My brain, on the other hand… :o
http://boards.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/000620.html
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
Scylla: You left out Fundamentalist Xtian Racial Theory #3, which is that the black race was created when God placed his Mark upon Cain. :rolleyes:
ARG, replying to my question about how races came into being if creationists are right, said:
Ok, but I have a question for you: What if they can’t answer it? What if all they give is the “religious mumbo-jumbo” I mentioned earlier (which, by the way, was mostly referring to either the Ham scenario or the Tower of Babel scenario, both of which have since been mentioned here)? Could this in any way change your beliefs?
“Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is, to my mind, the most beautiful in all of science.”
– Susan Blackmore, The Meme Machine
David: I would not believe in evolution, if that’s what you’re saying. Just because the Bible doesn’t mention something, doesn’t mean God did not perform other miracles, in other locales across the globe.
Maybe God created the other two “base” races on other continents? Wasn’t China populated at the time of Abraham and Issac?
I don’t have a clue how we have races, from a Creationist standpoint. But, I put nothing past God.
“Life is hard…but God is good”
Ok, there’s one vote for “religious mumbo-jumbo.” :rolleyes:
David, I said I have no clue. And your comment about Creationist theories really shouldn’t surprise me, since you think that God Himself is “mumbo-jumbo.” :rolleyes:
Since were on the subject of Races, heres a question that puzzles me. Why are Black people Black? Yes i know Melanin (forgive me if i’ve mispelled this, can’t remember of the top of my head) protects against skin cancer and so is an advantageous adaptation.
But what about the drawback? Black is the best absorber of heat, which is a problem
in a blazing hot African climate.
I would have thought that the greater
probability of heatstroke, more requirement
for water etc, would outweigh the protection
from cancer.After all skin cancer occurs quite late in life,30 years +.Not that old now but historically you’d quite likely to be dead or had most of your children by then.
Whereas the heat problem would be with you all your life.
Anybody able to enlighten me?
Originally posted by ARG220 the stuff in between the quote lines; my responses are in between the quotations.
This is actually pretty much what it boils down to. Here you are explicitly stating that regardless of the evidence, you won’t believe in evolution because the Bible says something different.
This statement from someone who’s called the LDS a cult?! Are you trying to give me a heart attack, on a Sunday even? I’m still anxiously awaiting the miracle of you actually understanding something.
But you see, that really would’ve been one heck of a miracle, mainly because there’s no proof of a worldwide flood and therefore that would mean that God didn’t kill everyone but Noah and his crew. Anyway, China has been populated for well over the last FIVE THOUSAND YEARS, and your quaint theory doesn’t give the earth much more than five thousand years to begin with.
Half-right. You don’t have a clue about jack.
On a personal note: I actually used to see some promise in you; you were, at one time, evidencing thinking for yourself. What happened?
I’ve been rereading Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas.
I think it’s an excellent example of a scientific mind examining these kinds of issues as fairly as possible given the constraints of his time.
The full text can be found here:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
A pertinent quote.
“We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not. So to study Him, we study what He has not –
such as composition and motion.”
Another interesting link, the Catholic interpretation of Creation and evolution:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04470a.htm
Monty: Why must you resort to personal insults? You’ve come clear out of left field, just to insult me. This isn’t the first time you’ve done this to me. And I’ve seen you do it to others as well.
What is with you?
In regard to Scylla’s newadvent.org link: It should be noted that the Catholic Encyclopedia being loaded to the web is the edition that came out between 1911 and 1913.
While it is an excellent source of history (with a distinctly pre-Vatican II Catholic world view/bias), any subjects that have expanded beyond that time either theologically (e.g., attitudes toward different faiths) or scientifically (e.g., Darwinism) can not be relied upon as the current view of the RCC.
The general attitude toward “creation” in the link provided is fairly consistent with current belief. If you then jump to “evolution” you will find Darwinism presented without the corrections of the Neo-Darwinist insights and without the theological considerations added by Pius XII and John Paul II.
Tom~
ARG said:
No, you shouldn’t be surprised because there is no such thing as a “creationist theory” using the proper scientific meaning of the word. Funny, you just said you understood, but now you’re back to whining that I don’t accept creationism because I don’t believe in God, when, in fact, it is because I know good science from bad.
Also, ARG, could you point out exactly which parts of Monty’s message were the “personal insults”? I seem to have missed them.
You’re right David. I keep forgetting what the word “theory” actually means. I should have said “Christian ideas.” Like my idea about God creating other races. I can’t use science to prove it, and it’s not in the Bible. Yea, I still understand.
Monty insulted me. Saying that I’m incapable of understanding, and it would be a miracle if I ever did. And saying that I don’t have a clue about “jack.” (I despise that word) He also claimed that I cannot think for myself. (Or that I “no longer” think for myself)
Really, these are minor insults, but they are insults nevertheless. And, they have no place in GD.
“Life is hard…but God is good”
AHEM HEM HEM KOFF KOFF Do any of you creationists remember this question?
And while we’re at it, I asked ARG to explain his position further, but have received no reply. Why is the telescope example irrelevant to creationists? You seem to be implying that there is no need to “look through the telescope” because you already know that if you examine the evidence, it will support creationism. Am I reading you correctly?
-Ben
Well, I find this to be utterly bizarre. If you perform scientific tests to determine whether creationism is true, what happens, and why? I mean, it seems to me like we have a bunch of people sitting around an animal, and the evolutionists say hmm, looks like a duck, smells like a duck, must be a duck. Then the creationists, backs firmly to the duck, say sigh, no, it’s a rabbit, so sad that there is no evidence which can prove that it’s a rabbit, but it’s a rabbit. What do you think you’ll see if you actually look at the animal? What will you see if you look through Darwin’s telescope?
-Ben
Satan, I must say that ghoti knows nothing about science beyond what he reads in creationist propaganda. He’s actually stated that you can’t create phylogenetic trees from genetic data! I suppose that means that when I make such trees I’m like Wiley E. Coyote, standing in midair, not knowing that I’ve just walked off a cliff. Anyway, it’s time for him to take the protein homology challenge. If Intelligent Design can make predictions, then let him predict:
Which two are more similar of the following triplets, and why?
turtle, alligator, and chicken
cod, lamprey, and human
greater panda, lesser panda, grizzly bear
Thank you,
-Ben
AHEM: If you look up above, you will see that me, myself and I mentioned that. And then pointed out that the Mark was supposed to protect him.
On another thread, I posted a link to a Creationist website: www.creation-answers.com/time4.htm The writer cites evidence that the Earth used to rotate faster in the past, by counting the rings in fossil coral. (Coral forms a new ring every day. 850 million years ago, a year lasted 435 days because a day lasted only about 20 hours or less.) (Oh, and the writer is somehow trying to prove the Earth-Moon-Sun system was designed. If the Moon were a different size and/or distance from the Earth, we wouldn’t be here. Possibly, but that doesn’t prove intelligent design.)
However, this same person is skeptical that the coral is as old as the dating indicates. This is the old Creationist trick of throwing out data that refutes the hypothesis. A good scientist makes the explanation fit the facts, not the other way around.
When all else fails, ask Cecil.
tomndeb:
Good point. I missed the dating on that link. Thanks.
Adam:
The posting of mine above was not “clear from left field.” It was most decidedly spot on topic for this thread. You declare that Evolution isn’t fact and that Creationism is fact based on your belief. And, based on that belief, you will not accept anything which tends to disprove it (such as Evolution and the fact, fact mind you, that there was no world-wide flood). Part of the Scientfic Method is to examine conflicting theories with an open mind.
You do not at present have an open mind. Thefore, you can’t have a clue about jack on this subject; said subject comprising mostly the efficacy fo the Scientific Method.
BTW: I have never come “clear out of left field to insult” you. Have I ever called your religion a cult? Have I ever said you were swayed by the Devil? Have I ever said you knew nothing about the Bible?
Well, the answer to the very last one is “Yes” but that’s because you hadn’t read the whole thing at the time and were attempting to take me to task by saying I knew nothing of it. Or don’t you recall that event or even the other poster’s response to you how funny it was that you’d made that ill-informed statement? How about the funniest discussion on Biblical interpretation ever based on your mistaken notion about the nature of Yeast and its application to Heaven? If you’re that wrong on just one thing, I’ll have to say that your stance on Creation can’t be much better when it’s based on your proven ignorance of the Bible.
Since you’re apparently declaring that the Bible has the only truth on the origins of the universe, tell me please, How Can You Be So Sure When You Have Not Read the Whole Thing? (Only the first letters in capitals so as not to be shouting too loud.)
Anyway, and just for laughs, what do you think, other than the Bible, is the proof for the Creationists’ view of the origins of the universe? And you can not claim that’s not a fair restriction when you have asked the Mormons on this board for evidence of their beliefs without referring to the Book of Mormon. You dealt the hand, you play it out.