Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[Astrid]

The traditional Christian view of creation says that ALL people are linked to each other through their common ancestors Adam and Eve.

And us darker ones, the descendants of Cain

 

[Hank77]

that no-one who commits evil acts thinks they're doing evil. If they did, they wouldn't do it.

I don't agree with that at all but as you say it's off topic.

 

[Mr Laurier]

The traditional Christian view of creation says that ALL people are linked to each other through their common ancestors Adam and Eve.

Traditional since the 1970s.
Before that was the Pangenesis, or Zones of Creation model, that held sway

 

[TLK Valentine]

Traditional since the 1970s.
Before that was the Pangenesis, or Zones of Creation model, that held sway

Indeed.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

-- Judge Leon Bazile, sentencing Richard and Mildred loving to one year in jail for getting married, 1958.

 

[Mr Laurier]

Indeed.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

-- Judge Leon Bazile, sentencing Richard and Mildred loving to one year in jail for getting married, 1958.

Yep.

 

[Astrid]

Indeed.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix."

-- Judge Leon Bazile, sentencing Richard and Mildred loving to one year in jail for getting married, 1958.

Sure sounds like racism

 

[BPPLEE]

Not a big surprise - one need only look at the darlings of the GQP.


Disbelief in human evolution linked to greater prejudice and racism

"Similarly, across the globe -- in 19 Eastern European countries, 25 Muslim countries and in Israel -- low belief in evolution was linked to higher biases within a person's group, prejudicial attitudes toward people in different groups and less support for conflict resolution.

The findings supported the hypothesis of lead author Stylianos Syropoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in the War and Peace Labof senior author Bernhard Leidner, associate professor of social psychology. They collaborated with co-first author Uri Lifshin at Reichman University in Israel and co-authors Jeff Greenberg and Dylan Horner at the University of Arizona in Tucson. The researchers theorized that belief in evolution would tend to increase people's identification with all humanity, due to the common ancestry, and would lead to less prejudicial attitudes."​

Matches my experiences over the past 3 decades.

The findings supported the hypothesis of the lead author. Imagine that

 

[SLP]

You're confusing the destruction of informational content with the destruction of the informational medium itself- it's an understandable confusion, but it is a very important distinction in information processing systems like DNA

Below, you confuse changes to a simple English language sentence with processes that occur in genomes.

I suggest that your inability to produce anything above this grade-school level of analysis is one of the primary reasons that nobody seems to take your claims seriously on these issues.

alterations and additions also overwhelmingly destroy the function of information, just like deletions

For years, you and your masters have tried to convince yourselves and others that genes/genomes operate just like letters and words and sentences do.
You do not seem to understand that this is not the case. You argument is moot, and always has been. As you are admittedly not a biologist, as is the case with the majority of all those hawking the "information" argument (Dembski, Spetner, Marks, etc.), those of us that deal with and understand the biology laugh at your cumulative naivete and Dunning-Kruger effect confidence.

e.g.

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

The quick brown box jumped over the lazy dog

Zoicks. You just totally destroyed cumulative decades of the work of geneticists...

Now explain how Yahweh turned dust into organic molecules and then how post-ark hypemacroevolution can be explained by your non-actual-genetics fantasies.
Supported by evidence, of course.
I suspect it will be some version of a front-loading hypothesis, for which no creationist has ever been able to produce even hypothetical evidence.

If you reply at all.

 

[Occams Barber]

Ok. Well, here's goes something: If the Great Flood were found to have happened, and if I only was using my human brain to make the best moral evaluation I could despite my obvious limitations as a rather blunt tool of humanity, I'd find that the resulting omnicide would be sad but justified where God is concerned. He is All-knowing and Holy, after all, and He would have both the knowledge and the integrity to have made a good moral decision.

There. I DID IT! I justified what lesser minds would all too ordinarily consider to be an "atrocity."

I feel so happy right now, I could cry.

I've always said Christianity was morally vacuous.

I think you just proved my point.

OB

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I've always said Christianity was morally vacuous.

I think you just proved my point.

OB

Thanks for lifting this one post out of context from the rest and ignoring that it was intentionally done tongue-in-cheek. Now I know that skeptics can be hermeneutically vacuous, whereas before, I only surmised it.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Occams Barber]

Thanks for lifting this one post out of context from the rest and ignoring that it was intentionally done tongue-in-cheek. Now I know that skeptics can be hermeneutically vacuous, whereas before, I only surmised it.

2PhiloVoid

Great. Now, if you could make it very clear; to all the Christians following this thread; that you believe that God's actions, real or mythical, in drowning most of the human race, were morally reprehensible - I would be eternally grateful.

OB

 

[BPPLEE]

Yep.

He got it wrong. Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Great. Now, if you could make it very clear; to all the Christians following this thread; that you believe that God's actions, real or mythical, in drowning most of the human race, were morally reprehensible - I would be eternally grateful.

OB

Let me get this straight. You're going to ask me to do this even after you've read each and every one of my previous posts in this same thread which address why I think your request is problematic, right?

Lol! Thanks for the humor, OB! We all need a laugh here and there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Great. Now, if you could make it very clear; to all the Christians following this thread; that you believe that God's actions, real or mythical, in drowning most of the human race, were morally reprehensible - I would be eternally grateful.

It was a necessary evil.

 

[BPPLEE]

Sure sounds like racism

That's because it was

 

[BPPLEE]

It was a necessary evil.

There were reasons for the flood I will not bring up here as it would only start another off topic argument but you are correct

 

[Occams Barber]

Let me get this straight. You're going to ask me to do this even after you've read each and every one of my previous posts in this same thread which address why I think your request is problematic, right?

Lol! Thanks for the humor, OB! We all need a laugh here and there.

All I'm doing Phil is trying to pin you down to a clear statement of what you actually believe. It seems to me that I've seen a lot of ducking and weaving but no clear point of view. This isn't exceptional. In fact its more or less typical behaviour for many Christians when painted into a similar moral corner.

Is drowning most of the population of the Earth (by God), whether real or hypothetical, a moral act?

OB

 

[Bradskii]

Let me get this straight. You're going to ask me to do this even after you've read each and every one of my previous posts in this same thread which address why I think your request is problematic, right?

You bet the question is problematic. Which is why you've been skating around it for so long.

And nice to see that the qualifications have been taken off the wall and put in storage.

 

[Occams Barber]

It was a necessary evil.

Are you seriously telling me that your God was forced, by necessity, into performing an evil act?

OB

 

[BPPLEE]

All I'm doing Phil is trying to pin you down to a clear statement of what you actually believe. It seems to me that I've seen a lot of ducking and weaving but no clear point of view. This isn't exceptional. In fact its more or less typical behaviour for many Christians when painted into a similar moral corner.

Is drowning most of the population of the Earth (by God), whether real or hypothetical, a moral act?

OB

All of the population except 8 people