- Jun 4, 2013
- 10,132
- 996
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Widowed
- Politics
- US-Others
And yet refuse to classify us as the rest of the animal kingdom, using race instead of subspecies....
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And yet refuse to classify us as the rest of the animal kingdom, using race instead of subspecies....We can be animals and there can still be a distinction between humans and non-human animals and humans. Chimpanzees and barnacles are both animals, but I suppose that you can distinguish between them.
In what sense do you think there should be a distinction between humans and non-human animals? Obviously there is a distinction in their legal status and in their capacity for thought and learning. However, just to show that there is nothing new under the sun and that it has all been said before, I will quote from a book written more than 2000 years before Charles Darwin was born.
'For man is a creature of chance and the beasts are creatures of chance, and one mischance awaits them all: death comes to both alike. They all draw the same breath. Men have no advantage over beasts; for everything is emptiness. All go to the same place: all came from the dust, and to the dust all return' (Ecclesiastes 3:19).
Except the largest, most comprehensive and longest lasting experiment for evolution (dogs) completely falsifies you’re core beliefs, while supporting mine. Kind after Kind, and no significant change regardless of how many mutations occur at birth over the generations. But we do know how all the new forms in that Kind developed.An idea is tested by science by examining the empirical evidence, the logic used, and the results of testing. Belief in the existence in G-d has none of these features, so it has no scientific meaning. As such, no matter whether a scientist believes in the existence`G-d or not, it does not affect the science.
Ahh so0meone that understands the laws of thermodynamics. Even if they claim the genome is now 98% non-functional because of mutational error, refuse to accept the logical conclusion that it was therefore once more functional and following the laws of entropy has degraded over time....Pssst. It's falling apart. Little by little. Headed toward maximum entropy. Thermal equilibrium. Kaputniksville. Total ruin.
I don't know what you consider 'beautiful and coordinated,' but this 'beautiful and coordinated' place is headed for aitch in an aitchbasket.
It's not my home. I'm just a pilgrim here.
Agreed. The evidence points to Asian mating with Asian producing only Asian despite mutations. Of African mating wit African and producing only African despite mutations. That when Asian mates with African variation or new races (since we cant correctly call them subspecies) enter the picture.Evidence. Evidence is the currency of scientific credibility.
I prefer the Romulus & Remus myth, as opposed to your myth. Way more exciting.Only to those who perish. Adam was made with an intelligence like God's Gen 3:22 on the 3rd Day according to Gen 2:7. Prehistoric man was made the 5th Day from WATER. Gen 1:21 Eve was built from Adam's rib on the 6th Day. Gen 2:22 Humans and prehistoric people (sons of God) produced children together. Gen 6:4
Apes also came from water on the 5th Day. Gen 1:21 Your assignment is to tell us HOW Humans, made on the 3rd Day, could have possibly evolved from Apes, who were NOT made until the 5th Day. You cannot and that means that your view does NOT agree with Scripture, Science, nor History. IOW, it's as false as the ToE. Amen?
Homo sapiens follows the same binomial nomenclature we use for any other animal.And yet refuse to classify us as the rest of the animal kingdom, using race instead of subspecies....
Agreed. The evidence points to Asian mating with Asian producing only Asian despite mutations. Of African mating wit African and producing only African despite mutations. That when Asian mates with African variation or new races (since we cant correctly call them subspecies) enter the picture.
The evidence shows neither the Asian nor African evolved into the variation Afro-Asian.
So that they confuse the fact that every fossil found always stays the same, and new forms appear suddenly as meaning one evolved into the other is understandable, because they ignore how the Afro-Asian actually was produced.
I'd like to jump in on this one, if I may.
As an agnostic, I usually do not visit such forums because as an American, those beliefs have little to no impact on my daily life. I find their beliefs to be interesting, and will study them, but I see no need to debate them.
Christianity, however, is well-entrenched into the social fabric of this country, and there are those in power (and those who seek to acquire more power) who want it entrenched still further via force of law.
Personally, I try to have no issues with people's beliefs until they attempt to enforce them on others -- specifically, me.
Thats like refusing to accept dogs because its artificial selection, yet dont mind using artificially genetically spliced peas, or artificially mutated bacteria, etc, etc, etc......Interesting how evolutionists balk at using a car as an example against evolution -- since a car isn't biological -- but won't think twice about equating a flagellum with a mouse trap in a discussion on Irreducible Complexity.
No we dont. Except for dogs every other animal is split into subspecies, not races or breeds.....Homo sapiens follows the same binomial nomenclature we use for any other animal.
Have you ever googled how different ethnicities came to be? Do me a favor and show me the evidence instead of just telling me what you conclude from it.
We have, that's why those Asians stay Asians and Africans stay African and neither evolve into the Afro-Asian. You just refuse to bend is all.You would think they'd have learned something from observing God's creations -- the tree that does not bend, breaks.
this is just a genenal hierarchy. as we can find in vehicles (trucks, cars and so on):
(snip image)
is this suppose to be evidence for evolution too?
(image from Vehicles)
yes its is. since we can find shared traits in far groups, but not in some groups between them. so its non-hierarchy.
Yes, really, you simply refuse to accept emperical observation of how new forms arise.No, not really.
Interesting. Usually they argue against biblical accounts and what supporting evidence ffrom other sources. Then when given other sources complain its not from the Bible. interesting.VERY different.You link to an article that does not mention God, Noah, the middle east, any of that stuff, but present it as evidence for the flood myth in the bible.
You answered the question. You propose mutation when no new race has been observed to come about except by mating, regardless oif mutations at every birth. Interesting.Then how do you propose 'new races' came to be?
You refuse to say or provide any evidence.
You say an Asian and an African mating becomes an Afro-Asian - great!
Hmm, interesting. Where did you get the idea of cloned? Clearly God took half the chromosomes from that perfect genome and used it to create the woman. You know, half the chromosomes from the male, half from the female, make one flesh?WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND THE AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE WHEN ALL HUMANS, ACCORDING TO YOUR MYTHS, AROSE FROM A CLONED INBREEDING PAIR WITH 'PERFECT' GENOMES??????
I have, you just havent been paying attention.And where did Africans come from i your bible-based beliefs?
EXPLAIN how we got the "allies" associated with being African from a cloned inbreeding pair (Adam and Eve) without mutation.
From Noahs descendants.Right - the whole Asian+African=Afro-Asian.
WHERE DID THE ASIAN AND THE AFRICAN COME FROM IN THE FIRST PLACE?????
you are confused, I understand. No it is you that purposes if I randomly acquire a mutation it somehow becomes fixed in the entire population.So now you are arguing FOR mutations?
Whats this? Misrepresentation? Strawman nonsense? Shocking!
It is hilarious that you expend so much energy arguing AGAINST mutation-based change, and then argue FOR mutation when you are stuck.
You people are something else.
Yes we do. Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, distinct from the subspecies argued as our direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu. The distinction between modern extant humans you're referring to as "race" hasn't been formally recognized in science since the 80's.No we dont. Except for dogs every other animal is split into subspecies, not races or breeds.....
No. I'm not asking you what you know. I'm asking you what your evidence is. You say Asians only come from Asians and Africans only come from Africans. So, was there a first Asian? A first African? Or were there simply always people inhabiting these regions for as long as the regions have existed? What evidence do you have to support this?I know how they came to be, the same way the Afro-Asian comes to be, by the mating of different ethnicity's, not from the Asian or African evolving into the Afro-Asian. Oh, you meant in fantasy long ago versus how we actually observe it in real life. Just say you prefer to diverge to myth and ignore empirical observation.
Except the largest, most comprehensive and longest lasting experiment for evolution (dogs) completely falsifies you’re core beliefs, while supporting mine.
So even though we build all buildings in earthquake zones to look different, they still all share the same common engineering designs internally, correct?
You instead ask I believe those internal designs are random, based upon your view of the outside. But common design fits better, each is based on the same principle (to survive on earth) with slight modifications as per the buildings depending on their height and width, as life for their role in life.
Not formally recognized? Shall we go look at all the biology and medical papers that use the term race instead of your claims of not formally recognized?Yes we do. Modern humans are the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, distinct from the subspecies argued as our direct ancestor, Homo sapiens idaltu. The distinction between modern extant humans you're referring to as "race" hasn't been formally recognized in science since the 80's.
From Noah and his descendants. You on the other hand want me to believe what, that one evolved from the other through mutation? Even when Asian never becomes anything but Asian regardless of mutations over tens of thousands of years?No. I'm not asking you what you know. I'm asking you what your evidence is. You say Asians only come from Asians and Africans only come from Africans. So, was there a first Asian? A first African? Or were there simply always people inhabiting these regions for as long as the regions have existed? What evidence do you have to support this?
Diversity within the Kind, agreed. No one is disputing that, just your claim Kind can become other Kind through mutation. When regardless of how many mutations occurr, that has never been observed. Unless those arbitrary definitions you refuse to follow and want to do away with are arbitrarily applied to support your arbitrary claims.Hahaha, just so much no.
What selective breeding demonstrates is just how many changes (particularly to phenotype) are possible when extreme selective pressure is applied. Far from supporting creationists, it demonstrates how its possible to get considerable diversity over a (geologically speaking) relatively short period of time.
Diversity within the Kind, agreed. No one is disputing that, just your claim Kind can become other Kind through mutation.
Why wouldn't common design fit what we observe? If I make 100 different animals out of similar dirt, would they not all show similarities at the subatomic level that could be confused as sharing common ancestry? Even if each one was created separately? Then each Kind would diversify through mutation by phenotype within that Kind. None of which shows common ancestry, just mistakenly interpreted to mean this based on the fact the same designer created them from the same building blocks. You simply see shared ancestry when it is nothing more than from using the same building blocks to create everything.We're not talking about buildings. We're talking about living organisms.
So far no creationist on this forum is willing to offer up an explanation as to why "common design" (whatever that is) better fits the observed evidence with respect to diversity of living species. There's a whole lot of assertions, but nothing to back them up.
Kind - Biology-Online DictionaryConsidering that "kind" is not a recognized biologically defined term to begin with, your claim is completely moot.
Like evolutionists cant agree on the definition of species? Sort of like that? Your point being, since none of you can either, then will refuse to follow the very one you give? Didn't give much thought to that argument, did you.Even creationists can't seem to agree on a definition of the term.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?