When I visited the Creation "Museum", one thing that shocked me was this display:
At the time, I pointed out the pernicious nature of this claim:
With complete seriousness and no awareness of the historical abuses to which this idea has been put, they were promoting the Hamite theory of racial origins, that ugly idea that all races stemmed from the children of Noah, and that black people in particular were the cursed offspring of Ham. If they are going to reject science because of its abuses, such as eugenics, they should at least be conscious of the evils perpetrated in the name of their strange cultish doctrines, I should think.
Boy oh boy, let me tell you…Ken Ham was indignant and outraged. How dare we connect creationism to racism? He was claiming that all races were one, descended from a common ancestor, Noah, 4000 years ago! Of course, what he neglects to mention is that the Biblical story claims that Africans are the product of a curse of servility placed on Ham and all of his descendants.
Well, and he also neglects to mention that the story is totally bogus, disproven by modern evidence, and has no relationship at all to the patterns of migration in human history.
Ken Ham is wrong and racist. The Biblical story of the origins of the diverse peoples of the earth is wrong and racist. It really is that simple. It takes a complex history and turns it into a pat partitioning of humanity into the chosen people, and the cursed people.
And just now people are taking notice. Schools in Texas are taking advantage of creationist curricula to incorporate instruction in racism into the schools. This is an actual image from one of the creationist textbooks.
And this is what Texas schoolkids are being taught.
Instructional material in two school districts teach that racial diversity today can be traced back to Noah’s sons, a long-discredited claim that has been a foundational component of some forms of racism.
Religious bias is common, with most courses taught from a Protestant — often a conservative Protestant — perspective. One course, for example, assumes Christians will at some point be “raptured.” Materials include a Venn diagram showing the pros and cons of theories that posit the rapture before the returning Jesus’ 1,000-year reign and those that place it afterward. In many courses, the perspectives of Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians and Jews are often left out.
Anti-Jewish bias — intentional or not — is not uncommon. Some courses even portray Judaism as a flawed and incomplete religion that has been replaced by Christianity.
Many courses suggest or openly claim that the Bible is literally true. “The Bible is the written word of God,” students are told in one PowerPoint presentation. Some courses go so far as to suggest that the Bible can be used to verify events in history. One district, for example, teaches students that the Bible’s historical claims are largely beyond question by listing biblical events side by side with historical developments from around the globe.
Course materials in numerous classes are designed to evangelize rather than provide an objective study of the Bible’s influence. A book in one district makes its purpose clear in the preface: “May this study be of value to you. May you fully come to believe that ‘Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.’ And may you have ‘life in His name.’”
A number of courses teach students that the Bible proves Earth is just 6,000 years old.
Students are taught that the United States is a Christian nation founded on the Christian biblical principles taught in their classrooms.
Academic rigor is so poor that many courses rely mostly on memorization of Bible verses and factoids from Bible stories rather than teaching students how to analyze what they are studying. One district relies heavily on Bible cartoons from Hanna-Barbera for its high school class. Students in another district spend two days watching what lesson plans describe a “the historic documentary Ancient Aliens,” which presents “a new interpretation of angelic beings described as extraterrestrials.”
Would you believe that they also teach that the Jews killed Jesus? Of course you would.
Creationism isn't just a source of ignorance; it's a major wellspring of ethnic bigotry.
(via Addicting Info)
- Log in to post comments
Completely agree with you, but you should amend your post removing references to 'the biblical story of the origins of peoples'. The bible never offers such claims, rather (like eugenics), these readings were imposed on the bible by a cruel modern system and ideology that wanted to justify oppression of anyone who wasn't a "white" Christian without compromising the bits in the bible that say things like, 'don't enslave nations' and 'don't kill.' That Ken Ham and his ilk attach themselves to this idea suggests that, even for them, the bible does not have all the answers, even when they present their ideas as 'biblical.'
Slamming Creationism is a distraction to avoid public scrutinity of the deceptive way that Darwinian/Macro evolution is being taught in the science classroom.
The evolution battle is often MISrepresented as science against religion - this is baloney!
The real battle is between good science and Darwinism. When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.
The scientific method demands: observation, measurement, repeatability. Darwinian/Macro evolution has none of these, all it has is circumstantial evidence which is open to interpretation. Ask yourself: What evidence is there that our great .... Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?
Where are all the transitional fossils? Nowhere to be seen. Take your BLIND FAITH and preach it somewhere else other than the public classroom. Anyone that suggests that there is shred of real evidence that actually supports macroevolution is either completely ignorant of any facts or a liar. Wishful thinking is all evolutionists rely on.
The Bible does not poport this idea like you say it does - it was applied to the Bible to legitimize the African trans atlantic slave trade. Where did you get your facts from?
You said, "Would you believe that they also teach that the Jews killed Jesus? Of course you would."
When you consider every person has sinned. And, the result of that is death. Jesus was put in our place to redeem sinners. For that He had to die. So, in this way, every one of us is responsible for his death, are we not?
He was raised on the third day that we might have hope in Him. This is amazingly good news for those who were formerly enemies of God, and now, through the love of Christ, have become children of God.
Funny to see all these idiot creationist crawl out from under their slime and comment. How does it feel to KNOW to the stupid things you believe will vanish soon. I bet within a couple generations. Science keeps adding to its vast store of knowledge. Religion keeps rehashing irrelevancy and fear in a failing effort to maintain control.
What will you do when not enough people indoctrinate their children for you?
Poor, wrong G.Drake
@General Drake:
What, in your mind, would count as a transitional fossil?
There are so few transitional fossils that google and Wikipedia have no entries and even my local newspaper only had 2 photos of such a fossil in the last 2 years.
Well here's one
Not only were scientists able to predict what the transitional form would look like, they were able to predict where they'd find it.
Low and behold. They were pretty much spot on.
Join reality Gen. Drake, it is leaving you behind.
@Snowshoe:
My question to General Drake, answer it. What is a transitional fossil?
Except it doesn't, unless you follow the rantings of people like Ham, Hovind, and Gish.
Care to support that ridiculous assertion with something tangible?
Rudi!
Matthew 27.1
Luke 23.13 to 20
1 Thessalonians 2.14
These might teach you something. But I doubt it.
It is unfortunate that the children of Texas are being cheated out of a valid science education. Pretending that all of the ethnic diversity of man across the globe could have descended from the children and family of Noah is the height of absurdity. Racist or not, this is simply impossible.
Simple math renders the young earth creationist perspective preached by folks such as Theot and General Drake the height of sophistry.
We need to do something to help the children of Texas. The theocrats infecting the education system in Texas are damaging an entire generation by teaching them simply disproven lies as well as sophistry that can lead to things like racism.
Maybe those people claiming there are no transitional fossils like to explain just what all those 8 million of so fossils in the Natural History Museum in London are.
Snowshoe the Canuck - you are joking aren't you? I mean, I can't understand why anyone would utter such a blatant and easily dismissed falsehood with a straight expression on their face.
For the record, ALL fossils are transitional. (unless they're the last of their species)
"...even my local newspaper only had 2 photos of such a fossil in the last 2 years."
Local newspapers: now the fount of scientific inquiry.
oh, by the way...
Ken Ham is a lunatic with regards to reality and evidence.
One should not expect a rational repsonse form this man. He is quite ill and very desperate. Hopefully his little empire's collapse will involve only tears and not Kool-Aid.
the amazing thing about Darwinian evolution is that it has been so predictive, and all the predictions so far have been verified. For example, humans have one less chromosome than apes. The prediction this lead to was that ape chromosomes must have fused in the evolutionary past. Low and behold this turns out to be true and we can even location the spot where the chromosomes fused. We can see evolution in action. General Drake, you need to read something other than Answers in Genesis. Maybe start with "The Beak of the Finch", or if you want everything in one place try "The Greatest Show on Earth". Then tell us that Darwinian evolution falls apart if science looks at it. To deny evolution you need to deny mathematics, physics, chemistry, archeology, geology, biology and cosmology, all of which converge to verify evolution. Grow a brain and cure your incredible ignorance.
General Drake,
I'm afraid you may not know as much about this subject as you think. Leaving aside the fact that all species are 'transitional', there are many examples of splendidly clear, continuous and gradual transitions in the fossil record. A good place to look for such sequences is in planktonic microfossils. Try looking up 'foraminifera' or 'Fusulinidae', and you should get an idea about just how enormous the fossil evidence for gradual change over time really is. But do your homework - don't just claim that there isn't a 'shred' of evidence for 'macroevolution' when in fact there are millions of tons of evidence available, as near as your closest limestone cliff... until you've looked into the evidence, I'm afraid you don't actually know enough to have an informed opinion on the matter one way or the other.
Griff, I was joking. I forgot the /sarcasm tag.
Snowshoe the (sigh, fellow) Canuck wrote...
"Rudi!
Matthew 27.1
Luke 23.13 to 20
1 Thessalonians 2.14
These might teach you something. But I doubt it."
You're wrong! Spewing Bible passages at us, even with context, teaches us that you have nothing new to teach us. Your particular book of myths has no bearing on the discussion at hand.
Snowshoe.
Thanks for sharing your religious ideas.
For information about actual science, start at NCSE web site.
Quoting scripture is not going to resolve even the simplest physics problem. Magic and science, not interchangeable.
If god did make humans I can't see why he'd be proud of the job and want to be reminded of it.
General Drake. Sorry you fail on transitional fossils.
If you go to talkorigins.com you can see examples of some of the more important transitional fossils.
Its never a good idea to learn geology and paleontology from someone with a degree in divinity(at best).
Attacking knowledge , always a losing proposition. Your trransition fossil claim is utterly incorrect. Repeat all you want but it doesn't change that.
Good luck.
I wasn't claiming to share my nonexistent religious beliefs. Rudi claimed that the bible did not support the claim that Jews killed or caused the death of Jesus. I merely found a few passages in his holey book that showed he was wrong.
I have a scientific background, and the bible is not my book of myths.
Perhaps the context was missing?
Snowshoe - sadly, creationists do come out with this stuff, so it's sometimes hard to tell!!
Dear Theot. Thanks for sharing your religious anger with everyone.
"There is no need to mandate critical thinking in science.
Thats what science is. You need to make a law to teach creationism though"
You have MAJOR scientific, legal and denominational problems with your magical scince ideas Theot. But, if you CAN prove that evolution is incorrect and that you have a valid replacement theory, you should write it down, submit it to Nature or Science and collect your Nobel Prize !
Everyone is still waiting for you to do that
instead of posting religious hate gibberish everywhere.
Its a big conspiracy by the atheits right Theot?
Bwahh hahahahah:)
"Griff, I was joking. I forgot the /sarcasm tag."
Well, that's embarrassing.
snowshoe, guess so. My post was inaccurate then.
Smile.:)
Aren't all fossils technically transitional fossils?
No problems. It's amazing how the fingers miss so many keys.
Snowshoe, sorry about that. After reading your comment about sarcasm, I went back and double checked who you were replying to. My mistake.
And just like that. Gone.
@theot58
Slamming Creationism is a distraction to avoid public scrutinity of the deceptive way that Darwinian/Macro evolution is being taught in the science classroom.
Feel like giving an example or did you just want to make vague, unsupported assertions?
When Darwinian/Macro evolution is scrutinised using the scientific method, it crumbles.
Really? So, what's your explanation for why humans and chimps have identical cytochrome c proteins? Given the number of fully functional possible sequences, why do we have identical ones? If it's not because we're related, why is it, just random chance?
@Snowshoe:
*bonk* Stop being so Creationist-like!
@Katherine:
Ouch, that hurts. I promise to never do that again.
Rdng th cmmnts f flthy crtnsm scm s trly scknng xprnc. W nd mr ctn, srs ctn, gnst ths ppl -- lst thy drg th ntr cntry dwn. dn't ndrstnd why ppl try t s rsn n thm bcs thy r mprvs t rsn. Crtnsts r lk trrrsts nd thr's nly tw chcs n dlng wth thm: lck thm p r kll thm.
[No. We can educate them. You will not make those kinds of threats here. --pzm]
theot58,
Observation? We observe that evolution has happened (for example, by looking at the molecular evidence) and we observe it happening in front of our eyes (especially if you turn to microorganisms and viruses).
Measurement? Not sure what you're trying to say, but evolutionary biologists certainly do measure all kinds of stuff.
Repeatability? Of course evolutionary biologists repeat their measurements of all kinds of stuff several times before publishing the results. They even quantify the repeatability they got!
Are you sure you know what you're talking about, theot58?
It's the most parsimonious hypothesis, and the one that makes more sense considering what we know about life, reproduction, and evolution.
What else do you propose? Magic?
Soooooo, Bill Hicks. Are you deliberately trying to make us look bad?
@Bill Hicks
I suggest you rein that shit in immediately. We're not big on thought crime here and we certainly aren't interested in your fascist bullshit.
You know, you made me wish for Comic Sans more than the creationist I just quoted. Even if you're kidding, which I'd like to believe you are... it's not funny. At all. Fuck off.
It appears PZ was right, the creationists aren't afraid of him but the Pharyngula commentariat scares them away.
Hicks:
I don't need your help to look bad. I can do that all by myself. Please stop posting such crap here. There are other places on the Internet for comments like that.
In simpler words "fuck off".
I just read the story of the curse of Ham. Apparently Ham saw his daddy's penis when Daddy got drunk and passed out nekkid in his tent. When Daddy woke up, he realized he'd been humiliated and blamed his son. I don't understand why seeing Daddy's penis is worse than getting drunk and passing out nekkid. I've done both and I couldn't see any harm either way.
Bill Hicks;
Creationists are like terrorists and there’s only two choices in dealing with them: lock them up or kill them.
Eliminationist rhetoric like this is not only unhelpful, it is dangerous. There is no reason why we can't oppose the irrational and harmful ideas of creationsts without fantasising about creating internment or extermination camps as punishment for notional 'thought crimes'.
Being wrong, however loudly and obnoxiously, does not make you a terrorist, nor does it mean that you are deserving of death.
Please refrain from promoting any more such neo-fascist positions here.
Nightjar
Two thoughts:
•These bozos don't believe that the flu vaccine works
or
•They don't understand the mechanism &/or why you need a new one every year. Vaccine's work through MAGIC!
@Ralph:
Some Biblical scholars think "uncovered his father's nakedness" means some kind of sexual assault.
This was fun while it lasted.
Homosexual incestous sexual assault in the bible? And they call it "the good book". Yuck.
Katherine,
Perhaps you are right, but "Some Biblical scholars..." believe almost anything. I based my interpretation on Genesis Chapter 9 in the KJV. All it says is that he saw nakedness. The two brothers went in backwards so that they would not see nakedness. Some Biblical scholars might think that presenting you back side to a naked man is more of a sin that seeing his front side. And when you are dabbling in mythology, you can make up any darn thing you want.
I was just reminded that Noah, the Daddy, was 600 years old when this took place. So the implication is that Ham had incestuous homosexual relations with his 600 year old father.
Creepy.
It also says that Noah woke up and "found out what his youngest son had done to him."
That doesn't sound like all he did was sneak a peak. I don't know how the original text lays this out, but the translation certainly implies that something was done to Noah.
It had to be drunk-shaming. Ham wrote on Noah's penis with a MAGIC marker! A black magic marker. Hence the punishment, handed down to all of his descendants through the end of time. Now THAT'S justice.
Whatever the boy did with Noah, you've got to admit that God's own chosen man, the great and saintly Noah, got absolutely shitfaced the first chance he got. Then the boy broke the rules, too.
Kinda like the Hebrews getting safely out of Egypt and turning immediately to calf-worship.
God sure can pick 'em, and sure can convince them he is to be taken seriously.
Here's a little ditty of interest. Not sure of the date of this video.
http://www.upworthy.com/senator-asks-for-proof-of-evolution-discovers-h…
The details are fun for speculation, but the dudes that thought up that part of the myth where a man 2 or 3 centuries old rapes a man 6 centuries old, then runs out and brags to his brothers, well, those guys must be sick.
theot58:
Science is not against religion, but their approaches to the "truth" are diametrically opposed. Science requires extensive testing, observation and measurement to say that something is true, and then only provisionally. If new evidence emerges counter to current scientific knowledge, then the new data must be validated and scientific theories modified or replaced as necessary.
Established religion starts out with a "truth" that is unprovable, not testable and not to be questioned. New evidence counter to accepted religious "truth" is dismissed, ignored or repressed by those zealots who justify everything (even willful ignorance) as fulfilling God's will.
This is the conflict between science and religion. One sees truth as an ever expanding quest for knowledge, the other sees truth as revealed by "their God" (all other god or goddess truths are considered null and void), and vehemently denies any attempts to validate their truths with reality.
Using religion's approach to reality, it is as easy to justify invisible unicorns as it is to justify their deity of choice. No proof required, you just have to BELIEVE!.
Nylonase producing bacteria and Lenski's citrate-eating E coli show that evolution is not a myth.
In reply to doodlebugger;
You and other evolutionists are the ones spewing out the hate talk. I have been called everything under the sun.
You are also bringing religion into this scientific question:
Who was our great ..... great grandfather? Was it a self replicating molecule, or was it Adam, of other?
Students and teachers should be able to question what is being taught.
For too long the Evolutionists have been harassing and intimidating anyone who questioned the Evolution myth.
There are many cases where people have been bullied and harassed for no other reason than because they questioned Evolution. (See Expelled - No intelligence allowed, or the Kansas School Board - Evolution hearings for documentation). Questioning/scrutinizing is a key tenant of the scientific method, it should be encouraged not punished.
In order to make an informed conclusion check out some debates on Evolution and see how it crumbles when scrutinised; just believing the pet answers is poor science. Go to Google Video or YouTube and search for Debates on Evolution. Try this link as a start http://www.fishdontwalk.com/
in reply to Ethelred the Unready
Your comment about Lenski and his attempts to emulate Evolution is bacteria are completely incorrect.
Lenski's experiments DISPROVES evolution because after thousands of generations of bacteria which he was trying to get to Evolve - they still remained basically unchanged BACTERIA.
He started with Bacteria - he ended with bacteria. NO NEW BODY PARTS OR SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. This DISPROVES evolution.
Theot58:
You might want to cite actual scientific evidence instead of debunked and error-ridden rumblings.
Google video and YouTube are well known for their peer-reviewed science.
/sarcasm off
He started with Bacteria – he ended with bacteria. NO NEW BODY PARTS OR SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. This DISPROVES evolution.
Seriously? Are you actually saying that you want the bacteria to grow arms and legs before you'll accept evolution? You make Ray Comfort sounds like a genius.
Um, maybe you shouldn't bring up Expelled, considering that PZ was booted from the screening that he attended.
It's been suggested that Ham made sure that Noah wouldn't have any more kids, so that he wouldn't have to split his inheritance any more. Inheritance? He gets a third of the world (since everyone else has drowned), and he's worried about a few more kids getting a share?
There is no "evolution battle" whatsoever in science except in the heads of the proudly deluded ignoramuses who try to sell creationism and its badly masqueraded sockpuppet, ID.
The only moment ID gets in a quality biology class is as comic relief.
theot58 is a Liar for Jesus on top of being an Idiot for Jesus.
Lenski's colonies of bacteria evolved the ability to metabolize the citrate in their growing medium over the course of several mutations across several generations, and Lenski documented all of these mutations with each sample he's taken.
But, Creationists don't give a literal God fucking damn about this. They're blind to the truth, and they hate and despise anyone and everyone who does not blindly repeat the Lies for Jesus they worship.
Seems like you need to review the definition of "significant change" as per biochemistry.
For instance, if you started sweating sulphuric acid for some reason, would that be "significant change" or not compared to the rest of your species ?
Because, FYI, that single thing would much, much, much harder to do than to make a human with an extra set of arm, genetically speaking.
sez theot58:
It is utterly, completely commonplace for Creationists to demonize evolution-accepting people as being responsible for Naziism, for Communism, for school shootings, and on and on and friggin' on. How many "evolutionists" have done that to you?
Hey, dude, you're the one asking whether "our great… great grandfather" was the Biblical myth-figure Adam. Since you started out with religion, where the hell do you get off whining about how anyone else is "bringing religion into" the discussion?
I got a better idea: See Expelled Exposed for the real facts behind the arrant falsehoods which were presented in that blatant propaganda film.
Agreed. But cement-headed refusal to recognize when one has been proven wrong, now that should not be encouraged. Likewise, repeated pre-refuted 'arguments' as if said arguments were valid should not be encouraged, nor should presenting Christian dogma as if said dogma were scientifically valid be encouraged.
Hmm. From that site's "Does carbon dating prove the earth is millions of years old?" page: "People obviously are assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant." Contrary to what that page's author appears to believe, it's known that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is not constant. If the author of that page didn't know that C14 in the atmosphere is known to be inconstant, they are too ignorant of radiocarbon dating to be worth paying attention to; if the author of that page did know that C14 in the atmosphere is known to be inconstant, they are too dishonest to be trusted.
That site's "Actual quotes from evolutionists" page begins with this quote from Charles Darwin: The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution.] (Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1902 p. 341-3) But while that site clearly intends its readers to conclude that Darwin was acknowledging a fatal flaw in his theory, that site does not see fit to inform its readers of Darwin's answer to the question of where-are-all-the-transitional-fossils. Apparently, "question[ing] what is taught" is a one-way street, applicable only to evolution and not to Creationism; as well, it appears that the author of that page sees nothing wrong with out-of-context quotations.
If Darwin actually had (as the author of that page wants their readers to believe) regarded his theory as being fatally flawed, why do Creationists not want people to know about Darwin's answers to putative flaws in his theory? If evolution is so weak, why can't Creationists demonstrate its weakness in an honest manner as opposed to deceitfully twisting the words of proponents of evolution?
Honest questioning of evolution is encouraged. Erroneous 'criticism' of evolution, misrepresentations of evolution, and outright lies about evolution… not so much.
If evolution is so weak, why can’t Creationists demonstrate its weakness in an honest manner as opposed to deceitfully twisting the words of proponents of evolution?
Because Creationists hate truth and hate science, and do not want to understand how to demonstrate anything in an honest manner in the first place.
theot58,
They evolved the ability to metabolize a substance that they previously couldn't use as a food source. That's not remaining "unchanged", that's changing a great deal, in fact.
Yes, of course. Anything else would have falsified pretty much everything we know about biology and evolution. Bacteria are not a species, they're an entire, hugely diverse domain. Do you know what that means? Do you have any background whatsoever in microbiology to even begin to appreciate just how diverse and different from one another bacteria are? Or how significant was the change observed in Lenski's experiment?
Of course you don't.
YES SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. Go take some microbiology lessons and come back when.... forget it, just don't come back at all.
No, it doesn't. Try again.
The theocrats worry about science education contradicting their myths is the reason they are doing everything possible to discourage kids from learning. In Mississippi they achieve their 63% HS graduation rate by harassing kids until they drop out -- a 5-year was arrested by the police because he was wearing the wrong color shoes.
http://news.yahoo.com/wtf-cops-nab-five-old-wearing-wrong-color-2036008…
"What evidence is there that our great …. Great grandfather was a self replicating molecule?"
I like this argument. Now I can ask what evidence there is that G.Drake's great ....great grandfather was human? His familiy tree will go back 500 years at best and certainly not to Adam and Eve. According to his logica I can claim that his ancestors before 1500 CE were aliens. He can't prove otherwise.
theot58:
Questioning and challenging a scientific theory is encouraged. Overturning one is a grand achievement. However, you'll need to back up your claims, your hypothesis, with facts. Observations, experiments. Not bible quotes.
The bacteria in that experiment evolved. The newer generations had physically changed compared to the older ones.
Evolution has no goal. It does not strive. It just happens. As such, no limbs being formed does not mean no evolution occured. That the organism is different is al it takes to establish that it has evolved. As such, not all evolution has an obvious benefit.
But, every now and then an organism does better -survive longer, reproduce faster or gather nutrients more efficiently- than the others because of those changes. And it passes that change on to its offspring.
The evolution from a single-celled organism to something like a human takes millions of years, and passes through several stages. Stages similar to worms, fish, amphibians, reptiles, and so forth.
All it takes is time.
Hey Theo, you gave this link: fishdontwalk.com/
Why don't read this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_fish
Looks like some fish actually do walk after all ...
"NO NEW BODY PARTS"
You know, if that actually had happened the evolution theory had been falsified ... Did you know that the Manx cat actually has lost a body part?
"they still remained basically unchanged"
Please google speciation. You'll find an abundance of reports, the first stemming from 1905. Two individuals with a common ancestor (shown by a detailed family tree) not being able to produce fertile descendants is quite a fundamental change, don't you think?
@Cubist: actually Hitler was a creationist too.
http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-reli…
Dear Creationists,
This: http://imgur.com/1cBK30M,AhAICoe
this: http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm
and this: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.ht…
Love, Newfie.
Plus, it appears that theot58 and the other Idiot Liars For Jesus don't appear to give a literal damn about how Creationist-based curricula perpetuate racism (together with Anti-Semitism), and stupidity, on top of doing a craptacularly incompetent job of teaching students.
They questioned and their questions were answered.
They just didn't like the answers.
And this is why you are a moron.
Alert sent regarding the lovely "Mr. Hicks".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZg0s2wmZFI
@Mnb
I think this sums it up perfectly xD
(Sorry, should have said the video is of a fishy c:)
@Rumtopf
I showed that clp to my General Science class. They liked it.
Lenski started with bacteria and he got different bacteria. His original bacteria could not use citrate as a food. His new, different bacteria could digest citrate. It's like if you could suddenly digest cellulose. That's no big thing, cows, horses, pandas, and termites can digest cellulose, but humans can't. So if certain humans could, then it would be a significant change. Similarly Lenski's original E coli couldn't digest citrate but his evolved bacteria could.
Hey creationists, I have a suggestion. Instead of you trying to poke holes in evolution how about telling us what's so great about creationism. When you talk about evolution all you do is show us how poorly you understand evolution. But since you're all god-fearing fundamentalist Christians (except for those of you who aren't) you should be able to tell us all about the evidence for creationism.
Technically speaking, they can't. All have symbiotic bacteria that do the actual digestion of the cellulose for them.
Generally speaking, bacteria have evolved (and still do evolve) to metabolize more complex substrates in more complex ways than metazoa, and it appears to be easier for metazoans to then evolve symbioses with bacteria than to on their own to metabolize.
FTFM.
You are in fact the result of a self-replicating molecule. In 9 months or so, you went from a double strand of DNA (a molecule) in a fertilized egg to a multicellular human.
It seems reasonable to infer that if you go back far enough, there were self-replicating molecules which eventually developed into cellular life.
We know that there was no "Adam" -- a single human as the source of all human genes -- because we can study populations of genes and see that there was never a single bottleneck in our genome. We can see how we are related to the great apes; to all monkeys; and to all primates; and to all mammals; and to all other life on earth.
Creationists don't "question". They simply deny, and make up nonsense and lies about evolution.
I don't believe you really believe that. You're a religious fanatic, not a brave scientist. If you actually believed it, you would study what the science actually says, rather than regurgitating the nonsense and garbage and lies of other creationist religious fanatics.
See? You're vomiting up creationist dogma here, not demonstrating that you actually read anything about the actual science by the scientists, or understood it.
Metabolizing citrate is indeed a significant change.
There's nothing in the theory of evolution that insists that bacteria must evolve new body parts, and it's very silly of you, and your creationist sources, to insist that it does.
I like you to meet my little friend Spartina anglica, this little guy is pretty cool, it's an invasive species. It's real claim to fame is that it is a polyploid mutant.
Basically Spartina alternaflora and Spartina maritma met and cross bred to produce Spartina X townsendii this guy was like a mule, sterile. But unlike a mule it could reproduce vegetatively during one of these vegetative stages it underwent a polyploid mutation event which produced the fertile Spartina anglica. This new species can't interbreed with S. X townsendii nor can it interbreed with it's anticedents as such is a complete isolated new species.
It's an example of speciation that has occurred in the last 300 years, so it shows evolution in action, it's very successful so it shows natural selection and it's a pain for ID/Creationists because it now has double the genome size showing that not all mutation events results in a loss of "information".
Sorry to anyone whose seen the whole spartina thing before, I'm a little obsessed with it
Darwin was the racist and the source of racist thought. That is not a theory but a fact.-Darwin quote below shows this clearly.
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178).
@Coach Olson, #91
You should maybe spend a little time around there:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Notable_Charles_Darwin_misquotes
But then again, creationists love to quote-mine and misquote.
What a moronic theory.
All the white Christians who lived before Darwin who enslaved black Africans and treated them worse than animals -- none of them were racist? None of them had "racist thoughts" like the curse of Canaan being on all Africans?
@Coach Olson
When Darwin referred to "race" he meant "varieties," not human races. (For example, in Chapter 1 of On the Origin of Species, Darwin writes "the several races, for instance, of the cabbage".) In the passage "there is nothing in Darwin's words to support (and much in his life to contradict) any claim that Darwin wanted the "lower" or "savage races" to be exterminated. He was merely noting what appeared to him to be factual, based in no small part on the evidence of a European binge of imperialism and colonial conquest during his lifetime."
Darwin's passage, in full context, reads:
@Kieran
I didn't know about that and now I'm off to go read up, so thank you for mentioning it. I love how readily plants hybridise compared to animals.
Obviously not.
I suggest to people who think different species of bacteria are more or less the same, and do not want to read the first chapter of a simple introductory textbook on microbiology, the following experiment:
Part 1: Drink a solution of lactobacillus bulgaricus, wait for 24-48h, and note how you feel.
Part 2: Drink a solution of E. coli O157:H7, wait for 24-48h, and note how you feel. You may bring paper and pencil to the toilet with you.
And Coach Olson perfectly demonstrates how Creationists hate the truth, and hate everyone who does not blindly worship their lies.
LOL, it has all. For instance, watching evolution by mutation and selection with your own eyes, overnight, is part of an obligatory lab course for first-year students of molecular biology where I come from.
And where do you draw the line between "micro-" and "macroevolution"? There isn't any obvious place to do so.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/
(Are you new to the Internet?)
Do you know what happens when you take a bichir out of water? Having lungs, it doesn't die; what does it do?
It walks. The video was presented at a scientific conference last year, so I'm sure it'll be published soon.
Olson, your ignorance is beyond belief. Mr. Darwin was an active member of the abolitionists who were working to make slavery a thing of the past. There is no way that any semi-intelligent person could construe that to mean he was a racist.
@Texas Aggie, do remember that the vast majority of Creationists assume, if are not taught, that Charles Darwin was an evil demonic, man-shaped monster totally devoid of any positive human trait, and was the High Priest (and lover) of Satan who founded the evil institutions of Racism, Slavery, Evil, Nazism, Satanism, Communism, Science, Liberalism, Abortion, Homosexuality, and Eating Snacks Before Bedtime.
Even if Darwin was a racist (although he was less of one than most Englishmen of his era), so what? That has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of evolution by means of natural selection.
Owlmirror #87
Thank you. I didn't know the specifics of cellulose digestion. I had thought it was done by the animals themselves rather than by their gut flora.
I would offer "a" instead of "the". source of racism. Of course there was racism before Darwin and that was not my point. The curse of Ham was poor theology however- not held by any reputable theologian to justify racism today. There are numerous accounts of Darwin being used to justify mistreatment of Aborigines etc. Darwin (by some)was used to justify the holocaust. in Nazi ranks
Of course evolutionist never "quote mine". That is why you sent me to the "Wiki quotes" always known for "accuracy."
Ethereid:The point is not that evolution is right or not according to the post but whether the creationist museum is racist. My point is that Darwin was obviously racist ( even if that was "okay" for a man of his times). To claim he was not racist and just referring to "varieties" and not humans is incorrect.
I guess you just want to change the subject
Sorry, Coach Olson, but I was discussing evolution. That's one of the topics of this thread. If you can't keep up, take notes.
Racists have used the "Curse of Ham" to justify black slavery, apartheid, and other forms of racial discrimination. Your buddy Ham stuck a "the descendents of Ham went to Africa" poster in his museum. So it's not a stretch of the imagination to think that Ham was supporting the Curse of Ham theory. In other words, Ham put up a racist poster. Guys like you have to live with that.
Since Ham is a liar about evolution and other non-fundamentalist ideas, it's not farfetched that he suffers from other moral deficiencies like racial prejudice.
Well...
What if I say "not held by any reputable biologist today"?
But, in fact, it was never possible to use Darwin's works to justify any such actions. Many racists have tried to use their misunderstandings of Darwin's works that way, but it's always been clear they hadn't read them for understanding, they just picked the parts they liked and filled the rest in from elsewhere.
The entire text of On the Origin of Species, my dear, is freely available online. Google, and thou shalt find. Thou shalt even find that thou hast besmirched the reputation of Wikiquotes.
Yes, he was. Much less so than most of his contemporaries, but he was.
So what?
The theory of evolution by mutation, selection and drift doesn't support racism. That is what's important here. See, that's the thing about science – the ideas themselves matter, not the people who proposed them. How evil Darwin may have been is completely irrelevant.
Similarly, it doesn't matter here whether Ken Ham is a racist; what matters is that creationism itself supports racism – the version of creationism, that is, which contains the belief in the Curse of Ham and interprets it in a racist way; and that's the version the Creation "Museum" presents.
I guess you hadn't even understood what the subject was.
. . . by Christians.
All theology is poor theology.
Look, the idea that an entire group of people -- the supposed descendants of one man -- can be cursed or blessed by God and have their fates set and fixed forever, is in the bible, in multiple places.
*shrug* And Darwin's ideas about races are not held by any reputable scientist or atheist to justify racism today.
[citation needed]
Nope.
http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-reli…
Darwin's works are all publicly available for free. You claim that the corrections and context of creationist quote-mines are inaccurate? Check Darwin's own words, and come back here with citations.
I don't think you've made the case that it's not.
It was not "OK". It was simply what the (Christian) culture of his time indoctrinated all its people with. A better understanding of biology, genetics, and evolution than Darwin had actually helps to overcome racism.
Fighting racism was hard, and the fight is still not yet over.
As Coach Olson probably will not read that link to Coelsblog - I already gave it in @76 - I give a relevant quote:
"From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump, as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.”
Thanks for smacking down the Creationists and IDiots, but for the Flying Spaghetti Monster's sake, can you quit writing "lo and behold" as "low and behold"?!
Jimi Wilson, you just want us to tow the line.
So fish don't walk eh.
Someone should tell the walking catfish
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walking_catfish
Mein Kampf is available online for free as well - perhaps Coach Olsen can peruse it and make us aware of places where Hitler references Darwin. He might also compare it to the number of times Hitler mentions Christianity, God etc.
Thanks for that, by the way -- I forgot to acknowledge that it was you that I got the link from (I followed it, and spent a long time reading it, and the comments to it).
======
Heh. See the link @76.
I once perused Mein Kampf, just to check the context of the cited lines and paragraphs. Yup; Hitler espoused the fixity of species, just like any other creationist.
yep!
Don't forget the mudskipper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskipper
Eels have worked out you can be a fish without legs.
And lungfish. Maybe they would prefer to be educated by Fox News? (On second thoughts this is going too far ...)
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/12/13/hopping-fish-suggests-walking…
The most interesting thing is that Darwins evolution of species and evolution are not 'binding' ideas for Atheists. I had a recent discussion with someone recently about that. I had never considered that. There is always a possibility that there is some other way that explains existence. Actually my friend didnt seem too concerned about the need to explain anything.
What? Creationism is taught in schools, really? Don't you have a church state division amendment against that?
mo #115
The church-state separation is a concept often observed in the breach.
I am surprised that you are surprised at the "descendents of Ham" poster at the Creation Museum. Creationism, U.S. style, is white Southern Fundamentalist to the core.
Uncovering your fathers nakedness was a euphemism for sleeping with your fathers wife. As defined in several places in the old testament (leviticus 20:11 and etc.)
Interpretations are aplenty! Either Ham had sex with his mother (or his Noah's current wife at the time,) and Canaan was the offspring produced from that unholy union!
-or-
Some might say it was actually Canaan who did the deed, which explains why he was the one who was cursed in the story.
Just my $0.02 worth.