How Can We Improve Origins Theology > Creationism?

[john crawford]

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

lt's only truthful because it is historically documented whereas the Out of Africa theory of human evolution is only a racist theory which cannot be historically documented because it is theorized to have happened in 'pre-historic times' of which there is no record.

 

[david_x]

lt's only truthful because it is historically documented whereas the Out of Africa theory of human evolution is only a racist theory which cannot be historically documented because it is theorized to have happened in 'pre-historic times' of which there is no record.

so what your saying is that since only unchangeable evidence should be revered as false over humans writing. Let me remind you humans are capable of lies.

 

[john crawford]

so what your saying is that since only unchangeable evidence should be revered as false over humans writing. Let me remind you humans are capable of lies.

I'm not sure what your objections are then.

 

[david_x]

I'm not sure what your objections are then.

I just don't think people should be called racist just because they are interpreting historical evidence. (the historic hominids were racist, not the scientists.)

 

[Mathematician]

I Wanted To Know If Creationists Believe That Noah's Flood Was World-wide.
Does The Opposing Viewpoint Believe Noah's Flood As Local?

I Have A Hard Time Accepting The Earth Is Millions Of Years Old When God Uses Ordinal Numbers In The Beginnings Of Genesis. I Am Fascinated By The Gap Theory Which Is Different Than Hugh Ross Who Believes The Earth Is 4.5 Billion Years Old.

I Don't Care If A Person Believes If The Earth Was Created In Millions Of Years Or 7 Literal Days Or The Gap Theory But I Have A Problem With Someone Who Believes In A Local Flood Of Noah.

I believe the Flood was local.

Cain was driven off "the face of the earth." A millenia or two later, God destroyed "the face of the earth." That is, the Flood destroyed the land Cain was driven out of. Both noun phrases are the same. They are the same place.

 

[john crawford]

I just don't think people should be called racist just because they are interpreting historical evidence. (the historic hominids were racist, not the scientists.)

I'm not calling anyone racist, not even the authors of racial theories. I'm just saying that modern neo-Darwinist ideas about human origins are racist because they claim that Asians and Caucasians originated from an African woman.

"Hominids" is a neo-Darwinist racial term when applied to Christians, Jews and Muslims because it denies their origins from Adam and Eve, and artificially imposes an apish ancestry on them. That's pseudoscience, not science.

 

[john crawford]

I believe the Flood was local.

Cain was driven off "the face of the earth." A millenia or two later, God destroyed "the face of the earth." That is, the Flood destroyed the land Cain was driven out of. Both noun phrases are the same. They are the same place.

Obviously, from a simple reading of Genesis 4:14-17, Cain was either mistaken, exaggerating or just plain lying when he said he was driven "from the face of the earth," because he then went and dwelt in the land of Nod to the east of Eden and built the city of Enoch. Apparently, there was more to "the face of the earth" and all the cities in it which God later flooded than even Cain imagined.

 

[Omacron]

I'm not calling anyone racist, not even the authors of racial theories. I'm just saying that modern neo-Darwinist ideas about human origins are racist because they claim that Asians and Caucasians originated from an African woman.

"Hominids" is a neo-Darwinist racial term when applied to Christians, Jews and Muslims because it denies their origins from Adam and Eve, and artificially imposes an apish ancestry on them. That's pseudoscience, not science.

Excuse me, I think it is time for me to block you. I can't take this twisted logic any longer. I have tried to hold back, but am no longer able. Forgive me.

 

[mark kennedy]

I apologize that I have neglected the thread so long. In the future when there are posts made like the one by yoyogogo I would appreciate it if you would report them. I deleted it but I am going to let the responses to it alone for the time being.

That said, may I remind everyone that the purpose of this thread is to improve things on Creationism? Now, I agree that Darwin's theory expressed in The Decent of Man was largely racist but modern evolutionary theory is not, at least not entirely. We have learned that there are more differences within races then there are between them and this has enormous signifigance for creationism. World wide humans diverge by .1% and that is a population that is well into the billions. We don't speciate, we don't evolve is dramatic ways and we don't respond well to mutations. This argues stongly that human evolution is limited to some very specific changes like skin color and hair texture, digestion, immunity and that sort of thing.

John, listen to me for just a minute, evolution is not racist. Darwinian evolution predicted that there were subspecies of humans and that has been proven to be altogether false. Instead of getting all exercised about it I think creationists should be doing a victory dance. The Bible was right all along:

[BIBLE]acts 17:26[/BIBLE]

There is no difference between the various human families and the Bible was right all along. I think we should all be doing a little dance about now.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[david_x]

I'm not calling anyone racist, not even the authors of racial theories. I'm just saying that modern neo-Darwinist ideas about human origins are racist because they claim that Asians and Caucasians originated from an African woman.

sorry, but ithought there was a problem.:?

 

[john crawford]

John, listen to me for just a minute, evolution is not racist. Darwinian evolution predicted that there were subspecies of humans and that has been proven to be altogether false. Instead of getting all exercised about it I think creationists should be doing a victory dance. The Bible was right all along:

Acts 17:26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

There is no difference between the various human families and the Bible was right all along. I think we should all be doing a little dance about now.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Yes, I agree that we should all be doing a little victory dance in our own public schools right about now, but as long as neo-Darwinist race theorists are empowered by the state to deny the admission of Semitic genealogies into the academic curriculum on the basis of religious discrimination and to subsequently teach American students of Asian and Caucasian ancestry that their distant ancestors were Africans, I fail to see how you may substantiate the claim that modern neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution are not just as racist as Darwin's orginal ideas concerning human origins were, and wonder whose purposes such denials will ultimately serve.

The two main creationist websites have monograms on evolutionary racism and Marvin L. Lubenow contends that all theories of human evolution are racist in his 2004 edition of "Bones of Contention," which is a creationist assessment of the human fossils.

Keep in mind that we don't call any posters on Christian Forums racist, but only point out (with documentation) how all theories of human evolution have been inherently racist in context and application.

Peace, love and a Merry Christmas to all.

 

[mark kennedy]

John,

I asked Santa for this book and a couple of others but she got me clothes instead. But seriously, I found this exerpt in the google book search, I think it speaks volumes for the racist philosophy that dominated evoutionary theory during the first few decades of this century:

"Racism, as we would characterize it today, was explicit in the writing of virtually all the major anthropologists of the first decades of this centruy, simply because it was the generally accepted world view. The language of the epic tale so often employed by Authur Keith, Grafton Elliot Smith, Henry Fairfield Osborn and their contemporaries fieeded perfectly an imperialistic view of the world, in which Caucasioans were the most revered product of grand evolutionary march to nobility. Human progress through prehistory had, according to Keith been " a glorious exodus leading to the domination of earth, sea and sky. The same stirring tones are to be discerned in Osborn's championing of high plateaus of Central Asia as site of man's origins, his "rise to Panassus." It is not suprising, then that these men itnerpreted teh evidenly dominant position of the Causaion race as the natural product of evolutionary process." (Bones of Contention, Roger Lewin page 307)

In education the philosophy of evolution was transformed into a social theory. Evolution is about far more then biology and there is a reason that eduction is so deeply entrenched with Darwinian philosophy:

"Humanism and relativism were revitalized with the upsurge of the oppositions of false science called The Theory of Evolution. Since Darwin popularized that theory in 1859, the idea of evolution has infected other areas of men's thoughts including law and its interpretation, society and its rules of conduct, economics and more.

"John Dewey helped popularize the teaching of evolution since the idea of constant change reinforced his idea the foolishness of God and the Bible. Dewey believed in neither God or the Bible.

Since man was considered to have evolved from the slime, there could have been no fall of man from the perfection of Adam. With no fall of man, there would be no need for salvation. Thus evolution strikes at the root of Christian faith. "​

http://www.christianparents.com/jdewey.htm

They not only dominate public Universities and public schools, they have taken over many of our Christian Seminaries. Darwinism is far more then a scientific theory, in fact I don't think it even qualifies as a scientific theory. It is one long argument against special creation. I took a religious philosophy class and the religion that was being taught was nothing more then secular humanism. They start off by asking if atheistis can be moral, of course everyone is like, sure why not? Then at the end of the class the Professor says describes how the whole class was about secular humanism as a religious system. Evolution is more then a theory of origins, it has a broad sweeping social agenda that is subverting Christian theism.

I appreciate you not using ad hominem remarks John, I hate it when I have to field reports of creationists flaming members. In order to understand evolution you have to step way back and see the larger and deeper philosophy of secularism. I also appreciate your zeal and passion for the Word of God. The racist roots of Darwinism is not even the worst part, it is it's legal and social agenda that is permenantly opposed to Biblical theism that concerns me the most. If Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot be taught in our public schools then why is this antitheistic religion given a free pass?

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Grace and peace,
Mark

P.S. I found this and I thought you might find it of interest:

"A Neanderthal brain volume equals or exceeds modern human dimensions (Deacon, 1994), ranging from about 1200_1750 ml, and thus on the average about 100 ml larger than modern humans (Stringer and Gamble, 1993). Holloway (1985: 320) has stated "I believe the Neanderthal brain was fully Homo, with no essential differences in its organization compared to our own."

Although there is no direct correlation between brain size and intelligence, Neanderthal brain volume certainly does not support views that argue for an evolutionary expansion of "Hominid" brains...

...Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate. "

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=468

This guy, Homo Habilis, has a cranial capacity of 775cc, modern humans are aroung 1300cc.

"There is much debate as to the number of species that existed in Homo 2 million years ago"

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/hab.html

"In 1975, an almost complete cranium was found and then dated at 1.8 million years with a brain size of 880 cc...This boy stood more than 5 feet tall when he died, and would have exceeded 6 feet – had he lived to maturity. His cranial capacity was 880 cc and his body stature (tall, thin, long arms and legs) are typical of humans adapted to open, tropical environments."

http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Herectus.html

Now put it all together, how much did the brain grow in the 2.5 million years. It jumps from 880cc to 1300cc with virtually no transitionals in the middle. These are either apes are human beings and all would have to be understood in the context of their age, gender, and proportion of body to cranial capacity. Evolutionists don't like looking at the hominid fossils, the extraordinary evolutionary leap of the growth of the human brain is genetically impossible.

 

[john crawford]

I appreciate you not using ad hominem remarks John, I hate it when I have to field reports of creationists flaming members. In order to understand evolution you have to step way back and see the larger and deeper philosophy of secularism. I also appreciate your zeal and passion for the Word of God. The racist roots of Darwinism is not even the worst part, it is it's legal and social agenda that is permenantly opposed to Biblical theism that concerns me the most. If Creationism and Intelligent Design cannot be taught in our public schools then why is this antitheistic religion given a free pass?

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Grace and peace,
Mark

Merry Christmas and Prosperous New Year to you and your family also.

Since I share your concerns about the legal and socio-political agenda of both the secularists and pseudo-scientific neo-Darwinist supremacists, I am using the books of creationists like Jack Cuozzo and Marvin Lubenow who are experts on the Neanderthals, to make the case for their being our Noahic ancestors while also making a case against what may be perceived by creationists as a scientific form of racism in neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in and out of Africa.

... Neanderthals were human. They buried their dead, used tools, had a complex social structure, employed language, and played musical instruments. Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely minor and can be for the most part explained as a result of a genetically isolated people that lived a rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate. "

Yes, and the historic neo-Darwinist portrayals of them as grunting ape-men and troglodytes who couldn't speak are dehumanizing racial stereotypes.
http://www.jackcuozzo.com/speech.html

This guy, Homo Habilis, has a cranial capacity of 775cc, modern humans are aroung 1300cc.

Homo habilis is a false taxon consisting of mixed human and australopithicine fossils. - Lubenow.

"In 1975, an almost complete cranium was found and then dated at 1.8 million years with a brain size of 880 cc...This boy stood more than 5 feet tall when he died, and would have exceeded 6 feet – had he lived to maturity. His cranial capacity was 880 cc and his body stature (tall, thin, long arms and legs) are typical of humans adapted to open, tropical environments."

Turkana Boy's skeleton is anatomically modern and if his cranial morphology didn't have slight Neanderthal features, would be classified as Modern Man.

Now put it all together, how much did the brain grow in the 2.5 million years.

According to Cuozzo and Lubenow, (and Crawford too) the human body and brain have been historically devolving as a result of man's original sin and fall from grace, and his modern neo-Darwinist-Marxist-Freudian heart is still deceitfully wicked.

 

[john crawford]

I have a suggestion to improve our origins theology and theory. Whenever modern Darwinists refer to shared common descent, shared common origins, shared common features, shared common characteristics, shared common genes and shared common ancestry, why don't creationists counter with equally shared COMMON DESIGN?

The mere use of the term DESIGN will be enough to drive the Darwinists batty.

If they demand to know who the designer is or was, just tell 'em, 'designer genes."

After all, genes seem to have a programmed intelligence of their own, no?

 

[disciple777]

Rest assured brother, this is a Christian Forum but real restraint goes with the territory. There were a number of creationists that simply vanished from these forums and I think it was because they were treated badly, not by the staff but the way things happen in these debate forums. This whole issue is so difficult that people just get tired of it, deep down I think that is the whole stategy.

I simply won't tolerate creationists being harrased in this forum as long as I have the responsiblity to prevent this from happening here. I am tired of talking to evolutionists, their arguments don't interest me anymore. I want to see creationists expressing their views without the clamor of harsh criticism wearing them out.

Adam was made to work the Garden of Eden and one of his first tasks was to name the animals. I find it strange that creationists would ever be alienated from the life sciences, I think it an impossiblity. Don't get me wrong, if a theistic evolutionist wants to post a fellowship post, I have no problem with that. On the other hand, if a couple of creationists have points they want to argue, this is a good place for them to vent. I think creationists will post here if they know that they can do so without harsh and unprovoked debate. Like you say, we will see.

Any problems or questions feel free to PM me or report any post or poster that you think is out of bounds. By the way, I am toying with the idea of a sticky post (a permenant post at the top of the thread) that would outline what creationism should be in these forums. I would have to talk about it with the senior staff, obviously, but any thoughts along these lines would be welcome.

This forum has been set aside for Creationists only and I believe, that is how it should be used.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I wanted to send money. The system would not allow me to do so. Then, I also had several warnings. So, I have decided to leave the forum once for all. I will try to find another forum which will allow free exchage of ideas.