Common Ancestry a Religious Concept.

[jcrawford]

The fact that neo-Darwinists premise their notions, ideas, concepts and theories about common ancestry and common descent on the biblical story of Adam and Eve is proof enough that evoutionist "theory" is premised on a religious belief and concept to start with.

 

[The Galatian]

Hmmm... I've reviewed a lot of textbooks. They talk about genetic evidence, biochemical evidence, fossil record, anatomy, embryology, and so on, but nothing on Adam and Eve.

Sounds like your creationist masters have suckered you once again.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Hmmm... I've reviewed a lot of textbooks. They talk about genetic evidence, biochemical evidence, fossil record, anatomy, embryology, and so on, but nothing on Adam and Eve.

Sounds like your creationist masters have suckered you once again.

Not really, since the notion, idea, premise, belief in, and percept of, such concepts as common ancestry, origins and descent was originally, and basically still is, a religious premise, foundational and equally fundamental to concepts of, and beliefs in, creation and evolution both.

Darwin discovered the principle of common ancestral origins in the Bible since there was no empirical evidence of it in his day and such original assumptions are still not naturally observable today.

 

[The Galatian]

Geneology is a religion? Whodda thunk? Yer a hoot, crawford.

 

[Daisy]

The breakthrough that Darwin and Wallace made was precisely that there was empirical evidence of common descent.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Geneology is a religion? Whodda thunk? Yer a hoot, crawford.

I'm a religious genius, Galatian, since no one else seems to have ever observed and theorized that all scientific theories based on concepts and ideas regarding common ancestral descent and genealogy, must of necessity be premised on historical and original biblical pre-suppositions, beliefs, and accounts of, the concept and idea of common ancestral origins and genealogies in the first place, since such original concepts, ideas and beliefs are not physically observable in the natural world.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
The breakthrough that Darwin and Wallace made was precisely that there was empirical evidence of common descent.

Even so, they both premised their arguments for empirical evidence on the specifically Jewish and Christian a priori religious notion, concept, idea and belief of historical genealogies being tracable to common ancestral origins.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Uh - JC - is there any group anywhere that ever, in there theology, science, philosophy, or anything else, ever postulated that humans did NOT have a common ancestry?

Yes. In the American South, for example, it wasn't all that uncommon to find somebody who believed the Negro race was different in physical origin from the white race.

In other words, it is not in the acceptance of common descent that we find racism, but in its denial.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
Uh - JC - is there any group anywhere that ever, in there theology, science, philosophy, or anything else, ever postulated that humans did NOT have a common ancestry?

Yes. In the American South, for example, it wasn't all that uncommon to find somebody who believed the Negro race was different in physical origin from the white race.

Yes, racial distinctions and beliefs about racial origins were common in Europe and America in the past and are still being taught in neo-Darwinist theories and models about the physical origins of several racial groups today.

In other words, it is not in the acceptance of common descent that we find racism, but in its denial.

Yes, the denial of common ancestral origins from one geographic location on earth (Noah's Ark Model) may lead to the acceptance of racist theories and models of Eurasian descent from African people who originally evolved from the ancestors of African monkeys and apes. (African Eve Model)

 

[UTEOTW]

"Yes, the denial of common ancestral origins from one geographic location on earth (Noah's Ark Model) may lead to the acceptance of racist theories and models of Eurasian descent from African people who originally evolved from the ancestors of African monkeys and apes. (African Eve Model)"

So one is racist because it says that all humans descend from African ancestors...

...but if you pick a different geographic location, then it is not racist.

I agree with the poster who asserted that your thinking is a bit muddled on this one.

 

[Daisy]

Originally posted by jcrawford:
Even so, they both premised their arguments for empirical evidence on the specifically Jewish and Christian a priori religious notion, concept, idea and belief of historical genealogies being tracable to common ancestral origins.

One doesn't agrue for evidence; one uses evidence in or as the argument.

 

[Debby in Philly]

Common ancestry is shared by religion and science. We just disagree on who the common ancestors were.

Personally, my ancestors were Adam and Eve. Not some furry creatures.

 

[The Galatian]

Hey, I'm a furry creature. My kids joke that I could get a part in Planet of the apes, without a costume.

Our first human ancestors were Adam and Eve. However, that does not rule out that they had other ancestors.

And Christianity and science don't differ on who the common ancestors were. Creationism does, but that's a whole different religion.

 

[Paul of Eugene]

How furry was Esau?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
"Yes, the denial of common ancestral origins from one geographic location on earth (Noah's Ark Model) may lead to the acceptance of racist theories and models of Eurasian descent from African people who originally evolved from the ancestors of African monkeys and apes. (African Eve Model)"

So one is racist because it says that all humans descend from African ancestors...

...but if you pick a different geographic location, then it is not racist.

Yes, in this case, that is correct, UTEOWE, since additional differences between the Noah's Ark Model and the African Eve Model, (which was named and modelled after the former) show all people descending from human beings in the first model while the second tries to prove Darwin's racial theory that before there were any other racial groups on earth, African people evolved out of non-human ancestors of African monkeys and apes.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Daisy:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jcrawford:
Even so, they both premised their arguments for empirical evidence on the specifically Jewish and Christian a priori religious notion, concept, idea and belief of historical genealogies being tracable to common ancestral origins.

One doesn't agrue for evidence; one uses evidence in or as the argument. </font>[/QUOTE]One can't use the Biblical premise of common ancestral descent from common origins as part of the evidence though, without being called a creationist, can one?

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Debby in Philly:
Common ancestry is shared by religion and science.

That certainly is an exceptionally unique observation of shared common ancestry. Do you think that religion and science come from the same ancestral origins in the Bible?

We just disagree on who the common ancestors were.

We also disagree on whether the historical notion, concept and idea, was originally outlined and presented in the Bible long before Darwin ever came along with his 'theories' about it.

Personally, my ancestors were Adam and Eve. Not some furry creatures.

Since no racial groups in the Americas, Eurasia, the Middle-East or Africa ever evolved from 'furry' non-human ape-like creatures in Africa, everyone may be said to share common original human ancestry with Adam and Eve.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
Our first human ancestors were Adam and Eve. However, that does not rule out that they had other ancestors.

Any theory that predicted that Adam and Eve and all their descendents had more distant and primitive ancestors in Africa, though, would be racist.

And Christianity and science don't differ on who the common ancestors were. Creationism does, but that's a whole different religion.

Ho, ho, ho. It seems to me that anyone who either intentionally or unwittingly includes neo-Darwinist race theories about Adam and Eve's shared common ancestry with African monkeys and apes, is practicing a neo-Darwinist form of religion.

Theistic evolution isn't science. It's just an evolutionary offshoot of religion.

 

[jcrawford]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
How furry was Esau?

How human was he?

Whatever happened to his common descendents?

 

[Paul of Eugene]

Ho, ho, ho. It seems to me that anyone who either intentionally or unwittingly includes neo-Darwinist race theories about Adam and Eve's shared common ancestry with African monkeys and apes, is practicing a neo-Darwinist form of religion.

Theistic evolution isn't science. It's just an evolutionary offshoot of religion.

Blatent misuse of the word religion, typical of creationist projection psychology. Its as if they had internalized the (false) idea that calling something a religion is perjerative and therefore since evolution is deserving of being critisized any perjerative will do no matter how inaccurate. There is certainly no LOGICAL justification for this line of thought, so psychological analysis is as good as any to explain its existance.