[El Cid]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)

I can not believe that some pro-evolutionist is posting this particular Chart as a Fact of evolution, how it actually is proven by science.

This Chart shows goes back at least to the 1930's, where I saw it in a A science book on Evolution, and Probably was produced earlier.

It is a very rascist Chart. it shows we descended from the inferior primates. The last three are - The Black Negro, The lighter colored dark skin of Asians, and the Most evolved are the white race - the lastest most advanced hominid in the evolutionary progress.

Darwin predicted in his book 'Descent of Man' that the apes and Negro would perish in a few hundred years or so, wiped out by the most evolved Hominid - the superior Caucasian (Aryan) race. This is how evolution works according to Darwin and friends, the more evolved eliminates their less un-evolved closest species, even if they can still interbreed with some of them.

BTW (For those who know me), I'm not planning to post on this topic of evolution any further. I'm really not up to it anymore. I wish all a wonderful life and a rewarding life.

P.S. My greetings to Gofre, hope all is going well for you.

[El Cid]

(Original post by omgpop4real)
I think it's of utmost importance that people realise they are participating in a double standard by accepting only some of the doctrines of their faith and rejecting others. Many Christians claim to reject the old testament for example, however, canonical Christian bible includes the old testament. But even just looking to the new testament, it is said in different gospels at various points that none of what went before is to be forgotten 'until judgement day'. And again, the new testament also features homophobic messages. [Deletions]".

You statement above is simply wrong. The mainstream Christian Theology states that the New Testament in the Old Testament is contained, and that Old Testament in the New Testament is explained.

From what you wrote, I do not think you wish it be explained to you. But, you are flatly wrong. And speaking as a Christian, We Christians believe all Israel will be saved.

(Original post by omgpop4real)
When you think about it really, it seems far more likely that God evolved from human minds, than humanity being evolved from the product of a God-like mind.

It seems to me you are lost in your thoughts and speak of what you do not know.

[Gofre]

(Original post by El Cid)
I can not believe that some pro-evolutionist is posting this particular Chart as a Fact of evolution, how it actually is proven by science.

It's more a case that it's a recognisable symbol of evolution rather than being an accurate illustration. It's a lot easier for the average joe to recognise than a phylogenetic tree would be, and it looks a lot better in a small box.

This Chart shows goes back at least to the 1930's, where I saw it in a A science book on Evolution, and Probably was produced earlier.

It is a very rascist Chart. it shows we descended from the inferior primates. The last three are - The Black Negro, The lighter colored dark skin of Asians, and the Most evolved are the white race - the lastest most advanced hominid in the evolutionary progress.

This is was indeed a possible reason, it may well have been a common Victorian-Georgian attitude. Slavery was only abolished less than a century before.

Darwin predicted in his book 'Descent of Man' that the apes and Negro would perish in a few hundred years or so, wiped out by the most evolved Hominid - the superior Caucasian (Aryan) race. This is how evolution works according to Darwin and friends, the more evolved eliminates their less un-evolved closest species, even if they can still interbreed with some of them.

Luckily things have progressed since Darwin. Seriously, the guy revolutionised the field of evolutionary study but revolutions have happened multiple times since. His word is not immutable law.

P.S. My greetings to Gofre, hope all is going well for you.

Hi, and yes thanks.

[El Cid]

(Original post by Hylean)
Nothing in The Bible states that it has to be taken literally either.

Also, religion is nothing like a legal contract.

That's not right.

What do you think the word 'Covenant' means. Covenant = Contract, between humans and God.

There is an Old Covenant, a Contract between the peoples of the Exodus, and with God, Wherein they agreed to keep 613 commandments, and in so doing, God would bless them in many great ways delineated in the Contract, if they Kept the LAW. Moses read them the proposed Contract, they all shouted "Yes, this we will do." And they sealed this Contract by accepting the blood that Moses sprinkled on them.

Of course not all 613 laws applied to everyone , some were for men only, some for women only, some for the levitical preists only.

The New Covenant came into existence upon God annhilating the Mosaic Covenant when Jesus died upon the cross Zec: 11 7-14, Zec 1-6 is the burning of Herods Temple.

The Laws of Christ is Just Three.

Law 1: Love God with all your mind, body and soul, and love others as you love yourself.

Law 2: The Law of Liberty: Mercy Triumphs ove Judgement. Forgive and you will be forgiven. By what measure you measure, so shall you be measured. Pardon and you will be pardoned. William Shakespeare included this Law in the court scene of the Merchant of Venice, beginnig with "The quality of Mercy is not strained. ..." Right through the whole Court scene.

Law 3. (Okay, I suppose you readers may not understand this one.) I'll just quote it and leave it at that. Upon becoming a Christian we receive the Holy Spirit, 'God dwelling in every true Christian, transforming us daily that we may bear the good fruit that God desires we bear.

Romans 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death (The Mosaic Body of Law). 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

From Galatians come a list of the the Fruit that Christians will bear through the work the Holy Spirit will produce in us as we walk with God daily.

"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."

I try to be all that when I post here on your forum.

My best wishes to all.

El Cid

[El Cid]

Gofre, nice to hear from you. Your reply was gracious and sincere. I fully acccept your explanation. Edit; But you already know my views on the Modern Theory of evolution from prior exchanges. As always, I wish you well and much joy and happiness in your life.

[Hylean]

(Original post by El Cid)
That's not right.

What do you think the word 'Covenant' means. Covenant = Contract, between humans and God.

There is an Old Covenant, a Contract between the peoples of the Exodus, and with God, Wherein they agreed to keep 613 commandments, and in so doing, God would bless them in many great ways delineated in the Contract, if they Kept the LAW. Moses read them the proposed Contract, they all shouted "Yes, this we will do." And they sealed this Contract by accepting the blood that Moses sprinkled on them.

Of course not all 613 laws applied to everying, some were for men only, some for women only, some for the levitical preists only.

The New Covenant came into existence upon God annhilating the Mosaic Covenant when Jesus died upon the cross Zec: 11 7-14, Zec 1-6 is the burning of Herods Temple.

The Laws of Christ is Just Three.

Law 1: Love God with all your mind, body and soul, and love others as you love yourself.

Law 2: The Law of Liberty: Mercy Triumphs ove Judgement. Forgive and you will be forgiven. By what measure you measure, so shall you be measured. Pardon and you will be pardoned. William Shakespeare included this Law in the court scene of the Merchant of Venice, beginnig with "The quality of Mercy is not strained. ..." Right through the whole Court scene.

Law 3. (Okay, I suppose you readers may not understand this one.) I'll just quote it and leave it at that. Upon becoming a Christian we receive the Holy Spirit, 'God dwelling in every true Christian, transforming us daily that we may bear the good fruit that God desires we bear.

Romans 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death (The Mosaic Body of Law). 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.

From Galatians come a list of the the Fruit that Christians will bear through the work the Holy Spirit will produce in us as we walk with God daily.

"The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law."

I try to be all that when I post here on your forum.

My best wishes to all.

El Cid

Interestingly, Christianity =/= religion. And nothing in this has to do with Evolution.

[TimmonaPortella]

(Original post by El Cid)
I can not believe that some pro-evolutionist is posting this particular Chart as a Fact of evolution, how it actually is proven by science.

This Chart shows goes back at least to the 1930's, where I saw it in a A science book on Evolution, and Probably was produced earlier.

It is a very rascist Chart. it shows we descended from the inferior primates. The last three are - The Black Negro, The lighter colored dark skin of Asians, and the Most evolved are the white race - the lastest most advanced hominid in the evolutionary progress.

Darwin predicted in his book 'Descent of Man' that the apes and Negro would perish in a few hundred years or so, wiped out by the most evolved Hominid - the superior Caucasian (Aryan) race. This is how evolution works according to Darwin and friends, the more evolved eliminates their less un-evolved closest species, even if they can still interbreed with some of them.

BTW (For those who know me), I'm not planning to post on this topic of evolution any further. I'm really not up to it anymore. I wish all a wonderful life and a rewarding life.

P.S. My greetings to Gofre, hope all is going well for you.

I just posted it for lulz, I really don't care where the chart is from or what its message is so long as it provides said lulz.

Thank you for the good wishes.

[El Cid]

(Original post by TimmonaPortella)
I just posted it for lulz, I really don't care where the chart is from or what its message is so long as it provides said lulz.

Thank you for the good wishes.

Okay, I'm fine with that, and my blessings upon you that joy, merry laughter, and peace be upon you, always.

[Thebigfudge85]

I think it comes down to how Christians read the Bible, A literal view of the Bible involves a great amount of doublethink, They accept that the Earth isn't flat with 4 corners but don't accept that we evolved, it is picking and choosing doctrine,

However if you look at the Bible as it is, The writings of prople who believed in God ( wiether God is true or not is irrelevant) and recorded their respective beliefs, Then it takes on a completely different meaning, I know a few theologists who study the Bible and a non literal view seems to be the consensus view.

Religion and the bible are not mutually exclusive. You can acknowledge both.

[G8D]

http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/a...evolution.html

[Gofre]

Just got my results for my first year, passed everything and came top of the year for the evo/ID essay with 75%

[Good bloke]

Well done.

[Pyramidologist]

The reason Darwinism has become an unquestionable dogma is because 99.9% of the ''opposition'' are religious, such as Biblical creationists. If instead there were more non-religious objections, the alternitives to the mainstream evolution theory would be more credible.

If Biblical creationists didn't have their Bible, they would be evolutionists.

The very few objective (non-religious) scientists who come out and challenge Darwinism sadly are then lumped into the creotard camp.

[Pyramidologist]

(Original post by Thebigfudge85)
I think it comes down to how Christians read the Bible, A literal view of the Bible involves a great amount of doublethink, They accept that the Earth isn't flat with 4 corners but don't accept that we evolved, it is picking and choosing doctrine

The ''Earth'' in the Bible is not a capital but a lowercase. The authors of the Old Testament had no knowledge of the entire globe. Basically their geographical knowledge was limited to the middle-east region and the peripheries of Europe and Africa. So when the Bible says the ''earth'' is flat, this is actually true. The ''earth'' (lowercase) is not the entire globe, just a small segment of land confined mostly to the middle-east. If you walk across a small segment of the globe (a few hundred miles), it is flat.

[Thebigfudge85]

(Original post by Pyramidologist)
The ''Earth'' in the Bible is not a capital but a lowercase. The authors of the Old Testament had no knowledge of the entire globe. Basically their geographical knowledge was limited to the middle-east region and the peripheries of Europe and Africa. So when the Bible says the ''earth'' is flat, this is actually true. The ''earth'' (lowercase) is not the entire globe, just a small segment of land confined mostly to the middle-east. If you walk across a small segment of the globe (a few hundred miles), it is flat.

it doesn't say the Earth is flat in the context you speak off. it says the Earth has 4 corners(. Which implies that it is a square or rectangle. A cube has 8 corners where as a sphere or an elipse have none. That is from Isiaah 11.12

The bible also says in a few chapters that there is an end to the earth further giving evidence that the belief was that the "Earth" was flat, they did use the word "earth after all" which has been translated as such, not the word "Land" or "country" or "nation"

So my point still stands, People deny evolution based on 1 & 2 Genesis but don't argue that the word is flat.

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by El Cid)
I can not believe that some pro-evolutionist is posting this particular Chart as a Fact of evolution, how it actually is proven by science.

This Chart shows goes back at least to the 1930's, where I saw it in a A science book on Evolution, and Probably was produced earlier.

It is a very rascist Chart. it shows we descended from the inferior primates. The last three are - The Black Negro, The lighter colored dark skin of Asians, and the Most evolved are the white race - the lastest most advanced hominid in the evolutionary progress.

Darwin predicted in his book 'Descent of Man' that the apes and Negro would perish in a few hundred years or so, wiped out by the most evolved Hominid - the superior Caucasian (Aryan) race. This is how evolution works according to Darwin and friends, the more evolved eliminates their less un-evolved closest species, even if they can still interbreed with some of them.

BTW (For those who know me), I'm not planning to post on this topic of evolution any further. I'm really not up to it anymore. I wish all a wonderful life and a rewarding life.

P.S. My greetings to Gofre, hope all is going well for you.

How is it at all racist? To say it is you have to already assume that a different skin colour is inferior, which only makes you racist. Your post also shows that you do not understand how evolution works. It works by people with successful genes for their environment surviving, and others not so. Our ancestors developed in africa, where their environment is better suited for dark skin. As we evolved we were able to invent things such as clothes and shelter, which allowed us to travel to places that were not possible before. Moving out of Africa caused our environments to be more favourable towards lighter skinned individuals. This does NOT mean that dark skin is "inferior", since it's all relative. As well, humans have evolved to adapt their surroundings to their needs, which completely moots that argument.

I realize you probably won't read/ reply to this, but it's still worth clarifying.

[El Cid]

I must respond to ChemistBoy. We had a nice discussion on science back in 2009, I respect him much.

Our discussion can be read on this thread (starting on page 9) at:

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&page=9&page=9

ChemistBoy is very bright, and insightful, but not on the point he makes here

(Original post by ChemistBoy)
Of course this is completely and utterly wrong.

This is a picture of a Tiglon (or tigon if you prefer):




It is the offspring between a male tiger (Panthera tigris) and a female lion (Panthera leo) it is widely known and there are many examples in existance. A simple web seach will tell you all you need to know about it, you can probably even visit one in a zoo nearby.

Also, it is known through an experiment conducted in 1943 (and subsequent ones) that Tiglons are not sterile and have been successfully mated with lions and/or tigers to produce viable offspring that have survied to adulthood.

It has never been the case or ever taught to be the case (as far as I am aware) that the scientific community has believed that seperate species cannot produce viable offspring. It is often widely taught that seperate species don't produce fertile offspring and, although that is often true, the example of the tiglon muddies the waters somewhat still further.

I don't really know (or care) what point you were trying to make with your claim, but just that it was clearly wrong and needed correcting. Obviously, if you were claiming some kind of authority in this area of biology I would suggest that that has been very much undermined.

Not so, Chemist Boy.

Just as a Japanese man can interbreed with a Norwegian female, and give birth to a Japwegian. Yet, they are still the same species known as Humans.

Tigers and lions are the same species Known as the Pantheras.

--------- - Lion ♀ --- Tiger ♀--- Jaguar ♀-- Leopard ♀
Lion ---- - Lion ----- Liger ---- Liguar ---- Lipard
Tiger -- - -Tigon -- - Tiger --- Tiguar ---- Tigard
Jaguar - - Jaglion --- Jagger -- Jaguar --- Jagupard
Leopard - - Leopon - Dogla --- Leguar --- Leopard,



The definitions of 'Species' as used in the evolutionary portion of science books are rather specious.

In nature, we have species A that can bear offspring with species B; species B can bear offspring species C, but species A and species C can not bear any offspring. AB is the same species, BC are the the same species, But AC are not the same species because they can not interbreed. Evolution in action? NOT!

Over 80,000 species of beetle and they can all interbreed unless size prevents them. All species of Whales can interbreed. And so on.

There is no sound science definition of the word 'species'. Apparently, a species is whatever an evolutionary scientist conveniently says it is, for the purpose of selling evolution as a fact..

[Hype en Ecosse]

(Original post by El Cid)
Just as Japanese man can interbreed with Norwegian female, and give birth to a Japwegian. Yet, they are still the same species known as Humans.

Because a Japanese man is to a Norwegian woman as a tiger is to a lion?

Tigers and lions are the same species Known as the Pantheras.

--------- - Lion ♀ --- Tiger ♀--- Jaguar ♀-- Leopard ♀
Lion ---- - Lion ----- Liger ---- Liguar ---- Lipard
Tiger -- - -Tigon -- - Tiger --- Tiguar ---- Tigard
Jaguar - - Jaglion --- Jagger -- Jaguar --- Jagupard
Leopard - - Leopon - Dogla --- Leguar --- Leopard,

No. Panthera is a taxonomic genus. Not a species, in ANY sense of the word.

The definitions of 'Species' as used in the evolutionary portion of science books are rather specious.

In nature, we have species A that can bear offspring with species B; species B can bear offspring species C, but species A and species C can not bear any offspring. AB is the same species, BC are the the same species, But AC are not the same species because they can not interbreed. Evolution in action? NOT!

Over 80,000 species of beetle and they can all interbreed unless size prevents them. All species of Whales can interbreed. And so on.

There is no sound science definition of the word 'species'. Apparently, a species is whatever an evolutionary scientist conveniently says it is, for the purpose of selling evolution as a fact..

Now, I'm not an entomologists so I can't comment on the state of the beetles. However, definition of species only vary because it is necessary. First of all, you have convoluted the common definition of species:

A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. (Read here and here.)
This definition works for most things and is a general definition. Bit like a rule of thumb.

It is very rare for a tigon, or a mule, or other such mammal to be fertile. Thus, lions and tigers are different species. Thus horses and donkeys are different species, but as the second link states, this leaves a degree of ambiguity. Hence why other measurements of species must be brought in, such as phylogenetic ones.

As for the last point: if it so happened that I could produce fertile offspring with a rhododendron bush, this would not be a disproof of evolution. Evolution and speciation are two separate things. Speciation happens by evolution. Evolution does not happen by speciation. The fact that X thing is the same species as Y but a different species from Z has little to do with evolution. If we all turned out by some anti-miracle to be able to have babies with everything that lived, the genetic differences are still there. The effects of this on conception doesn't matter much in evolution. The inability to interbreed simply implies a big genetic difference, which is the important bit for evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species...icular_species

No "evolutionist" has ever denied that there isn't ambiguity in the word species.

[WhatsHisFace]

(Original post by El Cid)
There is no sound science definition of the word 'species'. Apparently, a species is whatever an evolutionary scientist conveniently says it is, for the purpose of selling evolution as a fact..

Oh wow... You really can't piece this together, can you?

There isn't a point where a different specie of animal is just birthed into existence. Centuries of gradual genetic variations within a species can cause two animals who have common ancestors to no longer be able to procreate. One group of animals may be less genetically similar then the next group, which is even less similar than the third group, explaining your species A B C point.

Defining 'species' is ambiguous because natural selection has no need for categorizing things so neatly. It just is.

[El Cid]

[QUOTE=Hype en Ecosse;38803247]Because a Japanese man is to a Norwegian woman as a tiger is to a lion?

No. Panthera is a taxonomic genus. Not a species, in ANY sense of the word.

Now, I'm not an entomologists so I can't comment on the state of the beetles. However, definition of species only vary because it is necessary. First of all, you have convoluted the common definition of species:

A species is a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. (Read here and here.)
This definition works for most things and is a general definition. Bit like a rule of thumb."

[Deletions] (/quote)

Very good 'Hype en Ecosse', what you wrote is correct and what I wrote is incorrect. I enjoy being caught in an error. It shows me that someone was on the ball. I appreciate that. The offspring of the Panthera are sterile, thus the four Panthera are classified as different species.

My sincere thanks to you for pointing this out.