I guess this is the current state of creationism

[metis]

Like I said, evolution is the foundation of racism as per aforementioned historical evidence presented according to evolutionists.

"Evolution" really has nothing to do with racism per se any more than it causes sunspots.

Decades and centuries ago, "racism" dominated much of western society and encompassed pretty much all areas of study and life, such a political, economic, educational, religious, familial, etc. And science was no exception as some looked for evidence to support the conclusion, which is a bass ackwards approach in science that we're supposed to avoid.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't think that addressed any of my points about evolutionist positions mentioned

It negates your argument that "evolution is the basis racism". As I showed, one of the most notorious periods of racism in recent history was justified by appealing to Christianity, extreme racism existed well before any sort of evolutionary thought, and anti-evolution Christian creationists have expressed very racist views.

 

[Kenny]

No, let's not, I'd rather not look that foolish. Feel free to do so if you want to however.

Too late, my dear friend.

 

[Kenny]

"Evolution" really has nothing to do with racism per se any more than it causes sunspots.

I would disagree...

Can we agree that humans, apes, chimps and orangutans probably came from the same ancestor in relation to evolutionary through process?

 

[Kenny]

It negates your argument that "evolution is the basis racism". As I showed, one of the most notorious periods of racism in recent history was justified by appealing to Christianity, extreme racism existed well before any sort of evolutionary thought, and anti-evolution Christian creationists have expressed very racist views.

And your supportive quote that it was to "appeal to Christianity" is what? (Other than your personal viewpoint)

 

[Jose Fly]

And your supportive quote that it was to "appeal to Christianity" is what?

A negation of your claim that "evolution is the basis for racism".

(Other than your personal viewpoint)

The quotes are not my opinions, but direct appeals to Christianity to justify racist ideology by the very people who espouse such hatred.

 

[Kenny]

A negation of your claim that "evolution is the basis for racism".


The quotes are not my opinions, but direct appeals to Christianity to justify racist ideology by the very people who espouse such hatred.

strawman

 

[metis]

Can we agree that humans, apes, chimps and orangutans probably came from the same ancestor in relation to evolutionary through process?

Not necessarily but possibly so depending on how far one is willing to go back through time and how one may define "common ancestor". Assuming there's a single common ancestor for the great apes, which we don't assume btw, that would likely have preceded the ape/human split by many millions of years.

The common ancestor for the latter appears to be likely around 7 million years ago, whereas the great apes' common ancestor may double that or more. I haven't kept up with the latter much so I'm just guestimating. I can google this later when I have more time (lotsa work since we're back).

 

[metis]

I would disagree...

Then I can reciprocate and blame it on religion, especially Christianity.

Again, the ToE has literally nothing to do with racism. Just because some scientists took that tact in the distant past shouldn't be used to cover all or most scientists involved in studying the evolutionary process, past or present.

BTW, ever hear of "the curse of Ham"? How about that the most segregated day of the week being Sunday? How about the biblical acceptance and justification for slavery?

Damned Christians!!!

 

[Kenny]

Not necessarily but possibly so depending on how far one is willing to go back through time and how one may define "common ancestor". Assuming there's a single common ancestor for the great apes, which we don't assume btw, that would likely have preceded the ape/human split by many millions of years.

The common ancestor for the latter appears to be likely around 7 million years ago, whereas the great apes' common ancestor may double that or more. I haven't kept up with the latter much so I'm just guestimating. I can google this later when I have more time (lotsa work since we're back).

We do assume because the going posture of evolution is that the difference between apes, chimps, humans are minor and that they are very similar. Although we have no idea who the ancestor is, (no empirical and verifiable evidence) - that is the position that is held.

So.. the next step is that in this tree, the branches, from whatever common ancestor there was, had random mutations along with environmental forces (to survive and adapt) caused different types to emerge.

Can we agree there?

 

[Kenny]

Then I can reciprocate and blame it on religion, especially Christianity.

Again, the ToE has literally nothing to do with racism. Just because some scientists took that tact in the distant past shouldn't be used to cover all or most scientists involved in studying the evolutionary process, past or present.

BTW, ever hear of "the curse of Ham"? How about that the most segregated day of the week being Sunday? How about the biblical acceptance and justification for slavery?

Damned Christians!!!

LOL... except we aren't talking about the Bible... we are talking evolution. Let's stay on task here and not get on a tangent.

 

[metis]

We do assume because the going posture of evolution is that the difference between apes, chimps, humans are minor and that they are very similar. Although we have no idea who the ancestor is, (no empirical and verifiable evidence) - that is the position that is held.

Only as a probability, not an assumption. This is the direction that the fossil and genome evidence is taking us.

So.. the next step is that in this tree, the branches, from whatever common ancestor there was, had random mutations along with environmental forces (to survive and adapt) caused different types to emerge.

Can we agree there?

Yes, but these may not be the only factors involved, and a great many "evolutionists" are also theistic as well. Most Christian and Jewish theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

 

[Kenny]

Only as a probability, not an assumption. This is the direction that the fossil and genome evidence is taking us.

Yes, but these may not be the only factors involved, and a great many "evolutionists" are also theistic as well. Most Christian and Jewish theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

I'm sure there may be other factors as I am speaking generally.

So, we have chimps, orangutans, gorillas, human at different intellectual abilities because of "all" the factors... correct?

PS... I can agree that people used the Bible for racism... shame on all who did that.

 

[Jose Fly]

strawman

I quoted you directly and in full. So if there's an error here, it's that you failed to explain your position beyond "Let's just say that evolution is the basis for racism."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why not teach evolution as a theory

They do teach it as a theory. As I've tried explaining, the word theory is used differently by scientists and layspeople. I guess we're done if you don't even want to try to learn.

 

[Deeje]

They do teach it as a theory. As I've tried explaining, the word theory is used differently by scientists and layspeople. I guess we're done if you don't even want to try to learn.

Ummm.....according to Richard Dawkins....."We should stop using “theory” altogether for the case of evolution and insist, instead, that evolution is a fact."

He also said..."I am fond of Stephen Jay Gould’s way of putting it. “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." IOW if you disagree with us presenting evolution as fact, you are merely being perverse because we all believe it and so should you.

"For now, when arguing with creationists, let’s sweep confusion aside by means of a strategic retreat from the word “theory”. Let’s sacrifice a pawn for strategic advantage and hammer home a clear message that everyone can understand, and which is undeniably true in the everyday sense. Evolution is a fact."

Seems as if it is a fact, according to Mr Dawkins because scientists want it to be, not because it has actual evidence that it ever happened....and shame on anyone for daring to question it.

So you see, it isn't a matter of me not wanting to learn......I just don't want to learn unsubstantiated assumption based on nothing but scientific hunches that have no real evidence to back them up.

 

[metis]

So, we have chimps, orangutans, gorillas, human at different intellectual abilities because of "all" the factors... correct?

Yep.

Remember, as a rule of thumb goes, it's survival and reproduction that are the driving force for future generations, so each species that still around today has somehow "found" its niche. And what may work for one species is not necessarily the same as what may work for another species.

If we think of ourselves as being the pinnacle of evolution, we are badly mistaken as other life forms predated us, and it's possible, unfortunately, that some day we may be removed and replaced.

BTW, did I ever tell you before that I certainly didn't vote for Trump?

 

[sayak83]

I'm sure there may be other factors as I am speaking generally.

So, we have chimps, orangutans, gorillas, human at different intellectual abilities because of "all" the factors... correct?

PS... I can agree that people used the Bible for racism... shame on all who did that.

This discussion sounds promising. I will add in comments as it progresses.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Ummm.....according to Richard Dawkins....."We should stop using “theory” altogether for the case of evolution and insist, instead, that evolution is a fact."

If he said that (and without a source I doubt it), that would make him the idiot that he is not (or it's way out of context and he meant this in a broader sense of public discourse) because germs are a theory, there is no getting around acknowledging germ theory, and germs are also a fact. There are many, many other theories of science, that are theories, but are also fact. Such as, I doubt you are dumb enough to light a match in front a tank expelling oxygen, and that is because you know, based on the theory of the combustibility of oxygen, that it will be a fact that lighting that match will turn you into a crispy critter.

 

[metis]

But when we use the word "theory", this often includes "axioms", which pretty much are "facts".

Is evolution a "fact"? Yes, because the basis of the word "evolution" is change ("evolve"), and we well know that change takes place. Is the concept of organisms evolving a "fact"? Of course it is since it's been observed over and over again.