Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The race issue
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 134 (560154)
05-13-2010 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by onifre
05-13-2010 12:47 PM


Re: Melanin variations
I was hoping that dennis clarified what he meant though.
Re-read what he wrote...
He was talking about the whole "only a loss of information" thing. If white people did have less melanin and that was a reduction in information then Adam and Eve would have been black because they woulda had so much more melanin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by onifre, posted 05-13-2010 12:47 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by onifre, posted 05-13-2010 3:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 116 by dennis780, posted 05-13-2010 10:00 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 134 (560167)
05-13-2010 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by onifre
05-13-2010 3:32 PM


Re: Melanin variations
If white people did have less melanin
But they don't...that's the point. We all have the same amount of melanin, just different types that produce different features.
Oh, sure, he's just plain old wrong, but what he meant seemed to be fairly clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by onifre, posted 05-13-2010 3:32 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by onifre, posted 05-13-2010 6:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 134 (565053)
06-14-2010 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Artemis Entreri
06-14-2010 1:33 PM


Re: Melanin variations
Some Creationists think that all the genetic information needed was present in the first lifeforms of the specific "kinds" and then over time they have only loss information to become the different varieties within each of the kinds.
So the proto-cat, say, had all the information within it that when various bits of that information is removed from it, then all the different kinds of cats that you can find have evolved from that.
That was worded badly, let me try again...
God makes a cat kind. It has a lot of information in the genome. Over time, some of that information gets loss due to adaption. That loss of information is what changes the original cat kind into something that looks different, although it is still within that kind. And they dont' think any amount of loss of information can change it so much that it would become a different kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-14-2010 1:33 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-14-2010 9:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 134 (565175)
06-15-2010 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Artemis Entreri
06-14-2010 9:57 PM


Re: Melanin variations
Wow that just doesn't make alot of sense to me. I may not know much about biology, it would seem to me like the opposite would be true, that as creatures evolved they would gain more information rather than loose it.
Of course, and they're obviously wrong.
Are these "kinds" all placentals, I mean what is said about marsupials? There is a Cat kind/form among both placentals and marsupials, yet they are not even close to related to each other. Did God make special animals just for Australia? Special more pirimitive animals that would be out competed by his placental creations on the rest of the planet, whose niches would be filled up by placentals.
They haven't really ironed out all the wrinkles yet. They don't have a good definition of what a "kind" is, or where you draw the lines. (they're pretty much just making it up as they go along).
But, because they always want to sound like they're all sciency, they've come up with this: Baraminology <--clicky out:
quote:
Creation biologists have proposed a number of possibilities for the created "kinds":
Humanity Creationist Sigrid Hartwig-Scherer concluded that H. erectus/ergaster, Neanderthals and H. sapiens were members of the same basic type (which corresponds to a monobaramin) Homininae with the fossils called Australopithecus afarensis, A. anamensis, A. africanus, A. robustus, A. aethiopithecus, A. boisei and possibly Ardipithecus ramidus assigned to another basic type, Australopithecinae.
Felidae Creationists from Creation Ministries International and the Institute for Creation Research have proposed that the original feline kind was comparable to the Liger and the Tigon.
Canidae Including Wolves, Foxes, Jackals, Coyotes, and Domestic dogs.
Camelidae Including both the Camel and the Llama, which are reproductively compatible, their hybrid offspring being known as "Camas."
Bovidae Including Cattle, Buffalo, Bison, and Yaks.
Equidae Including Horses, Zebras, and Asses.
Caprinae Including Sheep, Goats, and Ibex.
Crocodilia Including all the varieties of Alligators, Crocodiles, and Gharials.
Elephantidae Including African and Asian elephants, Mammoths, Mastodons, and Gomphotheres.
source
I feel like I should say something on this topic. Its just wierd. So the common ancestor that both Humans and Gorillas have, has all the information, and we though evolved are lesser beings than our animal ancestor?
Oh no. God created man seperate from the other apes. Humans have to be their own kind (see above).
But you seem to be getting the jist of it. And If you look at the message you replied to, Message 116, they guy was arguing that adam and eve had to have been black because white people have less information than black people (they lost the blackness to become white).
Isn't Homo sapiens sapiens like the 3rd or 4th wave of the Homo Species to branch out and occupy the globe? I know Homo erectus made thier way all the way to China, and Indonesia, and Homo neanderthalensis was in Europe, South West Asia, and Central Asia, when our species got there. There is not enough evidence to say if we came from erectus or not (I think we did not), but we probably out competed neaderthals to extinction, are neaderthals and erectus somehow more due to the more information they had? I need to read more about this, because at face value its sounds very not plausable.
That's because you're "assuming" evolution and seeing things with tainted glasses. If you just let the Holy Spirit guide you and read the Bible, (while ignoring everything that shows how terribly wrong it is), you can then see that it all makes perfect sense and there isn't one error in the glory of God's word

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-14-2010 9:57 PM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 128 of 134 (565202)
06-15-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Artemis Entreri
06-15-2010 12:14 PM


So was there an Adam and Eve for every set of Homo that God created?
I don't know if they even get into how the original kinds came about.
I am sorry but that is a false statement. Evolution was never assumed, it was what people came up with when faced with the evidence that they had at hand. Sure they made some errors, but in the beginning they had less evidence than we do today, and less methods of determining value to apply to the evidence. Look I am a Christian myself, but a Roman Catholic one so I get to ignore all that Sola scriptura bullshit, and use my own logic a bit.
Well then, according to them, you are not a true christian...
I am sure God’s word has no errors,
What makes you so sure?
I wonder what these sciency creationists would have said before the human genome was mapped and we know what we know now. I wonder what they would have said about the Chinese idea that Chinese people were a different race because they evolved from Peking Man (Homo erectus) and did not come out of Africa as Homo sapiens. That was a very popular notion in China for a long long time, that they, the Chinese, where a different species of Man, from a different ancestor. I only bring this up because there are a lot of people who are not from our way of thinking, and this Chinese example was the best one I could think of.
Sounds neat.... got a link?
Isn’t rather pretentious to say our God created us, when there is half a planet of people of other faiths out there? Who created them?
Pretentious!?
I don't think you can get much more pretentious than a Biblical Literalist Young Earth Creations.

By the way, I see you did a General Reply.
If you use the other reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds
clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.
Also, if you have your email notifications set up in your profile, then when someone replies to your specific message then you will get an email saying thye did. It doesn't happen with the general reply. People can easily miss stuff that way.
Also:


type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy


or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy


also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.


Go to Proposed New Topics to post new topics.


type: [url=insert your url here]this message is linked to an url[/url]
and it becomes:
this message is linked to an url

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-15-2010 12:14 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-15-2010 2:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 134 (565215)
06-15-2010 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Artemis Entreri
06-15-2010 2:49 PM


Well, we've now split off into about 4 different topics... how crazy creationists are, what makes a christian, god's perfection, and independent chinese evolution. They like to keep things focused and on one particular topic per thread so I'll just let that other stuff die off.
The Chinese stuff could be on topic (The Race Issue), but we don't really have anything to argue about wrt to that one.
Thanks for the link though, its interesting.
I'm not a moderator. There's only, like, 3 moderators now. There used to be a lot more, but I never became one. I'm probably too mean and tend to just tell people to fuck off, and then I get suspended for a day... but I promised Percy (the creator of this site, aka Admin) that I wouldn't do that any more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-15-2010 2:49 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-22-2010 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 134 (566008)
06-22-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Artemis Entreri
06-22-2010 11:26 AM


You should propose a new topic....
New topics should be focused. Assertions should be supported. Make an argument in your own words as opposed to lengthy copy-n-pastes. Link to that article.
You should summarize the argument. State your position on it. Provide the support. And let it rip!
I'll participate if it get promoted. its pretty interesting at least.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-22-2010 11:26 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024