Racist Social Darwinism and the story of Ota Benga (The Rotten Fruits of Evolution)

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I understand you want to believe this, but of course it's not true. There's nothing whatever in Genesis that is inconsistent with evolution. How could there be? Evolution is God's creation.



It also says there were mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them. It's obvious passages like this that tell us it's not a literal account.



That's another misconception. God says to Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God tells the truth, then the death Adam brought into the world was not a physical one.



That was a particularly dumb mistake. No biologist would say that. But a chemist might, if he was entirely ignorant of biology, and Safarti seems to be.



Nope. Show me anywhere than PNAS has ever said that all changes in organisms are evolution. You won't find one.



Sorry, first two paragraphs, your guy made two laughable errors. That's all there is. If you think there's something therein that might be worth discussing, bring it forward, and we'll look.



The two I mentioned earlier. Safarti used to post on at least one message board. He's not very good at biology.

Actually, at the time he wrote the book, he was an orthodox Anglican, only later becoming agnostic. However, as you now see from Darwin himself, the origin of life is not part of his theory.



You should tell Safarti; he's been reminded numerous times, and still can't get it right. He does it, I think, because he's aware that nothing in Genesis rules out evolution, and we still don't know precisely how the earth brought forth life.



Well, let's take a look....
KJV - Doesn't say what you want it to.
Douay Doesn't say what you want it to.
NIV Doesn't say what you want it to.

What version is "right" in your judgement?



But you can't show that it is. Why is that?




But that's not what God said, is it? He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. If God is truthful, that death is not a physical one. Adam was always mortal; God even expresses concern that he might become so, and makes sure that he doesn't.



That is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you. It's not what God tells us.​



It's only inconsistent if you try to make it a literal history. If you read it plainly, you see that it's figurative.



Because as Christians have always seen, a literal history would not have mornings and evenings before a sun to have them.
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Kings 2:37-46 - New International Version This passage also says someone would die the day he disobeyed. He did disobey and didn't die until he went to Gath from Jerusalem and came back, which would take more than a day.

3 And God said,J)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-3J"> “Let there be light,” and there was light.K)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-3K"> 4 God saw that the light was good,L)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-4L"> and he separated the light from the darkness.M)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-4M"> 5 God calledN)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-5N"> the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”O)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-5O"> And there was evening, and there was morningP)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-5P">—the first day.
The light performed the same function as the sun. It is not illogical to have the mornings and evenings without the sun as long as you have light, since the role the sun plays is to provide light.

The NLT says 'If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die'

God only blocked access to the tree of life after they sinned and were expelled from the garden. Thus this doesn't contradict the literal interpretation. Also, if they were mortal before the fall, why didn't God put the angel to guard the tree of life there immediately?

What's PNAS? I don't think I ever referred to it.

Refuting Evolution chapter 2: Variation and natural selection versus evolution - creation.com
Please read 'Adaptation and Natural Selection' and 'The alleged evidence for evolution in action' and 'contrasting the models'

If you think evolution is true then I assume you think the days were long ages and Adam and Eve appeared long after the world was created?
 
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I understand you want to believe this, but of course it's not true. There's nothing whatever in Genesis that is inconsistent with evolution. How could there be? Evolution is God's creation.



It also says there were mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them. It's obvious passages like this that tell us it's not a literal account.



That's another misconception. God says to Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God tells the truth, then the death Adam brought into the world was not a physical one.



That was a particularly dumb mistake. No biologist would say that. But a chemist might, if he was entirely ignorant of biology, and Safarti seems to be.



Nope. Show me anywhere than PNAS has ever said that all changes in organisms are evolution. You won't find one.



Sorry, first two paragraphs, your guy made two laughable errors. That's all there is. If you think there's something therein that might be worth discussing, bring it forward, and we'll look.



The two I mentioned earlier. Safarti used to post on at least one message board. He's not very good at biology.

Actually, at the time he wrote the book, he was an orthodox Anglican, only later becoming agnostic. However, as you now see from Darwin himself, the origin of life is not part of his theory.



You should tell Safarti; he's been reminded numerous times, and still can't get it right. He does it, I think, because he's aware that nothing in Genesis rules out evolution, and we still don't know precisely how the earth brought forth life.



Well, let's take a look....
KJV - Doesn't say what you want it to.
Douay Doesn't say what you want it to.
NIV Doesn't say what you want it to.

What version is "right" in your judgement?



But you can't show that it is. Why is that?




But that's not what God said, is it? He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. If God is truthful, that death is not a physical one. Adam was always mortal; God even expresses concern that he might become so, and makes sure that he doesn't.



That is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you. It's not what God tells us.​



It's only inconsistent if you try to make it a literal history. If you read it plainly, you see that it's figurative.



Because as Christians have always seen, a literal history would not have mornings and evenings before a sun to have them.
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Kings 2:37-46 - New International Version This passage also says someone would die the day he disobeyed. He did disobey and didn't die until he went to Gath from Jerusalem and came back, which would take more than a day.

3 And God said,J)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-3J"> “Let there be light,” and there was light.K)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-3K"> 4 God saw that the light was good,L)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-4L"> and he separated the light from the darkness.M)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-4M"> 5 God calledN)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-5N"> the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”O)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-5O"> And there was evening, and there was morningP)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-5P">—the first day.
The light performed the same function as the sun. It is not illogical to have the mornings and evenings without the sun as long as you have light, since the role the sun plays is to provide light.

The NLT says 'If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die'

God only blocked access to the tree of life after they sinned and were expelled from the garden. Thus this doesn't contradict the literal interpretation. Also, if they were mortal before the fall, why didn't God put the angel to guard the tree of life there immediately?

What's PNAS? I don't think I ever referred to it.

Refuting Evolution chapter 2: Variation and natural selection versus evolution - creation.com
Please read 'Adaptation and Natural Selection' and 'The alleged evidence for evolution in action' and 'contrasting the models'

If you think evolution is true then I assume you think the days were long ages and Adam and Eve appeared long after the world was created?
 
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I understand you want to believe this, but of course it's not true. There's nothing whatever in Genesis that is inconsistent with evolution. How could there be? Evolution is God's creation.



It also says there were mornings and evenings before there was a sun to have them. It's obvious passages like this that tell us it's not a literal account.



That's another misconception. God says to Adam that he will die the day he eats from the tree, but Adam lives on physically for many years thereafter. If God tells the truth, then the death Adam brought into the world was not a physical one.



That was a particularly dumb mistake. No biologist would say that. But a chemist might, if he was entirely ignorant of biology, and Safarti seems to be.



Nope. Show me anywhere than PNAS has ever said that all changes in organisms are evolution. You won't find one.



Sorry, first two paragraphs, your guy made two laughable errors. That's all there is. If you think there's something therein that might be worth discussing, bring it forward, and we'll look.



The two I mentioned earlier. Safarti used to post on at least one message board. He's not very good at biology.

Actually, at the time he wrote the book, he was an orthodox Anglican, only later becoming agnostic. However, as you now see from Darwin himself, the origin of life is not part of his theory.



You should tell Safarti; he's been reminded numerous times, and still can't get it right. He does it, I think, because he's aware that nothing in Genesis rules out evolution, and we still don't know precisely how the earth brought forth life.



Well, let's take a look....
KJV - Doesn't say what you want it to.
Douay Doesn't say what you want it to.
NIV Doesn't say what you want it to.

What version is "right" in your judgement?



But you can't show that it is. Why is that?




But that's not what God said, is it? He told Adam that he would die the day he ate from the tree. If God is truthful, that death is not a physical one. Adam was always mortal; God even expresses concern that he might become so, and makes sure that he doesn't.



That is your addition to scripture to make it more acceptable to you. It's not what God tells us.​



It's only inconsistent if you try to make it a literal history. If you read it plainly, you see that it's figurative.



Because as Christians have always seen, a literal history would not have mornings and evenings before a sun to have them.
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Kings 2:37-46 - New International Version This passage also says someone would die the day he disobeyed. He did disobey and didn't die until he went to Gath from Jerusalem and came back, which would take more than a day.

3 And God said,J)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-3J"> “Let there be light,” and there was light.K)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-3K"> 4 God saw that the light was good,L)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-4L"> and he separated the light from the darkness.M)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-4M"> 5 God calledN)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-5N"> the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”O)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-5O"> And there was evening, and there was morningP)' data-cr="#cen-NIV-5P">—the first day.
The light performed the same function as the sun. It is not illogical to have the mornings and evenings without the sun as long as you have light, since the role the sun plays is to provide light.

The NLT says 'If you eat its fruit, you are sure to die'

God only blocked access to the tree of life after they sinned and were expelled from the garden. Thus this doesn't contradict the literal interpretation. Also, if they were mortal before the fall, why didn't God put the angel to guard the tree of life there immediately?

What's PNAS? I don't think I ever referred to it.

Refuting Evolution chapter 2: Variation and natural selection versus evolution - creation.com
Please read 'Adaptation and Natural Selection' and 'The alleged evidence for evolution in action' and 'contrasting the models'

If you think evolution is true then I assume you think the days were long ages and Adam and Eve appeared long after the world was created?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Bible Gateway passage: 1 Kings 2:37-46 - New International Version This passage also says someone would die the day he disobeyed. He did disobey and didn't die until he went to Gath from Jerusalem and came back, which would take more than a day.

You're saying the Bible is just wrong, sometimes? I don't think so. And the passage you're talking about, doesn't say what you said it does:

1 Kings 2:37 For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.

It says that on the day that the person crosses over the Kidron, he will know that he will die. It does not say that he will die on that day.

Nice try, though.
 
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You're saying the Bible is just wrong, sometimes? I don't think so. And the passage you're talking about, doesn't say what you said it does:

1 Kings 2:37 For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kidron, thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die: thy blood shall be upon thine own head.

It says that on the day that the person crosses over the Kidron, he will know that he will die. It does not say that he will die on that day.

Nice try, though.
The NIV has "The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head.”
'When the infinitive absolute precedes a finite verb of the same stem (as is the case here), it strengthens or intensifies the verbal idea by emphasizing "either the certainty (Especially in the case of threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence." In other words, the emphasis is on the certainty of their death rather than its precise timing or chronology.' Note that this is referring to the original Hebrew. Kulikovsky also suggests that this phrase could be taken in an ingressive sense (designating the beginning of an action, state or event) Thus the Bible is not wrong.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The NIV has "The day you leave and cross the Kidron Valley, you can be sure you will die; your blood will be on your own head.”
'When the infinitive absolute precedes a finite verb of the same stem (as is the case here), it strengthens or intensifies the verbal idea by emphasizing "either the certainty (Especially in the case of threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence."

That's lots of excuse, but it still says what it say. The day he crosses the brook, he will be sure he will die. It doesn't say that he'll die that day, and he doesn't. So there you are.

On the other hand, in Genesis, God tells Adam:

Genesis 2:17 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

See the difference? No amount of excuses will change God's word. Accept it as it is.

 
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's lots of excuse, but it still says what it say. The day he crosses the brook, he will be sure he will die. It doesn't say that he'll die that day, and he doesn't. So there you are.

On the other hand, in Genesis, God tells Adam:

Genesis 2:17 17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

See the difference? No amount of excuses will change God's word. Accept it as it is.
'When the infinitive absolute precedes a finite verb of the same stem (as is the case here), it strengthens or intensifies the verbal idea by emphasizing "either the certainty (Especially in the case of threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence." In other words, the emphasis is on the certainty of their death rather than its precise timing or chronology.' This is about the original Hebrew, written by Andrew Kulikovsky, who has an M.A. in Biblical Studies and Theology from Louisiana Baptist University. This is exegesis, not excuses to change God's word.
Also, when do you think Adam and Eve were created?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
'When the infinitive absolute precedes a finite verb of the same stem (as is the case here), it strengthens or intensifies the verbal idea by emphasizing "either the certainty (Especially in the case of threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence." In other words, the emphasis is on the certainty of their death rather than its precise timing or chronology.'

What matters is what the verse says. One says that he will die the day he does a certain action; the other says that he will know he is doomed the day he does a certain action.

Words mean things. And God tells the truth. So we're back to where we started; Adam died the day he ate from the tree, as God told him. It just wasn't a physical death that God was talking about. If it was, Adam would have died physically that day.
 
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What matters is what the verse says. One says that he will die the day he does a certain action; the other says that he will know he is doomed the day he does a certain action.

Words mean things. And God tells the truth. So we're back to where we started; Adam died the day he ate from the tree, as God told him. It just wasn't a physical death that God was talking about. If it was, Adam would have died physically that day.
'When the infinitive absolute precedes a finite verb of the same stem (as is the case here), it strengthens or intensifies the verbal idea by emphasizing "either the certainty (Especially in the case of threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence." In other words, the emphasis is on the certainty of their death rather than its precise timing or chronology.' This is about the original Hebrew, written by Andrew Kulikovsky, who has an M.A. in Biblical Studies and Theology from Louisiana Baptist University.


When do you think Adam and Eve were created?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
When do you think Adam and Eve were created?

I don't know. Apparently, God didn't think it mattered for us to know, or He would have been more specific about it. If Adam and Eve happened to be H. erectus or archaic H. sapiens or Neandertal, would you be offended?

Why would it matter?
 
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

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
When the infinitive absolute precedes a finite verb of the same stem (as is the case here), it strengthens or intensifies the verbal idea by emphasizing "either the certainty (Especially in the case of threats) or the forcibleness and completeness of an occurrence." In other words, the emphasis is on the certainty of their death rather than its precise timing or chronology.' This is about the original Hebrew, written by Andrew Kulikovsky, who has an M.A. in Biblical Studies and Theology from Louisiana Baptist University.

"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."

This is written by God, Who actually was there. I'll go with God's opinion. Maybe you should, too.
 
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't know. Apparently, God didn't think it mattered for us to know, or He would have been more specific about it. If Adam and Eve happened to be H. erectus or archaic H. sapiens or Neandertal, would you be offended?

Why would it matter?
Actually, God did tell us when he made them. Mark 10:6 'But from the beginning of creation, God made them (Adam and Eve) make and female.'
(Even if the Earth was about 6000 years old, and Jesus said this 2000 years ago, and Adam and Eve were created on day 6, then the period of time between their creation and the actual beginning was indistinguishable)
H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis were both humans, so they could have been.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Actually, God did tell us when he made them. Mark 10:6 'But from the beginning of creation, God made them (Adam and Eve) make and female.'

Fortunately, God documented what was there at the beginning of creation...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

No light, no form, no male or female. So how do we deal with this apparent contradiction? Jesus is talking about the creation of humans. And as you see, He doesn't say when. Just that the first humans were male and female, with no date for us to check.


So we don't know.
God didn't think it mattered for us to know, or He would have been more specific about it. If Adam and Eve happened to be H. erectus or archaic H. sapiens or Neandertal, would you be offended?

Why would it matter?


(Even if the Earth was about 6000 years old,

There are human structures older than that. So we know that assumption is a bad one. The earth is a little over 4 billion years old. Would you like to learn some of the ways we know?

and Jesus said this 2000 years ago, and Adam and Eve were created on day 6, then the period of time between their creation and the actual beginning was indistinguishable)

Bad assumption, faulty conclusion.

H. erectus and H. neanderthalensis were both humans, so they could have been.

That's a sensible answer. You do know that many creationists deny that H. erectus and/or Neandertals are humans, right?
 
Upvote 0

Qwertyui0p

Active Member
Dec 20, 2019
266
71
40
New South Wales
✟33,804.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Fortunately, God documented what was there at the beginning of creation...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

No light, no form, no male or female. So how do we deal with this apparent contradiction? Jesus is talking about the creation of humans. And as you see, He doesn't say when. Just that the first humans were male and female, with no date for us to check.


So we don't know.
God didn't think it mattered for us to know, or He would have been more specific about it. If Adam and Eve happened to be H. erectus or archaic H. sapiens or Neandertal, would you be offended?

Why would it matter?



There are human structures older than that. So we know that assumption is a bad one. The earth is a little over 4 billion years old. Would you like to learn some of the ways we know?



Bad assumption, faulty conclusion.
Even if he said that 4000 years after creation then Adam and Eve were only created less than 0.1% away from the absolute beginning on the timeline. Also, How dating methods work - creation.com Please read the whole article carefully before replying.
"But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death."

This is written by God, Who actually was there. I'll go with God's opinion. Maybe you should, too.
Do you know what else is written by God? Genesis 1:31 'God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning-the sixth day.' And in Corinthians: 'For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.' (15:22) and 'The last enemy to be destroyed is death.' (15:26)
You are saying that death existed in God's very good creation.
 
Upvote 0