sexism of evolution

[jonathan]

budder81:

Why is it OK for animals to be racist and sexist, but not humans (who are also a species). I think racism and sexism is natural, it will always occur, no matter what you try. Raise some children on an island with no outside inteference, those kids will start following darwin's rule without any help, BECAUSE IT'S NATURAL. Is it wrong? Sure it feels wrong, but I bet the female lion feels bad when chased from the kill (sexism), but it's NATURAL. Quit complaining about stuff you can't change.

You see this law of tooth and fang as something natural and unavoidable based on your presupposition that it has always been this way. But It is wrong, and it feels wrong, and that's why human beings don't want to be treated that way.How can people contradict themselves to badly? On one hand, we should love each other and honor one another, but on the other hand
evolution is reality so death and struggle and pain and cruelty to the weak are all natural. These two philosophies directly contradict one another.

[jonathan]

budder81:

Doesn't it seem odd that we have to try REALLY hard not to be racist? I'm not racist and I don't hate certain races, but I do observe that WE ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL.

It doesn't seem to me at all that we have to try really hard not to be rascist. I don't know where you're coming from. We all have the same valuue, but different gifts.

[MelT]

Quote: Jonathon: The bible does not teach rascism, eugenics, or sexism.

It teaches ALL of these things. It's earliest tennets were not to mix with other races and religions and treat them as enemies. Sexism too is rife throughout christianity and always has been. Do a google on christianity+sexism and see how many biblical quotes against women come up, and how many stories of religion suppressing women and their right to worship. The last thing christianity can possibly claim is that it's not sexist.


MelT

[jonathan]

It's the basis of the science, not what we use in its entirety today. Nowadays we have things like genetics to support it, and can show that man has been on the earth for millions of years longer than creationist christians believe. But, that aside;

That certainly was a mouthful. evolution has zero practical value. It has done nothing to further science. If anything, is has brought science back wards. When people get the wrong idea about nature, they come to wrong conclusions. Vestigial organs is a great example. There used to be over 100 of these so called "leftover remnants of evolution" but so far almost every single one has been found to have at least one purpose.

You can not prove man has been on this earth for millions of years. All of these dating methods require amounts of information that is not available, making assumptions neccesary. It is also well known to those in the field that all of these methods are very often totally off the expected mark, and the data is often "played with to get the right answer.

And we defenitely cannot know that man has been around for millions of years. If you're referring to carbon dating, that can only be used up to a period of thousands of years, not millions. Also, the amount of c14 in the atmosphere has not been constant, and calibration of the c14 clock outside of recorded history is not possible. There are also other problems and variables with cosmic rays, magnetic fields, other changes in the biosphere etc.

And if anything, genetics have worked against evolutionary theory. That is a whole another topic though.

Christianity IS sexist and always has been. Mary Magdalene (JC's main confidant in his own words) was written out of the bible because of the implications of parity it meant for women in a male-dominated religion. The priesthood had always been entirely male. Women also had to sit in a separate part of the church to worship. Here in the UK, women have only recently been allowed to become vicars and hold positions of power in christianity, etc. Nobody can say that the church has historically treated women as the equals of men, and it's only very recently that they've been taken seriously at all.

Paul: "Women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says." (1 Cor 14:34)

No Christianity is not sexist. God's Word teaches that men and women have different roles, not greater or lower value. When people attack the Bible as sexist it is based on thier own false presuppositions for which they have absolutely no authority to stand upon.

And where does it show anywhere that Mary Magdalene was his main confidant? In a admittedly fictional book with terrible historical
research? You won't believe a nation of witnesses to Jesus' supernatural abilities but you'll believe a fictional book.

Women are not equal in thier gifts, in thier genetic makeup, in thier behaviour, in thier responsibilities. And this is not sexism, but sexism is most certainly in evolution which without justification concludes such rediculous things as has been shown in the article above.

[jonathan]

It teaches ALL of these things. It's earliest tennets were not to mix with other races and religions and treat them as enemies. Sexism too is rife throughout christianity and always has been. Do a google on christianity+sexism and see how many biblical quotes against women come up, and how many stories of religion suppressing women and their right to worship. The last thing christianity can possibly claim is that it's not sexist.

Not mixing with other nations, not other races. And by the way, anyone could join Israel if he wanted to red, yellow, black, or white. The reason they did not mix with other nations or other cultures was because they were sinful, not because of thier genetic makeup.

I'm sure there are lots of claims to religious institutions suppresing womens right to worship, but this is not in the bible, and I'm sure many of these claims are invalid, based on previously mentioned faulty presuppositions and bad reasoning.

Where does it teach eugenics? No where. In fact, christianity teaches exactly the opposite. It teaches to have mercy on the weak. God hates the proud, and lifts up the humble. That's what the bible teaches. Go read the beatitudes. There is no rascism in the bible, especially when the bible teaches there are no races, only 1 race of humanity and we never evolved. It doesn't make sense.

[MelT]

Originally Posted by jonathan

That certainly was a mouthful. evolution has zero practical value. It has done nothing to further science.

The study of evolution and therefore genetics has brought us tens of life-saving treatments for a host of diseases. The study of evolution has also shown us our roots as humans and provided insights into the way that life develops and is sustained - along the way pushing medicine forward in leaps and bounds. I think that the claim that it has no practical value is laughable.


[quote=jonathan;1845981]You can't prove man has been on this earth for millions of years. All of these dating methods require amounts of information that is not available, making assumptions neccesary.

Not true. There are many,many ways of dating nowadays, not just carbon 14. Genetics, various other isotopes, geological strata, etc. No assumptions required.

Originally Posted by jonathan

It is also well known to those in the field that all of these methods are very often totally off the expected mark, and the data is often "played with to get the right answer.

Rubbish. Carbon 14 dating is usually to within an error of 40/50 years either way. There's no playing with the data, just that the possible margin of error is taken into account.

Originally Posted by jonathan

And we defenitely cannot know that man has been around for millions of years. If you're referring to carbon dating, that can only be used up to a period of thousands of years, not millions. Also, the amount of c14 in the atmosphere has not been constant, and calibration of the c14 clock outside of recorded history is not possible. There are also other problems and variables with cosmic rays, magnetic fields, other changes in the biosphere etc.

You're also a bit behind the times in research methods, you might want to check some things below in the PS which can be calibrated reliably over a period of 40 million years. We also have tens of human bone samples that were cut out of million+ year old rock - the rock is dated by varous methods, and the bones are too. I suppose god put the fossils there to fool us?

Supposing we did only have Carbon 14 dating, with its cut off point about 50, 000 years ago, it's still very able to prove - without any conjecture or supposition - that man was not made by god in the last 6,000 (?) years. Be a bit of a sod for the pre-egytpians and those living in places like Turkey who had decent sized civilisations inplace for a few thousand years before this. All with dateable artifacts, DNA, etc.

Originally Posted by jonathan

No Christianity is not sexist. God's Word teaches that men and women have different roles, not greater or lower value. When people attack the Bible as sexist it is based on thier own false presuppositions for which they have absolutely no authority to stand upon.

Unfortunately, what god said or didnt say about this is not the problem. The church has been attacked for for hundreds of years for its stance on women. The bible doesn't talk about 'different roles' for the sexes, but about women being lesser than men. Are the bible and the church wrong about women's role in christianity? If they are, then why should we believe them about anything else that god has supposedly said?

Originally Posted by jonathan

And where does it show anywhere that Mary Magdalene was his main confidant? In a admittedly fictional book with terrible historical
research? You won't believe a nation of witnesses to Jesus' supernatural abilities but you'll believe a fictional book.

Good god....LOL. So, the gnostic gospels, a key part of the origins of christianity, until the church decided otherwise, have 'terrible historical research'? That wasn't what the early christians who wrote them thought.

Originally Posted by jonathan

Women are not equal in thier gifts, in thier genetic makeup, in thier behaviour, in thier responsibilities. And this is not sexism, but sexism is most certainly in evolution which without justification concludes such rediculous things as has been shown in the article above.

No it hasn't. What the article contains is the normal, every day stance on womankind that was prevalent in the UK from about 1600 onwards, it isn't a product of Darwinism. Study british social history and you'll see that what Darwin said was a much more pleasant version of what everyone else thought about women at the time. You also keep equating the current theory of evolution with Darwinism, as though that's all there is, when we're way ahead of Darwinism and have been for years. Attack the modern science of evolution, not the personality of its founder.

And I'd also just like to beg to differ: Whilst you see the above statement about women as being just the way things are, it does not excuse your ignorance and rudeness towards them. Do you seriously believe that what you said is in some way more acceptable than what you're accusing Darwinists (not Darwin) of? Women are our equals, whether you believe that or not.


MelT

PS
1) Incremental dating techniques allow the construction of year-by-year annual chronologies, which can be temporally fixed (i.e., linked to the present day and thus calendar or sidereal time) or floating.
Archaeologists use tree-ring dating (dendrochronology) to determine the age of old pieces of wood. Trees usually add growth rings on a yearly basis, with the spacing of rings being wider in high growth years and narrower in low growth years. Patterns in tree-ring growth can be used to establish the age of old wood samples, and also give some hints to local climatic conditions. This technique is useful to about 9,000 years ago for samples from the western United States using overlapping tree-ring series from living and dead wood.

2)The Earth's orbital motions (inclination of the earth's axis on its orbit with respect to the sun, gyroscopic precession of the earth's axis every 26,000 years; free precession every 440 days<SUP class=reference id=_ref-0>[1]</SUP>, precession of earth orbit and orbital variations such as perihelion precession every 19,000 and 23,000 years) leave traces visible in the geological record. These changes provide a long-term sequence of climatic events, recorded as changes in the thickness of sediment layers (known as "varve analysis"—the term "varve" means a layer or layers of sediment. Typically, varve refers to lake or glacial sediment), as temperature induced changes in the isotopic ratios for oxygen isotopes in sediments, and in the relative abundance of fossils. Because these can be calibrated reliably over a period of 40 million years this provides an alternate verification to radiometric dating in cases where sufficient record exists to provide a reliable trace..<SUP class=reference id=_ref-1>[2]</SUP>
Polarity reversals in the Earth's magnetic field have also been used to determine geologic time. Periodically, the magnetic field of the earth reverses leaving a magnetic signal in volcanic and sedimentary rocks. This signal can be detected and sequences recorded, and in the case of volcanic rocks, tied to radiometric dates.
Another technique used by archaeologists is to inspect the depth of penetration of water vapor into chipped obsidian (volcanic glass) artifacts. The water vapor creates a "hydration rind" in the obsidian, and so this approach is known as "hydration dating" or "obsidian dating", and is useful for determining dates as far back as 200,000 years.

Incremental dating techniques

• Dendrochronology
• Ice cores
• Lichenometry
• Paleomagnetic dating
• Varves
• Speleothems

[MelT]

QUOTE - And by the way, anyone could join Israel if he wanted to red, yellow, black, or white. The reason they did not mix with other nations or other cultures was because they were sinful, not because of thier genetic makeup.>>>

The children of Israel were warned against ANY races, creeds and religions who were not their own, because, as you say, they were regarded as sinners. Why sinners? Because they didn't believe in god,and god had said to shun (and even at times kill) those who were not of the same faith. That would mean it was okay to kill say, every african or asian who followed his own faith. How is that NOT racist.?

So, it's okay for christians to hate and actively oppose anyone who isn't them, because their lack of equal faith makes them sinners? LOL! That would be funny if it hadn't cost so many people their lives. "We're not racist in any way, we're allowed to reject all other peoples because anybody who is not us is a sinner, so it doesn't count." It's a clever religion that preaches peace and tolerance, and at the same time gives its followers the right AND the excuse to be racist, religion-ist.

>>>I'm sure there are lots of claims to religious institutions suppressing womens right to worship,

Very true, and I'm against them too. But it doesn't excuse christianity.

>>>>but this (suppression) is not in the bible,

Not read the quote from Paul about this very subject in my early post then? Paul: "Women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says." (1 Cor 14:34) Again Paul: "women should learn in quietness and full submission. Women should not teach." Let's have a few more:

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. - Ephesians 5:24

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."--Genesis 3:16

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14

Church writer Tertullian said "each of you women is an Eve . . . You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law."

Martin Luther decreed: "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."

I have tens more, how many would you like? All biblical, all christian. Niiiice religion...

>>>Where does it teach eugenics? No where. In fact, christianity teaches exactly the opposite. It teaches to have mercy on the weak. God hates the proud, and lifts up the humble. That's what the bible teaches. Go read the beatitudes. There is no rascism in the bible, especially when the bible teaches there are no races, only 1 race of humanity and we never evolved. It doesn't make sense.>>

You're talking about the kind of idealised christianity that does not exist. If there was only one race,and all were equal, god wouldn't have commanded his folllowers to kill so many 'sinners'. I think the quote for god-related deaths is something like a million or more in the bible. No racism....LOL!

Eugenics, maintaining the purity of a racial type. Exactly what the early christians did by shunning everyone who was not a christian. Not allowing your people to inter-marry across faiths IS racism. Racism is not just between say, black and white people's, but any case of one group of people, defined by religion, race or creed, oppressing or shunning another. Tell me, are catholics christians in your eyes? Are mormons and the amish? Protestants? Methodists?


I'm afraid the God that you're talking about, as has been discussed at length here so many times, is not the god of peace or the defender of the humble The god of the bible wiped out tens of thousands of people for things like: being of the wrong religion, masturbating, looking upon the Ark, touching it and a host of other things, and recommends that gay people and adulterers be killed. I think you're going to fare very badly here if you try and promote god as peaceful.

Chances are we're about to get into the God is good, people aren't, argument, where you say that god had the right idea and is peace loving, but a tiny minority of christians have it wrong and are less moral an have screwed it up for the rest of you. Bullshit. There is more death, admonishment, fear-mongering and aggression in god's word in the bible than any sane person would want to base faith upon. A book of righteousness it is not. The only reason it has any kind of positive message at all is through the re-jigging of its chapters to make it say what the early church wanted it to say. Neither the christian faith nor the bible is reflective of christianity as it first originated, it has had massive spin put on it over the years, something that is impossible even for theologians (of which I'm one) to deny.

MelT

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by jonathan

Yes, I do. I think the defenition you posted is rather self defeatist. Theory of reletivity, theory of gravity, those are true theories, and they can be tested repeatably and their results have been recorded.

Hey, just because you do not want to believe what I posted is accurate does not mean it is not. Evolution can be tested as well, it has made predictions that have been found to be true, it is a fully working theory sitting on top of a mountain of evidence. Just because you choose to ignore the evidence, does not mean it is not there and is not right.

Originally Posted by jonathan

When it comes to the past, empircal science has major limitations. That's why when it comes to origins, it's totally different than normally operated empirical science.

Uh... Okay?

Originally Posted by jonathan

This is ad hominem, and you give no reason why it should be avoided.Aig is a profession organization with phd scientists who many of whom have earned thier degrees at secular colleges. They also have built a world class museum and have a scientific Journal.

Nope, not an ad hominem, you seem to like trying to class things as logical fallacies, you also seem to not care about accuracy. If you could explain how that is an ad hominem, I would love to know. I also did give a reason why it should be avoided, if you were able to properly read my statement, you would understand the reason I told you to avoid it, is because it does not contain the truth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

<blockquote>Jonathan said - "Aig is a profession organization with phd scientists who many of whom have earned thier degrees at secular colleges. They also have built a world class museum and have a scientific Journal."</blockquote>

So what? Are you trying to say that because of those reasons they certainly know what they are talking about? That would be called an argument from authority, and it is a logical fallacy. Go and put it to the test, do some research on evolution. Creationism is bunk, it is not science, it is rubbish. You do not need a degree in anything to realize that, you just need a basic understanding of the scientific method.

Originally Posted by jonathan

You're not looking at the bigger picture. You're talking about self-preservation, but
darwinian evolution is a hypothesis of biological change over periods of time.The mechanism for these things, how we get better and evolve in darwinian evolution is fueled through survival of the fittest, preservation of the strong, and weeding out the weak. That is always what is has been about. There's no love in that. And evolution can't see ahead, and think to itself, " If we all just love each other then survival will be better." Which is really a lie anyways according to the philosophy of evolution that type of scenario would keep new characteristics from emerging. It is dependant on eugenics and death. It is a blind process. It's also important to remember than humans are very different in thier social organizations than other animals.

I think you're the one who is failing to see the bigger picture, as well as making up what you want evolution to be, instead of arguing from what it is. You mentioned a straw man earlier, right? Well, we may have finally found something it applies to!

Originally Posted by jonathan

Most animals are about pure survival.

We survive in groups. We have the ability for rational thought. We are not alone in our emotions.

Originally Posted by jonathan

The bible does not teach rascism, eugenics, or sexism. Evolution does. It's only hidden from a public that has not come to grips with reality. Information is not assimilated by itself in our minds. It is always added as part of our personal view or philosophy in life. Our biases and philosophies give us direction.

The Bible most certainly teaches racism. How many times were the Jews sent against this evil race or that evil race? How many times were other peoples and cultures referred to as evil or bad? Of course it teaches sexism. Have you ever read the OT? Have you ever read what Paul has to say about women? I guess not if you are making those claims.

Jonathan, you do not understand what you are talking about. Your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies to the point they are incomprehensible. Do us all a favor and do some reading on evolution, not from Christian's with an agenda to distort the truth to support their own side, but from people who actually do the research. In the long run, it will help you out. If you need some links i will be happy to provide some. Or, you can do a search here and find a good number of the threads on the subject.

[chronictoker]

Originally Posted by Budder81

Of course it is learned behavoir, but isn't everything learned? I think racism is not hating someone just because, it's hating someone to protect your food/life/idea/etc. Raise some children on an island, arrange them apart (just like we were) and let them slowly find each other, you're telling me they wouldn't have violent clashes as adults? ALL CHILDREN play when young, elementary schools you'll see races mixed, middle school and high school not so much.

Doesn't it seem odd that we have to try REALLY hard not to be racist? I'm not racist and I don't hate certain races, but I do observe that WE ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL.

Yes it does seem odd. And I would agree that we are not CREATED equal, which is one of the reasons why there is so much conflict in our society.

However, the main reason we see racism and sexism so prevalent even today, is that we have CREATED systems of oppression. Oppression based on race, class, gender, etc. And since we operate within these social systems, as a result most of us are consciously discriminatory. Subconscious discrimination we cannot change, but conscious racism and sexism needs to stop. We may not be biologically equal, but socially, I think we should be treated as equals in so much as is humanly possible.

Things do change...in the industrialized world we have made giant leaps in the direction of equality. And I don't want to witness social devolution, because I'd say we are moving in the right direction. Granted, sometimes we move backwards, but this is unavoidable, ultimately things are improving for us. Our quality of life is greater than ever before.

[jonathan]

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by jonathan
That certainly was a mouthful. evolution has zero practical value. It has done nothing to further science.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
The study of evolution and therefore genetics has brought us tens of life-saving treatments for a host of diseases. The study of evolution has also shown us our roots as humans and provided insights into the way that life develops and is sustained - along the way pushing medicine forward in leaps and bounds. I think that the claim that it has no practical value is laughable.

That's absolutely false. I don't think you even can give me a single example of evolutionary theory that has brought "life saving treatments". What nonsense.

[QUOTE]

Not true. There are many,many ways of dating nowadays, not just carbon 14. Genetics, various other isotopes, geological strata, etc. No assumptions required.

No there are not many many ways of dating.What do you mean geological strata? You're just pulling things out of nowhere. If you knew about how they date geologic strata, you would understand that they use circular reasoning. They date the fossils by the rocks, and rocks by the fossils.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclo...ia/12fos11.htm

And genetic engineering, you must be referring to Amino Acid Racemization. This method is very similar to radiometric dating methods, it measures the molecular change of proteins rather than radioactive isotopes. In particular, it measures the change from one amino acid L-isoleucine, to another D-alloisoleucine.

This method requires great leaps and bounds of assumptions, just like all dating methods.

Here is a summarizing statement:

There is no doubt that proteins in bone and shell and other fossil material undergo hydrolysis and that the amino acids contained in them suffer racemization with increasing age of fossil material. To use rates of racemization as a dating method, however, the entire history of the fossil material would have to be known, including temperature and the entire diagenetic process, especially the chemical environment that contributed to this process, and most especially the pH. Since all of these factors, most of which accelerate racemization rates, cannot be known, it is suggested that the apparent ages obtained by this method are unreliable and, with few exceptions, are much older than the real ages.

http://www.icr.org/article/69/

Rubbish. Carbon 14 dating is usually to within an error of 40/50 years either way. There's no playing with the data, just that the possible margin of error is taken into account.

That's not true at all. You're making assumptions because the half life of c14 is supposed to be around 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). But this does not take into consideration all of the other variables (huge variables) that can affect the outcome.

First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing ¹⁴C.

Second, the ratio of ¹⁴C/¹²C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in ¹⁴C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in ¹⁴CO₂ with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.³ This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of ¹⁴C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard ¹⁴C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.


Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the ¹⁴C clock is not possible.⁴

Your claim also does not fit with the actual experiments that has been done many many times. There are very very often wild ranges of millions, even hundreds of millions of years. They do not use dating methods alone anyway. They make calculations based on assumptions of how layers formed and living things evolved. The geoligic column exists nowhere in the world, except in a few places and the layers are too thin, thus it doesn't exist the same, and even if it did it doesn't matter because of such wide variability. The geologic column is formed from findings all over the world, all organized by human assumptions in one simple minded chart. It's just imagination.

But carbon dating has another problem:

Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little ¹⁴C to measure, but dating labs consistently find ¹⁴C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old.^23,24 For example, no source of coal has been found that lacks ¹⁴C, yet this fossil fuel supposedly ranges up to hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils in rocks dated at 1–500 Ma by long-age radioisotope dating methods gave an average radiocarbon ‘age’ of about 50,000 years, much less than the limits of modern carbon dating²⁴

And there are many other physical evidences that contradict millions of years.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...bon_dating.asp

Supposing we did only have Carbon 14 dating, with its cut off point about 50, 000 years ago, it's still very able to prove - without any conjecture or supposition - that man was not made by god in the last 6,000 (?) years. Be a bit of a sod for the pre-egytpians and those living in places like Turkey who had decent sized civilisations inplace for a few thousand years before this. All with dateable artifacts, DNA, etc.

No, they are not reliable. Study the page linked above.

Unfortunately, what god said or didnt say about this is not the problem. The church has been attacked for for hundreds of years for its stance on women. The bible doesn't talk about 'different roles' for the sexes, but about women being lesser than men. Are the bible and the church wrong about women's role in christianity? If they are, then why should we believe them about anything else that god has supposedly said?

I don't believe the church's tradition has the same authority as the Word of God. I am not a catholic, and I hope you recognise that I do not go by the logical fallacy of judging a religion corrupt because of corrupt practicioners of that religion, which bears proof against God's word.

The bible does not teach that women are "lesser" then men, it teaches that women are the "weaker vessels", but it in no way implies that they are somehow less value. when Christians go to heaven, we will all be given the same sort of spiritual bodies, because we're all human.

The bible very much talks about different roles for sexes and if you'd like I can easily show you.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by jonathan
And where does it show anywhere that Mary Magdalene was his main confidant? In a admittedly fictional book with terrible historical
research? You won't believe a nation of witnesses to Jesus' supernatural abilities but you'll believe a fictional book.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Good god....LOL. So, the gnostic gospels, a key part of the origins of christianity, until the church decided otherwise, have 'terrible historical research'? That wasn't what the early christians who wrote them thought.

You have absolutely no evidence for this statement other than fables that twist history for thier own purposes and add in pure imagination

.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px inset ;" class="alt2"> Originally Posted by jonathan
Women are not equal in thier gifts, in thier genetic makeup, in thier behaviour, in thier responsibilities. And this is not sexism, but sexism is most certainly in evolution which without justification concludes such rediculous things as has been shown in the article above.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
No it hasn't. What the article contains is the normal, every day stance on womankind that was prevalent in the UK from about 1600 onwards, it isn't a product of Darwinism. Study british social history and you'll see that what Darwin said was a much more pleasant version of what everyone else thought about women at the time. You also keep equating the current theory of evolution with Darwinism, as though that's all there is, when we're way ahead of Darwinism and have been for years. Attack the modern science of evolution, not the personality of its founder.

I completely disagree that it was only the effect of the culture at the time. The numerous points in the article point that out, and it directly ties in with the hypothesis of evolutionary development darwins theory. This is the big hammer that was used to justify hitlers genocide, along with other factors including Martin Luthers writings against Jews, the catholic Church, ignorant and hatred and other factors.

Quote:
<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by jonathan
Women are not equal in thier gifts, in thier genetic makeup, in thier behaviour, in thier responsibilities. And this is not sexism, but sexism is most certainly in evolution which without justification concludes such rediculous things as has been shown in the article above.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

No it hasn't. What the article contains is the normal, every day stance on womankind that was prevalent in the UK from about 1600 onwards, it isn't a product of Darwinism. Study british social history and you'll see that what Darwin said was a much more pleasant version of what everyone else thought about women at the time. You also keep equating the current theory of evolution with Darwinism, as though that's all there is, when we're way ahead of Darwinism and have been for years. Attack the modern science of evolution, not the personality of its founder.

No, evolutionary hypothesis is not way ahead of Darwin. Pangenesis has been abandoned, and mutations were taken in it's place. This is the most striking new feature of what's called neo-darwinianism. But the sexism shown in the article is still part of the theory, it's tied into darwinian evolution via natural selection.

An it wasn't just the founder. There were numerous other idiots who helped evolution gain prominency, several of whom darwin knew on a personal level.

And I'd also just like to beg to differ: Whilst you see the above statement about women as being just the way things are, it does not excuse your ignorance and rudeness towards them. Do you seriously believe that what you said is in some way more acceptable than what you're accusing Darwinists (not Darwin) of? Women are our equals, whether you believe that or not.

First of all, as I will correct you on shortly, you cannot have rascism in a philosophy that teaches there is only one race! Second, Christianity teaches that women are the same value as men, and teaches to honor and love women. The bible does not teach anyone to be rude or condescending to women, which is in striking comparison to the repulsive attitudes that helped form the worldview and thus, the evolutionary world view of darwin and his contemporaries.Even as late as the early twentieth century this mentality was still prevelant in many places as history shows. It is only by willful ignorance that this inseperable part of evolution is no recognised.

If women are lesser creatures, why not treat them as lesser creatues? We use other lesser creatures to our advantage, like farm animals and oxen and horses, dogs, etc. We enslave animals, why not lesser species of the "homo"? That includes Australiansm and Africans, and Indians,etc... This mentality was widely prevelant, and these other varieties of peoples were given thier own seperate specie names, as they were not fit enough to be classed with the "homo sapien sapiens" (meaning wise wise man).

Thier are many instances where mentally retarded people also were discounted as throwbacks to evolution as well.

Tree ring dating requires lots of assumptions, just like the other methods, just like all long period dating methods. For instance, trees sometimes produce several rings within a year compared to once a year. The same sort of misassumptions take place in dating ice cores.

And also, the tree ring dating you're talking about was attempted to extend the length of carbon 14 dating earlier than historical records will allow, so it actually uses the same sort of assumptions.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home.../tree_ring.asp

All dating methods require huge assumptions, and are not even close to accurate. They don't even get consistant results.

The children of Israel were warned against ANY races, creeds and religions who were not their own, because, as you say, they were regarded as sinners. Why sinners? Because they didn't believe in god,and god had said to shun (and even at times kill) those who were not of the same faith. That would mean it was okay to kill say, every african or asian who followed his own faith. How is that NOT racist.?

What does skin color have to do with a person's religion? You have a totally false understanding of what racism even is. It's not discriminating because of beliefs, it's not discriminating because of culture or behaviour, true rascism is intrinsically evolutionary, because it requires the
seperation in levels of different "races" of human. But there are no races of human, only 1 human race, and this has been what the bible has taught right from the beginnng. Moses married an ethiopian woman, how can he be rascist.

So, it's okay for christians to hate and actively oppose anyone who isn't them, because their lack of equal faith makes them sinners? LOL! That would be funny if it hadn't cost so many people their lives. "We're not racist in any way, we're allowed to reject all other peoples because anybody who is not us is a sinner, so it doesn't count." It's a clever religion that preaches peace and tolerance, and at the same time gives its followers the right AND the excuse to be racist, religion-ist.

Not just equal faith, equal obedience. Christians are not to have fellowship with sinful people. That is just and has nothing to do with racism. You once again show a complete misunderstanding of what racism even is.

Very true, and I'm against them too. But it doesn't excuse christianity.

Christian doctrine was never at fault. It was evil men, and man made religion out side of God's word that would be responsible.

All of the bible verses you quoted are totally just, and in accordance ith God's justice and the nature of man and women.

Church writer Tertullian said "each of you women is an Eve . . . You are the gate of ***, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law."

Martin Luther decreed: "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."

I don't care what any of the catholic church "fathers" or Martin Luther said. That is not Chjristian doctrine. They are mere men, and there words are not the inspired word of God. It has no impact upon Christian doctrine.

You're talking about the kind of idealised christianity that does not exist. If there was only one race,and all were equal, god wouldn't have commanded his folllowers to kill so many 'sinners'. I think the quote for god-related deaths is something like a million or more in the bible. No racism....LOL!

God told Israel that they were not allowed to kill all those people because they were righteous, but because the people to be destroyed were sinners. God rewards everyone according to thier works, Jew or not Jew. This has nothing to do with racism again, your assertions are laughable.

[QUOTE]

QUOTE - And by the way, anyone could join Israel if he wanted to red, yellow, black, or white. The reason they did not mix with other nations or other cultures was because they were sinful, not because of thier genetic makeup.>>>

The children of Israel were warned against ANY races, creeds and religions who were not their own, because, as you say, they were regarded as sinners. Why sinners? Because they didn't believe in god,and god had said to shun (and even at times kill) those who were not of the same faith. That would mean it was okay to kill say, every african or asian who followed his own faith. How is that NOT racist.?

So, it's okay for christians to hate and actively oppose anyone who isn't them, because their lack of equal faith makes them sinners? LOL! That would be funny if it hadn't cost so many people their lives. "We're not racist in any way, we're allowed to reject all other peoples because anybody who is not us is a sinner, so it doesn't count." It's a clever religion that preaches peace and tolerance, and at the same time gives its followers the right AND the excuse to be racist, religion-ist.
[SIZE=2]

[/QUOTE

You're talking about the kind of idealised christianity that does not exist. If there was only one race,and all were equal, god wouldn't have commanded his folllowers to kill so many 'sinners'. I think the quote for god-related deaths is something like a million or more in the bible. No racism....LOL!

Eugenics, maintaining the purity of a racial type. Exactly what the early christians did by shunning everyone who was not a christian. Not allowing your people to inter-marry across faiths IS racism. Racism is not just between say, black and white people's, but any case of one group of people, defined by religion, race or creed, oppressing or shunning another. Tell me, are catholics christians in your eyes? Are mormons and the amish? Protestants? Methodists?

You are so utterly wrong.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races. The Merriam-Webster's Webster's Dictionary dictionary defines racism as a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race, and that it is also the prejudice based on such a belief.<sup class="reference" id="_ref-1">[2]</sup> The Macquarie Dictionary defines racism thus: the belief that human races have distinctive characteristics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Racism only applies to different races, and if you don't remember what those are I will remind you. This is the correct term for races in relation to racism.

an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED

It does not apply to all the other isms. Racism, sexism, culturalism, religious discrimination are all different things.

I'm afraid the God that you're talking about, as has been discussed at length here so many times, is not the god of peace or the defender of the humble The god of the bible wiped out tens of thousands of people for things like: being of the wrong religion, masturbating, looking upon the Ark, touching it and a host of other things, and recommends that *** people and adulterers be killed. I think you're going to fare very badly here if you try and promote god as peaceful.

You're ignorance is manifested over and over again. Being the wrong religion is a general statement that can be valid for wiping people out or may not be valid. It's more complicated than that. God never killed anyone for merely masturbating, ever. You have absolutely no baiss for that statement. How old are you? Yes, if the implications of looking at the ark are studie, it becomes more evident why this was a grave offense.

God is peaceful, and he is also just. He enjoys peace and mercy over judgment, as he says in His Word. Adulterers and homosexual are worthy of death, just as we all are, because we have all sinned.

Neither the christian faith nor the bible is reflective of christianity as it first originated, it has had massive spin put on it over the years, something that is impossible even for theologians (of which I'm one) to deny.

You have no evidence to show that the bible is not reflective of Christianity when it first originated, you are full of it. Without the bible there would be no Christian doctrine. This is all based on your own assumptions and presuppositions which have no proof in the real world. You are not a theologian. Your statements show your total lack of compitance in what Christianity is or isn't. How arrogant, " I am a theologian". Yes, arn't we all.

[Liquidtruth]

There was much I could comment on but I do not have the time to waste at this point, perhaps I shall revisit that illogical nightmare at a later date.

Originally Posted by jonathan

God is peaceful, and he is also just. He enjoys peace and mercy over judgment, as he says in His Word. Adulterers and homosexual are worthy of death, just as we all are, because we have all sinned.

Oh, so he is peaceful because he says he is... Right. That is logical. Hey man, I am God! It must be so because I said so! Go re-read the OT. In fact, do so several times. Or wait, check out this site...

http://www.evilbible.com

You're also dead wrong on dating... http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CD000

Evolution Info:<br>
[web]http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html[/web]

[jonathan]

LIquid Truth:

So what? Are you trying to say that because of those reasons they certainly know what they are talking about? That would be called an argument from authority, and it is a logical fallacy. Go and put it to the test, do some research on evolution. Creationism is bunk, it is not science, it is rubbish. You do not need a degree in anything to realize that, you just need a basic understanding of the scientific method.

I never asserted they were right merely for those reasons. Thier Character was attacked, that was why I asserted that they have those qualifications. It is actually the other way around. Creationism was being attacked on the basis of
populararity, and I merely defended thier credentials. Again it's the opposite, all you need is a basic understand of the scientific method recognise that matter cannot spontaneously form into organisms through natural courses, and that it requires intelligence able to direct force. Evolution is bunk, and false claims and hypotheis's have been overturned time after time after time. Most of the evidence they teach children in schools about evolution has been thrown out and is no longer believed by leading evolutionists. Many of them such as Gould have rejected long periods of development such as Gould and others and have adopted punctuated equalibrium (rapid evolution) because they recognise that the fossil record just does not fit.

The Bible most certainly teaches racism. How many times were the Jews sent against this evil race or that evil race? How many times were other peoples and cultures referred to as evil or bad? Of course it teaches sexism. Have you ever read the OT? Have you ever read what Paul has to say about women? I guess not if you are making those claims.

You also have a complete misunderstanding of what racism even is.

Jonathan, you do not understand what you are talking about. Your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies to the point they are incomprehensible. Do us all a favor and do some reading on evolution, not from Christian's with an agenda to distort the truth to support their own side, but from people who actually do the research. In the long run, it will help you out. If you need some links i will be happy to provide some. Or, you can do a search here and find a good number of the threads on the subject.

Creation Scientists do do research. You are ignorant. There are more than a couple Creation science journals as well.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by jonathan

I never asserted they were right merely for those reasons. Thier Character was attacked, that was why I asserted that they have those qualifications.

I never attacked their character, I simply stated they were not telling you the truth.

Originally Posted by jonathan

It is actually the other way around. Creationism was being attacked on the basis of populararity, and I merely defended thier credentials.

No, creationism was/is/should be being attacked because it is bunk and not a scientific theory.

Originally Posted by jonathan

Again it's the opposite, all you need is a basic understand of the scientific method recognise that matter cannot spontaneously form into organisms through natural courses, and that it requires intelligence able to direct force.

Go and learn about evolution.

Originally Posted by jonathan

Evolution is bunk, and false claims and hypotheis's have been overturned time after time after time.

That is so fucking wrong it boggles the mind how you could say that with a straight face. You are ignorant of evolution and do not understand a single bit of it as is evidenced by the nonsense crap you spew. And yes, that is what it is, and no, that is not an ad homienem.

Originally Posted by jonathan

Most of the evidence they teach children in schools about evolution has been thrown out and is no longer believed by leading evolutionists.

Source?

Originally Posted by jonathan

Many of them such as Gould have rejected long periods of development such as Gould and others and have adopted punctuated equalibrium (rapid evolution) because they recognise that the fossil record just does not fit.

Source?

Originally Posted by jonathan

You also have a complete misunderstanding of what racism even is.

Oh I do uh... What is racism then? You going to give me the same bullshit answer you gave MelT? Racism does not mean what you want it to mean, it means what it means. Need me to link to dictionary.com?

Originally Posted by jonathan

Creation Scientists do do research. You are ignorant. There are more than a couple Creation science journals as well.

Bunk, crap, garbage, and lies. Sorry man, creationism is not science.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVRsWAjvQSg"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JVRsWAjvQSg" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

Stop throwing around the ignorant word. I am not ignorant (in this, I am sure I am ignorant on something, as everyone is). Just because I do not agree with pseudo science does not make me ignorant.

[Perpetual Burn]

I hope everyone can see the fact that it is the Christian man on this forum that is promoting racism.

Scientific Racism

This is why they invented the word laughable.

Is this what you are so proud to be part of, jonathan? We can see through your lies.

Race

Race and Intelligence

Out-Of-Africa

Let's end this nonsense.

[.ViciouS.]

haha, damn jonathan, you are blind to a lot of things and when you do see things, you see them the only way you want to see them. it's quite sad really. you need to broaden your horizons and get information from more than just one source.

If you can't even get over the fact that christianity's foundation is sexist/racist/whatever then why should anyone even begin to believe your theory(if you could call it that) that darwinism is such? And that doesn't ignore the fact that Darwin had a breakthrough in scientific research, whether he was sexist/racist/pedofile/necrophiliac or whatever you want to call him.

One more thing jonathan, could you explain to me why God is a He? I don't see how a religion that states their God is an actual male or female cannot be sexist, not to mention that a God with a gender is completely pointless.