Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[AV1611VET]

That's what the biblical literalists would have us believe.

Nadab learned the hard way about Biblical literalism, didn't he?

Do you know what "Nadab" means?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nadab learned the hard way about Biblical literalism, didn't he?

Do you know what "Nadab" means?

From the context it is a proper name, so the meaning is not relevant. It would just be a label.

 

[Skye1300]

That is one hundred percent backwards. That is the observation that was made. Those that believe the creation myths tend to be more racist.

Why does the fact of evolution bother you so much? If there is a God of the Bible all that evolution does is to tell you how he did it. Evolution does not refute God.

On the surface it may seem to not contradict God. But evolution involves things and people dying in order to gradually evolve. That contradicts the fall of Adam & Eve which is what brought death and sin to the planet. That also contradicts the sin of man and a need for a savior, which contradicts the need for Jesus to die for our sins. That would mean no need for a savior. And Jesus dying for our sins is the core of Christianity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On the surface it may seem to not contradict God. But evolution involves things and people dying in order to gradually evolve. That contradicts the fall of Adam & Eve which is what brought death and sin to the planet. That also contradicts the sin of man and a need for a savior, which contradicts the need for Jesus to die for our sins. That would mean no need for a savior. And Jesus dying for our sins is the core of Christianity.

So what? The Bible never says that it is literally true. There are events in there that we know did not happen. The Adam and Eve story is one of them. That does not refute the idea of salvation. Man is not perfect We do not really need an Adam and Eve story to know that. It works as a morality tale, but it fails as history. The same applies to the Noah's Ark story. It can easily be shown that it did not happen.

By the way, both of those stories are very bad theologically since if one analyzes them it makes God look very bad if true. If they are more about keeping faith in God they work. But like many morality tales there are flaws to it if one takes them too literally.

 

[Skye1300]

You appear to be rather confused. We were not discussing the origin of the universe. The universe could have been started by a God, or it could have been a natural process. It does not matter since we know how life evolved once it existed.

What you did is called "moving the goalposts" and it is actually an admission that you were wrong about life being the product of evolution since evolution does not imply "no God". Even if there is a God we know how life developed.

How the world got here and how mankind got here are one and the same to me. The theory of evolution contradicts the CHRISTIAN God. To say humans or the world was created by a god does not mean the CHRISTIAN God. A god could be any false god that people believe created the world and humans. Evolution contradicts the Christian God because it contradicts the need for a savior, Jesus, to die for our sins. Evolution contradicts the Bible that says death and sin entered the planet through man's disobedience. Evolution would mean that death entered the planet long before Adam and Eve. Evolution says there WAS no Adam & Eve. No Adam & Eve means no devil to tempt them to sin, it means the concept of sin doesn't exist. It would mean no fall happened and no need for a savior.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How the world got here and how mankind got here are one and the same to me. The theory of evolution contradicts the CHRISTIAN God. To say humans or the world was created by a god does not mean the CHRISTIAN God. A god could be any false god that people believe created the world and humans. Evolution contradicts the Christian God because it contradicts the need for a savior, Jesus, to die for our sins. Evolution contradicts the Bible that says death and sin entered the planet through man's disobedience. Evolution would mean that death entered the planet long before Adam and Eve. Evolution says there WAS no Adam & Eve. No Adam & Eve means no devil to tempt them to sin, it means the concept of sin doesn't exist. It would mean no fall happened and no need for a savior.

No. No it does not contradict the Christian God. Most Christians accept the fact of evolution. It contradicts your version of the Christian God. I have always thought that it is rather arrogant when Christians try to tell their God how he had to make the world. The world tells a different story. When I was a Christian I did not believe the Adam and Eve story. It was shown to be wrong. People are still imperfect without Adam and Eve. So there is no contradiction. You are trying to force one in where it does not exist. As a Christian I could not see God going around planting endless false evidence. To me that would have been lying. If there is a Christian God his creation tells us a totally different story than Genesis does.

 

[Skye1300]

So what? The Bible never says that it is literally true. There are events in there that we know did not happen. The Adam and Eve story is one of them. That does not refute the idea of salvation. Man is not perfect We do not really need an Adam and Eve story to know that. It works as a morality tale, but it fails as history. The same applies to the Noah's Ark story. It can easily be shown that it did not happen.

By the way, both of those stories are very bad theologically since if one analyzes them it makes God look very bad if true. If they are more about keeping faith in God they work. But like many morality tales there are flaws to it if one takes them too literally.

The theory of evolution also implies that God created the world and man imperfect if there was no Adam & Eve to fall. No Adam & Eve means no fall, and no fall means that mankind were made wicked and evil with death occurring all the time for evolution to occur.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The theory of evolution also implies that God created the world and man imperfect if there was no Adam & Eve to fall. No Adam & Eve means no fall, and no fall means that mankind were made wicked and evil with death occurring all the time for evolution to occur.

No. A fall is not needed. What was the result of the fall, man became imperfect and needed a savior. Man is naturally imperfect. He still needs a savior.

All that story was for was to tell people that they were imperfect. They got the why wrong but not the more important fact of the matter that man is not perfect.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The theory of evolution also implies that God created the world and man imperfect if there was no Adam & Eve to fall. No Adam & Eve means no fall, and no fall means that mankind were made wicked and evil with death occurring all the time for evolution to occur.

Gravity. Gravity makes things fall.

Is this another thread filled with those who don't understand basic gravity?

(Is it some sort of plague of non-understanding/denial of gravity?)

 

[Bradskii]

...all men are not related to one another deriving from multiple gene pools.

You and I are related. Everyone is related. Maybe you should spend an hour or so reading about concepts such as MRCA - the most recent common ancestor.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I never said evolution promotes racism I inferred that evolution is more likely to promote racism compared to the biblical creation account because the biblical creation account derives all mankind being descendants from one source, Adam & Eve whereas evolution derives mankind from many different sources at many different times. Biblical creation account all men are related to one another deriving from one gene pool, evolution all men are not related to one another deriving from multiple gene pools. It’s a lot easier to promote superiority of race deriving from separate gene pools rather than deriving from the same gene pool.

Except that we see the Bible being used most often in history to justify racism. Look at the arguments of the Confederate States to justify their slavery of Africans, or even the arguments used to justify the slave trade.
So to even imagine that evolution can be used to promote racism is just flat out and flagrantly wrong and idiotic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I never said evolution promotes racism

Also, you did, in your own post:
"When you start to get into the specifics of it it does because they claim mutations weren’t just occurring in one place on the planet they were occurring all over the world and taking place over millions of years so naturally there would be several occurrences taking place at different times with several different stages of evolvement."

 

[trophy33]

The same applies to the Noah's Ark story. It can easily be shown that it did not happen.

Actually, I would say the Noah Flood did happen, even though the story contains some symbolic elements (dove, 40 days etc.)

There have been identified some events in history in the Mesopotamia that are very possibly reflected in the story.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually, I would say the Noah Flood did happen, even though the story contains some symbolic elements (dove, 40 days etc.)

There have been identified some events in history in the Mesopotamia that are very possibly reflected in the story.

For a local flood, definitely.
For a global flood, none at all.

 

[trophy33]

For a local flood, definitely.
For a global flood, none at all.

The story does not claim it was planetary. They had no such concept, so they could not possibly claim it, anyway.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The story does not claim it was planetary. They had no such concept, so they could not possibly claim it, anyway.

Except that there many who interpret it to mean a global flood. The phrase 'all the lands' can be taken to mean all the world.

Although this is majorly off-topic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, I would say the Noah Flood did happen, even though the story contains some symbolic elements (dove, 40 days etc.)

There have been identified some events in history in the Mesopotamia that are very possibly reflected in the story.

The myth was probably based upon a local flood but there never was a flood that threatened man with extinction. What part of the story do you think is real?

 

[trophy33]

The phrase 'all the lands' can be taken to mean all the world.

Not in the cultural context and their language, though. If by "world" you mean the continents they even did not know about.

 

[trophy33]

The myth was probably based upon a local flood but there never was a flood that threatened man with extinction.

"Myth" is a wrong word, IMHO. More something like "based on true events" dramatization.

What part of the story do you think is real?

I am pretty sure that was some devastating flood in Mesopotamia that killed the vast majority of population and animals.

What numbers or names are factual is hard to say for me.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Not in the cultural context and their language, though.

I'll just repeat what I said: Except that there many who interpret it to mean a global flood. The phrase 'all the lands' can be taken to mean all the world.

Although this is majorly off-topic.