Rejection of evolution correlates with racism

[Astrid]

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.

So like a dinosaur skeleton just is hypothesis or
possibility that its from an extinct creature.

 

[trophy33]

So like a dinosaur skeleton just is hypothesis or
possibility that its from an extinct creature.

I hope its quite obvious that scientific theories and general beliefs are being constantly changing. If you are truly a skeptic, then you should be skeptical in various areas of life, not just in selected few or one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hope its quite obvious that scientific theories and general beliefs are being constantly changing. If you are truly a skeptic, then you should be skeptical in various areas of life, not just in selected few or one.

Of course science is changing. But you need to look at the nature of that change. It is constantly getting more accurate. More details are being founder. The changes are getting smaller and smaller.

 

[trophy33]

Of course science is changing. But you need to look at the nature of that change. It is constantly getting more accurate. More details are being founder. The changes are getting smaller and smaller.

I do not share your confidence.

 

[AV1611VET]

But Eve was a myth too.

You're mything the point.

Which is a good thing.

Because it takes away Original Sin?

 

[AV1611VET]

There is zero physical evidence that there was a global flood.

Keep looking.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Keep looking.

Well, according to you, there is none because God cleaned it all up.

No, I'm wrong. The White Cliffs of Dover, meandering rivers and... is Grand Canyon one again, I cannot remember correctly.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is constantly getting more accurate.

Uh-huh ... how accurate is Phlogiston theory now?

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, according to you, there is none because God cleaned it all up.

No, I'm wrong. The White Cliffs of Dover, meandering rivers and... is Grand Canyon one again, I cannot remember correctly.

No. I believe the Grand Canyon is evidence that God pulled Pangaea apart at the edges.

Like taking a sheet by the edges and pulling on them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No. I believe the Grand Canyon is evidence that God pulled Pangaea apart at the edges.

Like taking a sheet by the edges and pulling on them.

Right, gotcha.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

SZ, I agree. There is no geological evidence of a singular, world-wide catastrophic flood. I'll agree, too, from the more limited studies I've done, obviously much less than your own, that the genetics of mankind is being reported in the sciences as not reflecting the outcomes of a Great Flood.

However, when you then say that history books [i.e. of today] do not apply, I'm going to take a half-way position between you and @myst33 on this point regarding the essence and nature of the 'writing of history.' There is more involved here in how we as human beings reflect upon, inquire into, and understand our natural past.

My point is this: To articulate and write the statement ,"We can tell from genetics that mankind was not threatened in the manner given in Genesis," is to make a statement regarding the nature of the past and, thereby, to make a historical statement, more particularly--two statements. Maybe more.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

SZ, at some point, you need to realize that you can't just show up, offer your expertise in Geology and in perhaps other affiliated sciences, and then also presume to trespass into Christian Theology as if it is also in your epistemic purview upon which to offer comprehensive scholarly expertise.

I'll give you credance in one field to do something like this, but I'll have to challenge you if you attempt it in the other, especially if you're here on a Christian public forum.

 

[Hans Blaster]

My point is this: To articulate and write the statement ,"We can tell from genetics that mankind was not threatened in the manner given in Genesis," is to make a statement regarding the nature of the past and, thereby, to make a historical statement, more particularly--two statements. Maybe more.

I made a post on the post-deluvian genetics last summer somewhere on CF, but a brief summary goes as such:

There are by the account of Genesis only 5 people that contribute to the post-flood genetics of humanity: Noah, Noah's wife, and the three wives of Noah's sons. (The sons, of course, got there genetics from Noah and his wife and are not independent sources.)

The scientific evidence from genetic diversity rules out only five contemporaneous genetic sources for all of humanity at any point in our history, therefore, the Noachian genocide as depicted in Genesis couldn't have happened.

If someone wishes to claim that god created new genetic diversity *after* the flood, they may do so as an article of faith, but it not supported by any scientific evidence. (Nor is it in the Bible.)

 

[Astrid]

I hope its quite obvious that scientific theories and general beliefs are being constantly changing. If you are truly a skeptic, then you should be skeptical in various areas of life, not just in selected few or one.

"General beliefs"?
As for theories, what sort of changes are you
talking about?

Additional information related to the theory,
or theories being discarded or what?

You didnt say about dinosaurs

 

[Astrid]

SZ, at some point, you need to realize that you can't just show up, offer your expertise in Geology and in perhaps other affiliated sciences, and then also presume to trespass into Christian Theology as if it is also in your epistemic purview upon which to offer comprehensive scholarly expertise.

I'll give you credance in one field to do something like this, but I'll have to challenge you if you attempt it in the other, especially if you're here on a Christian public forum.

You get a "winner" even though you couldnt
help saying "epistemic "

 

[Astrid]

I made a post on the post-deluvian genetics last summer somewhere on CF, but a brief summary goes as such:

There are by the account of Genesis only 5 people that contribute to the post-flood genetics of humanity: Noah, Noah's wife, and the three wives of Noah's sons. (The sons, of course, got there genetics from Noah and his wife and are not independent sources.)

The scientific evidence from genetic diversity rules out only five contemporaneous genetic sources for all of humanity at any point in our history, therefore, the Noachian genocide as depicted in Genesis couldn't have happened.

If someone wishes to claim that god created new genetic diversity *after* the flood, they may do so as an article of faith, but it not supported by any scientific evidence. (Nor is it in the Bible.)

Is that a matter of "faith" or of "make it up".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I hope its quite obvious that scientific theories and general beliefs are being constantly changing. If you are truly a skeptic, then you should be skeptical in various areas of life, not just in selected few or one.

Keep in mind, @myst33, than there are different degrees of skepticism. You can't just claim an agnostic position on the topic of the pat by being "purely" skeptical. You'd have to spell out what kind of skepticism you're implying, otherwise you run the risk of dumping yourself into a solipsistic sounding perspective. I'm sure you aren't intending for us to think of you in this way.

I made a post on the post-deluvian genetics last summer somewhere on CF, but a brief summary goes as such:

There are by the account of Genesis only 5 people that contribute to the post-flood genetics of humanity: Noah, Noah's wife, and the three wives of Noah's sons. (The sons, of course, got there genetics from Noah and his wife and are not independent sources.)

The scientific evidence from genetic diversity rules out only five contemporaneous genetic sources for all of humanity at any point in our history, therefore, the Noachian genocide as depicted in Genesis couldn't have happened.

If someone wishes to claim that god created new genetic diversity *after* the flood, they may do so as an article of faith, but it not supported by any scientific evidence. (Nor is it in the Bible.)

I agree with the general thrust of your statement here, but you all too quickly turn it into a political maneuver by injecting the singular term "genocide" into what would otherwise be a straightforward, scientifically valid statement.

Moreover, then, to accept your statements above as a truth about the reality of our natural past isn't to also imply anything about the nature or truth of biblical faith. It also doesn't demonstrate that the varieties of the fields of Ethics, Hermeneutics, Historiography or the Philosophy of History have been fully engaged by atheistic natural scientists who eschew the Biblical literature.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You get a "winner" even though you couldnt
help saying "epistemic "

Well, you got me dead to rights on that one ...

 

[expos4ever]

Being deluded has nothing to do with how smart a person is.

True, but it remains exceedingly implausible that tens of thousands of highly trained experts would be wrong about evolution. Anyone can merely claim that people are deluded - it is easy to just float a claim like "the people who believe the moon is made of rock and not green cheese are deluded". It is quite another to make the case that people are indeed deluded.

It makes no sense to believe something came from nothing

Strawman - the theory of evolution does not say this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Keep looking.

I'm looking, AV, I'm looking !!!

Let's see what kind of things we might find. Oh. I found something. It's not an end-point in itself, but it's a thougthful (and fairly short--gotta prize the value of brevity around here) presentation by geologist, David R. Montgomery, on the kinds of geological clues that one might begin to investigate when thinking about the biblical narrative of the Great Flood:

David R. Montgomery: A geologist's investigation into Noah's Flood

Of course, anyone here is free to counter or supplement what Montgomery has to say since he's just one geologist, with his own professional point of view.