Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[Skye1300]

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.

It was a global flood, which is why just about every culture in the world have a major flood story in their religion or their history.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It was a global flood, which is why just about every culture in the world have a major flood story in their religion or their history.

And yet... the other guy says it isn't, and there's no evidence of a global flood at all.

 

[trophy33]

It was a global flood, which is why just about every culture in the world have a major flood story in their religion or their history.

Can you demonstrate the necessity for the flood to be global, from the fact that various cultures over the world have it in their history?

I think its much more logical to say that the flood simply happened when the humanity was concentrated in one place and therefore its descendants took the event with them in their stories.

You know, in the version of the global flood, people in China would not survive it to have the story in Chinese culture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, why not. I do not try to date it. History and its interpretation is ever changing science.

In other words it did not happen.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Obviously. If you understood you would not have made your claims about the number of people getting ridiculously low. Okay, there is a species that did get down to the numbers that one sees in the Noah's Ark myth and that happened about 10,000 years ago. Cheetahs almost went extinct. It would be hard to find a species that got closer to extinction than they did and yet come back. In biology a near extinction event leads to what is called a population bottleneck. Before the event they would have normal genetic diversity. There will be quite a bit of variation in individuals. And if one tries to do an organ transplant it can be very very hard to find a genetic match. You are probably aware of how hard it is to find a suitable kidney. With cheetahs they have incredibly low genetic diversity. Using math it has been determined that about 10,000 years ago their numbers were lowered to the point where there were just under 10 breeding individuals. As a result almost any cheetah can donate an organ to another cheetah. We would expect to see this with humans if there was the severe bottleneck claimed in Genesis.

By the way almost every species would show a bottleneck due to the flood if the story was true. Not just humans. And we do not see that. We do not see that so strongly that when one species, the cheetah, has had such an event that it becomes obvious.

 

[Skye1300]

The only sin you are aware of is the sin of Adam/Eve? You would need no savior for your own sins?

Adam & Eve's sin is just what started it all. Every human needs a savior.

 

[trophy33]

In other words it did not happen.

In other words its hard to identify something on what science says today, because every new discovery changes the current knowledge about history.

Thats why I try to talk generally and do not point to one scientific interpretation of the event.

Obviously. If you understood you would not have made your claims about the number of people getting ridiculously low. Okay, there is a species that did get down to the numbers that one sees in the Noah's Ark myth and that happened about 10,000 years ago. Cheetahs almost went extinct. It would be hard to find a species that got closer to extinction than they did and yet come back. In biology a near extinction event leads to what is called a population bottleneck. Before the event they would have normal genetic diversity. There will be quite a bit of variation in individuals. And if one tries to do an organ transplant it can be very very hard to find a genetic match. You are probably aware of how hard it is to find a suitable kidney. With cheetahs they have incredibly low genetic diversity. Using math it has been determined that about 10,000 years ago their numbers were lowered to the point where there were just under 10 breeding individuals. As a result almost any cheetah can donate an organ to another cheetah. We would expect to see this with humans if there was the severe bottleneck claimed in Genesis.

By the way almost every species would show a bottleneck due to the flood if the story was true. Not just humans. And we do not see that. We do not see that so strongly that when one species, the cheetah, has had such an event that it becomes obvious.

All right. Cheetahs and kidneys.

 

[trophy33]

Adam & Eve's sin is just what started it all. Every human needs a savior.

Ok, let me ask in this way - you think that without Adam you personally would not sin?

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words its hard to identify something on what science says today, because every new discovery changes the current knowledge about history.

Thats why I try to talk generally and do not point to one scientific interpretation of the event.

No, you do not understand. Such an event would leave obvious evidence. Events that would have left obvious evidence can be said not to have happened if that evidence does not exist.

All right. Cheetahs and kidneys.

Any organ. But yes. Cheetahs are a species that almost went extinct. They demonstrate what would happen to a species if it went through an extreme bottleneck and yet the species survived. You would be hard pressed to find a greater population bottleneck. It still is a problem for them today. It demonstrates that the event you claimed happen did not happen. Genetic diversity can be measured. Mutation rates and rates of mutations becoming embedded can be measured. Knowing today's population and analyzing the genetic diversity allows us to put dates and amounts on bottlenecks. The one that you claimed would be extremely obvious yet it is nowhere to be seen.

 

[trophy33]

No, you do not understand. Such an event would leave obvious evidence. Events that would have left obvious evidence can be said not to have happened if that evidence does not exist.

Are you claiming that there is no evidence that there happened some huge flood in the beginning of human civilization? Or that such evidence can never be found later?

If so, then am a bit surprised by your certainity. The history books are being rewritten almost every generation, which should give us more agnosticism regarding various historical topics, dating etc.

Any organ. But yes. Cheetahs are a species that almost went extinct. They demonstrate what would happen to a species if it went through an extreme bottleneck and yet the species survived. You would be hard pressed to find a greater population bottleneck. It still is a problem for them today. It demonstrates that the event you claimed happen did not happen. Genetic diversity can be measured. Mutation rates and rates of mutations becoming embedded can be measured. Knowing today's population and analyzing the genetic diversity allows us to put dates and amounts on bottlenecks. The one that you claimed would be extremely obvious yet it is nowhere to be seen.

I do not have enough information about the causes of why its hard to find compatible organs and if the only interpretation of it must be the one you say. So I am not able to be your opponent in this area.

 

[AV1611VET]

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

A convenient label, nonetheless.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

That sounds just like the guy that beguiled Eve.

"You're just 'imperfect,' Eve. Here, eat this, it'll give you the mindset of a [Homo] sapiens. Give some to Adam, too. And you'll both be Earth's first human scientists."

 

[driewerf]

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


Disbelief in human evolution linked to greater prejudice and racism

​

Matches my experiences over the past 3 decades.

A lot of the people who react that christianity doesn't teach racism haven't read the article, obviously.
1) the article doesn't speak of christianity( or judaism or islam), but about the people identifying as reigious (hence christians, muslims, jews). The different faiths might preach tolerance, the authors note correlation for the faithful not practising that tolerance.
2) The article speaks of correlations, not about absolutes. There are of course a lot of very fine people whoare faithful, and racist bigotted people who accept evolution, but there is general trend that evolution rejecting people are more prone to be racist and bigotted. A trend is not an absolute.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you claiming that there is no evidence that there happened some huge flood in the beginning of human civilization? Or that such evidence can never be found later?

If so, then am a bit surprised by your certainity. The history books are being rewritten almost every generation, which should give us more agnosticism regarding various historical topics, dating etc.


I do not have enough information about the causes of why its hard to find compatible organs and if the only interpretation of it must be the one you say. So I am not able to be your opponent in this area.

There is no evidence of a huge flood at the beginning of civilization that would have threatened man. Correct. There is only evidence against it. We can tell from genetics that mankind was not threatened in the manner given in Genesis. History books do not apply here. We are talking about an event that supposedly happened before history was a thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That sounds just like the guy that beguiled Eve.

"You're just 'imperfect,' Eve. Here, eat this, it'll give you the mindset of a [Homo] sapiens. Give some to Adam, too. And you'll both be Earth's first human scientists."

But Eve was a myth too. Which is a good thing. That story taken literally paints God as the bad guy. That is actually a blasphemous viewpoint.

 

[trophy33]

There is no evidence of a huge flood at the beginning of civilization that would have threatened man. Correct. There is only evidence against it. We can tell from genetics that mankind was not threatened in the manner given in Genesis. History books do not apply here. We are talking about an event that supposedly happened before history was a thing.

I do not share your firm belief in our current state of knowledge as being the final one or complete.

Scientists do not even know what we should eat and when, not to say what happened or not so back in time. Its all just some possibilities and hypothesis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do not share your firm belief in our current state of knowledge as being the final one or complete.

But that appears to be because you are totally ignorant of the science involved. Mankind was never concentrated in one small area. At the supposed time of the flood it was already spread all around the Earth.

 

[trophy33]

But that appears to be because you are totally ignorant of the science involved. Mankind was never concentrated in one small area. At the supposed time of the flood it was already spread all around the Earth.

And the supposed time is when?

"A traditional theory of the spread of civilization is that it began in the Fertile Crescent and spread out from there...
Scholars more generally now believe that civilizations arose independently at several locations..."
Cradle of civilization - Wikipedia

Beliefs of scholars are constantly changing, because its science, not dogma. Neither me nor you can say what will they believe in 100 years from now. So why to argue about that? Its not exact science like mathematics or chemistry.

 

[Astrid]

It was a global flood, which is why just about every culture in the world have a major flood story in their religion or their history.

There is zero physical evidence that there was a global flood.
Which is why its obvious no such event ever occurred.
The claim you make is often repeated, but
we've seen no evidence it is true.
Care to provide it?
Like a compilation of the stories?

While you are at it, a list of religions with
a god -man who dies but promises to
return, dragons and mermaids could be
instructive.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And the supposed time is when?

"A traditional theory of the spread of civilization is that it began in the Fertile Crescent and spread out from there...
Scholars more generally now believe that civilizations arose independently at several locations..."
Cradle of civilization - Wikipedia

Beliefs of scholars are constantly changing, because its science, not dogma. Neither me nor you can say what will they believe in 100 years from now. So why to argue about that? Its not exact science like mathematics or chemistry.

You are conflating civilization with all of mankind. And that article deals with western civilization. It does not deal with all civilization.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is zero physical evidence that there was a global flood.
Which is why its obvious no such event ever occurred.
The claim you make is often repeated, but
we've seen no evidence it is true.
Care to provide it?
Like a compilation of the stories?

While you are at it, a list of religions with
a god -man who dies but promises to
return, dragons and mermaids could be
instructive.

A quick question on my conversation. I do believe that civilization arose independently in the area of China. Do you have any dates for it?