Please
1) Proven as in people have studied carbons half-life for millions of years to see how accurate it is. 2) ?WHAT? 3) Correct man wrote the Bible. But if that means its not true than i do not think your last post was true. 4)Mutations have been proven to cycle and mutated species always die out when the original gains a foothold. 5) Crazy for Christ! 6) Evolution is outdated and will be discarded like other man invented "truths."

john crawford · Dec 18, 2005

mark kennedy said:
Actually, Darwin's 'The Decent of Man' is rather racist. He claims that there are subspecies of humans which is nonesense.

Actually, it would be better for creationists if all our human ancestors were classified as Human 'subspecies' like "Homo sapiens sapiens" rather than as different and separate species under Homo which is how neo-Darwinist race theorists classify our distant ancestors as. For instance, instead of classifying Neanderthal, Heildleberg and Modern Man as:
Homo neanderthalensis ( a species)
Homo heidlebergensis (a species)
Homo sapiens sapiens (a subspecies); classifying Neanderthal Man as H. sapiens neanderthal and Heidleberg Man as H. sapiens heidleberg, would put all of our human ancestors on an equal subspecies footing with the neo-Darwinist subspecies of H. sapiens sapiens. Heidleberg Man, is, after all, still considered to be a form of early/archaic Homo sapiens, even by modern neo-Darwinist race theorists.

Modern evolutionists have abandoned this concept, at least formally.

They have simply replaced and substituted the old concepts of race and subspecies with unfounded claims and assertions that our distant human ancestors were actually different 'species' of humans than we are, which in my view is even more racist than considering Neanderthal and Heidleberg Man a subspecies of Sapient Man.

What they found was that genetically we are more simular to other races then we are to our own. The differences between men and women are actually greater then the ones between races. The way the X chromosome mutates being on of the primary reasons for this.

I don't trust anything geneticists say in support of neo-Darwinist race theories about Asian and Caucasian origins out of Africa.

Darwin considered the Irish and Aborigines to the sub-species of humans. This is clearly racist and no self respecting evolutionist would dare suggest such a thing.

Darwin, like modern neo-Darwinists ought to be gratefull to William King, the Irish anatomist who first classified our Neanderthal ancestors as Homo neandertalensis, an entirely different 'species' of human being than William King thought he was.

Ernst Mayr suggested once that evolution was nessacary to overcome racism. He said that we have found that genetic differences occur in every human being, making them unique.

Gee, what profound scientific insight into the true nature of humanity Ernst Mayr had. I could have told him that personality differences make every human being unique also. Ernst Haeckle had some other uses for evolutionism regarding gene theory.

Neodarwinism is nothing more then the blending of genetics and Darwinian natural selection. Neodarwinism and Darwin's 'Descent of Man' are really two seperate issues,

Darwin and neo-Darwinists alike all believe they share common ancestry with African monkeys and apes. How is that issue separate?

Notice the emphasis is no longer on the races but on the genes.

The Out of Africa gene theory claims that Asians and Caucasians descended from African people though. How is that not inherently racist?

david_x · Dec 18, 2005

Creationism also point to the fact that people all come from a central location. Perhaps the infamaous "Tower of Babble" is in Africa!

john crawford · Dec 18, 2005

Omacron said:
I think people were more predisposed to racism in the past, than the people are of today, or I hope that is the case.

Neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are just less overtly racist these days than in the past because the theoretical racism itself is camouflaged and hidden deep within the past. If I told you that all African people were wiped out in pre-history by a superior species of Caucasians who then took on African features, you would be well within reason to consider that a racist idea or notion. Yet, Neo-Darwinist race theorists claim the same thing in reverse with their Homo sapiens Out of Africa Replacement Model in which all former indigenous populations throughout all of Eurasia and the Middle East are driven into extinction. As a Caucasian descendent of former Neanderthal tribesmen, I resent my human ancestors being theoretically branded an extinct 'species' and totally exterminated by genocidal neo-Darwinist race theorists.

But clearly all people, of the planet Earth today, are of one species.

The descendents of Adam and Eve and Noah's three sons have always been one species. Only neo-Darwinist race theorists divide our common human ancestors into 'separate species.'

Just because there are some minor differances in the genetic makeup of one race to another, or from men to woman, doesn't make one better or superior to the other. They have only adaped over the years to different ecological niches.

What makes neo-Darwinists think they are so superior to human beings like Neanderthal and Heidleberg Man then, since those human ancestors of ours "only adaped over the years to different ecological niches" after a flood and during an Ice Age.

I think it is important for the scientists and theologians of today to carry out research with unbiased minds, and not with preconceived notions.

Good idea. Which one's aren't biased and don't have preconceived "notions," though?

Also, I think people, when arguing a point, shouldn't throw in statements or buzz words like "racist" or "homophobic" in order to bolster their argument.

Let's censor free speech, discussion and debate then, and limit our terminology and vocabulary to scientific buzzwords like "hominid," "hominoid," "Homo" and 'species" in order to further dehumanize the ancestral descendents of Adam and Eve.

There may very well be no thoughts from the opposition concerning that and it only serves to inflame and make the discussion less valuable.

It is only when the opposition has no thoughts concerning something and wants only to frame the discussion under their choice of issues and terms, that the discussion becomes less valuable.

john crawford · Dec 18, 2005

yoyogogo said:
Creationism is a load of balderdash. 1) Carbon dating shows fossils to be millions of years old. It has been proven to be accurate. 2) The sun burns due to nuclear reactions. It proves the solar system is billions of years old. 3) Man wrote the bible just as man wrote the Iliad fools. 4) Mutations 5) Creationists are 100% likely to be crazy. There is a direct correlation between Creationism and Americanism 6) Evolution!

Talk about flaming. You're in the wrong forum and section, pal, because your #3 point might not even be considered Christian and #5 is a an ad hominem psychological attack. Read before you leap into the fire next time. That's what your eyes are for.

http://www.christianforums.com/t793627-new-forum-creation-science.html

john crawford · Dec 18, 2005

david_x said:
Peace Please
1) Proven as in people have studied carbons half-life for millions of years to see how accurate it is. 2) ?WHAT? 3) Correct man wrote the Bible. But if that means its not true than i do not think your last post was true. 4)Mutations have been proven to cycle and mutated species always die out when the original gains a foothold. 5) Crazy for Christ! 6) Evolution is outdated and will be discarded like other man invented "truths."

If yoyogogo comes around again, just hit the 'report' icon since yoyogogo obviously belongs on another forum and has nothing positive or creative to contribute to this one.

Omacron · Dec 18, 2005

john crawford said:
If yoyogogo comes around again, just hit the 'report' icon since yoyogogo obviously belongs on another forum and has nothing positive or creative to contribute to this one.

I agree. He is just looking to get a reaction. Lets not reward him with one. But I do forgive him.

God bless.

david_x · Dec 18, 2005

5) Creationists are 100% likely to be crazy. There is a direct correlation between Creationism and Americanism

I'm not real big on America either but they are mostly the least creationist people.

Omacron · Dec 18, 2005

john crawford said:
Neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are just less overtly racist these days than in the past because the theoretical racism itself is camouflaged and hidden deep within the past.

The notion that Homo sapiens sapiens killed off the Neanderthal is not a racist ideology. It is a theroy. Also climate change was a factor in the Neanderthal's demise as well.

john crawford said:
If I told you that all African people were wiped out in pre-history by a superior species of Caucasians who then took on African features, you would be well within reason to consider that a racist idea or notion.

If it were a fact, I wouldn't consider it to be racist. I would just consider it to be a fact.

john crawford said:
Yet, Neo-Darwinist race theorists claim the same thing in reverse with their Homo sapiens Out of Africa Replacement Model in which all former indigenous populations throughout all of Eurasia and the Middle East are driven into extinction. As a Caucasian descendent of former Neanderthal tribesmen, I resent my human ancestors being theoretically branded an extinct 'species' and totally exterminated by genocidal neo-Darwinist race theorists..

I challenge you to prove that you have any Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in your cells. If you do, you would surely be an object of intense study.

john crawford said:
The descendents of Adam and Eve and Noah's three sons have always been one species. Only neo-Darwinist race theorists divide our common human ancestors into 'separate species.'.

I think perhaps there needs to be some clarification of a few words. The classification of our ancestory into different subspecies is not racist as you would suggest.

race[size=-1]1[/size] n.

A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution.
A genealogical line; a lineage.
Humans considered as a group.
Biology.
1. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
2. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.

spe·cies n. pl. species

Biology.
1. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. See taxonomy.
2. An organism belonging to such a category, represented in binomial nomenclature by an uncapitalized Latin adjective or noun following a capitalized genus name, as in Ananas comosus, the pineapple, and Equus caballus, the horse.

tax·on·o·my n. pl. tax·on·o·mies

The classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships.
The science, laws, or principles of classification; systematics.
Division into ordered groups or categories

john crawford said:
What makes neo-Darwinists think they are so superior to human beings like Neanderthal and Heidleberg Man then, since those human ancestors of ours "only adaped over the years to different ecological niches" after a flood and during an Ice Age. .

Neo-Darwinists freely admit that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man were human. It was only with the use of refined tool making (weapons), greater linguistic competence and cultural sophistication that tilted the competitive balance in favor of upper Paleolithic groups.

john crawford said:
Good idea. Which one's aren't biased and don't have preconceived "notions," though?.

Your statement is prejudiced. You assume all are biased. It would be fair to assume some are, but certainly not all.

john crawford said:
Let's censor free speech, discussion and debate then, and limit our terminology and vocabulary to scientific buzzwords like "hominid," "hominoid," "Homo" and 'species" in order to further dehumanize the ancestral descendents of Adam and Eve..

You are taking the book of Genesis to be a literal account of past events. I on the other hand consider it to be allegory. Would you have people shouting "FIRE" in a crowded building when there was no fire, in the name of free speech. None of the scientific buzzwords you mention are used to maliciously dehumanize the ancestral descendents of Adam and Eve. Either they are human, or they are not.

john crawford said:
It is only when the opposition has no thoughts concerning something and wants only to frame the discussion under their choice of issues and terms, that the discussion becomes less valuable.

I seek not to frame any discussion under my terms. I oppose the use of speech to put some one down. I don't like it when people say things on purpose to make others feel bad or uncomfortable. I really get the feeling that you are VERY hostile to any idea that is in contradiction to your own, or what you believe to be true. So, I will copy and paste something I wrote in another thread here to let you know how I feel.

Omacron said:
When I made this post, I didn't intend it to turn into a battling ground for opposing view points. I was mearly making a public statement of my faith. Once a man told me God would condem me to hell for believing we evolved. I disagree with that. I do think that the hatred and bad feelings caused by this subject is the the thing that may rob us of salvation. I read a lot of posts here and on other forums concerning this topic. I have read name calling and other things that are not in the spirit of what Jesus tought us. Are we not to love one another? How is name calling and hurting, loving? I can see people behind their keyboard, fuming over a view that don't fit in with what they have been taught sence they were a child. I can see the person who, to prove a point or some other reason, says an unkind thing. Is this in the spirit of Gods love? I think not. Don't butt your head against the wall trying to convince someone they are wrong. What's the point. Love them. Listen to them with a kind heart, even if you don't think they are right. In matters such as these, it really doesn't matter who is right or wrong. If they proved evolution was correct, or if God himself came down and affermed it one way or the other. What would you do then? Say, "naa naa, see I told you so". So what have you gained? You have gained nothing. Really you have lost. You have lost some of your soul to hatred and spite.

Please, my brothers and sisters, debate in the spirit of seeking understanding and knowledge. Let love and kindness guide your thoughts and actions.

May the peace and love of our lord Jesus fill you.

Omacron · Dec 18, 2005

I have read again and again in this forum that some of you think Neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are racist. If this is true, there must be some agenda in the minds of the Neo-Darwinists. Could someone please enlighten me as to the motives behind this great conspiracy. I fail to understand how it would be profitable.

Thanks in advance and God bless you all.

david_x · Dec 19, 2005

Has anyone noticed in history that the better suited a spices becomes, the shorter it lasts? Ex: Neanderthals were dummer than our ancestors, but they lasted as long as two or three different Homo genius people./ Egypt was the most powerful ancient kingdoms but has one of the shortest run times!

john crawford · Dec 19, 2005

Omacron said:
The notion that Homo sapiens sapiens killed off the Neanderthal is not a racist ideology. It is a theroy.

All right. It is a racist theory.

Also climate change was a factor in the Neanderthal's demise as well.

Neanderthal extinction as a species is also a racist theory since 900 year old Neanderthal Man simply reproduced and regenerated himself as 500 year old Heidleberg Man when his morphology changed due to climate change and a shorter life span.

I challenge you to prove that you have any Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA in your cells. If you do, you would surely be an object of intense study.

Since Heidleberg Man was our direct ancestor, we probably have more Heidleberg DNA in our cells than Neanderthal genes.

The classification of our ancestory into different subspecies is not racist as you would suggest.

Neo-Darwinists racially classify our ancestors as different 'species' altogether, not "subspecies."

Neo-Darwinists freely admit that Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man were human.

Cro-Magnon, yes - Neanderthal, no. If they were completely human they would be able to interbreed, no? Neo-Darwinists have to get rid of Neanderthal Man in order to include all humans today as descendents of African Homo sapiens. That's why neo-Darwinist theories are racist.

It was only with the use of refined tool making (weapons), greater linguistic competence and cultural sophistication that tilted the competitive balance in favor of upper Paleolithic groups.

Sure, sure. Natural selection in favor of certain races. Same old neo-Darwinist eugenics and racism set in paleolithic times.

You are taking the book of Genesis to be a literal account of past events. I on the other hand consider it to be allegory.

You are taking neo-Darwinist theory to be a literal account of past events. I on the other hand consider neo-Darwinist race theories to be allegory.

None of the scientific buzzwords you mention are used to maliciously dehumanize the ancestral descendents of Adam and Eve.

Neo-Darwinists mock and scoff at the idea of Adam and Eve being our ancestors and make every attempt to dehumanize modern men and women.

I really get the feeling that you are VERY hostile to any idea that is in contradiction to your own, or what you believe to be true.

Neo-Darwinists are very hostile to any idea that is in contradiction to their own, or what they believe to be true.

john crawford · Dec 19, 2005

Omacron said:
I have read again and again in this forum that some of you think Neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are racist. If this is true, there must be some agenda in the minds of the Neo-Darwinists. Could someone please enlighten me as to the motives behind this great conspiracy. I fail to understand how it would be profitable.

Since it can be very profitable to be a scientist of some sort, neo-Darwinists seek to make a science out of the origins of species which flatly rejects all other points of view as religious and thus not qualified to be included in their science. They seek political power in order to control the education of our children in public schools through the secular use of their so-called 'scientific' account of human origins. Creationists see neo-Darwinist theories as a modern form of religious myth perpetrated in the name of science for the sole purpose of advancing a secular agenda in public government and education. Evolutionary psychology is a modern form of mind control which seeks to suppress all other modes of thought and belief systems.

david_x · Dec 20, 2005

All right. It is a racist theory.

If we say that African-Americans were slaves to early european-americans it is not considered racist, it's considred truthful.

How Can We Improve Origins Theology > Creationism?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Natura non facit saltum

Active Member

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Well-Known Member

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Active Member

Active Member

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I So Hate Consequences!!!!

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency