Inter-racial relationships= white genocide

[h=1]Are There Really Different Races?[/h]by Ken Ham on November 29, 2007; last featured September 16, 2014

• ​

  ​
• ​

  ​
• ​

  ​
• ​

  ​

What if a Chinese person were to marry a Polynesian, or an African with black skin were to marry a Japanese—would these marriages be in accord with biblical principles?
The tragic legacy of Darwin’s controversial speculations on evolution has led to terrible consequences taken to the deadliest extremes. One Race One Bloodreveals the origins of these horrors, as well as the truth revealed in Scripture that God created only one race.

A significant number of Christians would claim that such “interracial” marriages directly violate God’s principles in theBible and should not be allowed.
Does the Word of God really condemn the marriages mentioned above? Is there ultimately any such thing as interracial marriage?
To answer these questions, we must first understand what the Bible and science teach about “race.”
[h=2]What Constitutes a “Race”?[/h]
In the 1800s, before Darwinian evolution was popularized, most people, when talking about “races,” would be referring to such groups as the “English race,” “Irish race,” and so on. However, this all changed in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
Darwinian evolution was (and still is1) inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or “races” of people evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their apelike ancestors than others. Leading evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould claimed, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.”2
The Australian Aborigines, for instance, were considered the missing links between the apelike ancestor and the rest of mankind.3 This resulted in terrible prejudices and injustices towards the Australian Aborigines.4

Click for the full article:

 

"Gould occupies a rather curious position, particularly on his side of the Atlantic. Because of the excellence of his essays, he has come to be seen by non-biologists as the preeminent evolutionary theorist. In contrast, the evolutionary biologists with whom I have discussed his work tend to see him as a man whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticized because he is at least on our side against the creationists. All this would not matter, were it not that he is giving non-biologists a largely false picture of the state of evolutionary theory."

John Maynard Smith - actual leading evolutionary biologist.

 

There are multiple studies that show this to be the case.

- - - Updated - - -

They have no other choice....

 

One man's opinion which you are free to believe.

 

Yes, we get that you dismiss facts you don't like as opinion without analysing them, which you are incapable of.

 

genetic diversity ensures humanities survival

 

Can you expand on that and extend your argument to other species?

 

Interesting quote.....


http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2008/11/maynard-smith-on-stephen-jay-gould.html

 

This article is full of errors.....

Darwin's theory isn't regarded as controversial speculation by the scientific community today. Evolution is widely accepted as biological fact and Darwin can not be blamed for modern racism which actually has its roots in racist interpretations of the Bible.

This isn't true. People of European descent had been talking about continental populations as races for many years before Darwin. For instance in the 18th century Blumenbach divided humanity in to races based on differences in physical appearance.

Darwinian evolution does not teach that humans evolved at different times and different rates and that some groups are more like their apelike ancestors. In fact Darwin argued against the polygenists of his era who believed that man descended from different ancestral groups (Adamites and Pre-Adamites) believing instead that man had a common origin having descended from the Great Apes residing in Africa. He never said that any human group was more apelike than another.

I notice that this page's source for Darwinian evolution being inherently racist is Rushton.

1. J.P. Rushton, professor of psychology at the University of Western Ontario, Lond, Ontario, Canada, Race, Evolution and Behavior, www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/JP_Rushton/Race.htm.

Rushton was not an evolutionary biologist and was widely criticized by such scholars for abusing the principles of Darwinian evolution. Rushton was definitely a racist and Darwin held some of the prejudices of his time but the theory of evolution is not inherently racist.

This is because racists believed that they now had a scientifically defensible theory that they could use to test the predictions of racist ideology. They used evolutionary theory just like they used interpretations of the Bible to suit their racist agenda. It's not the fault of Darwin that eugenicists and the Nazis used evolutionary research for immoral practices.

 

You have no idea what I am capable of, nor what I have studied, which fits in with your usual posts.

 

@ Egalitarianjay02 Darwin is dead and his fairy tale along with him. The deeper science delves into the microscopic cellular function, the more scientists are doubting the naturalistic hypotheses of life developing by chance from a mud puddle or decrease in entropy to evolve that life into more organize forms.

 

His fairytale died with him? Who are you trying to kid? Evolution is taught in high school and college biology courses. Darwin left behind an unprecedented legacy into our understanding of biology. Who claims that life began in a mud puddle? The evidence points towards life beginning in the ocean. We don't know exactly when. We don't know exactly how but most scientists believe it began in the water.

Personally I find Abiogenesis a far more compelling argument than the Biblical narrative of God breathing life in to dirt and creating Adam then creating Eve from Adam's rib. Do you honestly take the book of Genesis literally or believe it at all?

I question whether God exists but the truth is that evolution doesn't explain away God. There could be a supernatural creator who created things in a way that is scientifically explainable but I find the narrative in the book of genesis to be ridiculous.

 

Your BELIEF, huh? As I have been stating very clearly, you prefer to choose religion over scientific facts.

 

No, that's you.

 

No you.....

 

I don't adhere to religion. You clearly do. I don't deny any scientific facts. When have I ever done that?

 

You stated you BELIEVE something to be true with no evidence. That requires faith, in your case blind faith, which is a description of religion. You may have your very own religion, and you may be the Pope of that religion if you wish.

 

The thing about interracial relationships is that they're seldom equal. It's usually a Black man with a white woman, or a White man with an asian woman. Black women and asian men sort of get left in the dust.


(by 'asian women' I mean East Asian: Chinese, Japanese, Thai, etc. They just like to call Middle Eastern and Indians Asians to confuse everything by lumping them all in the same boat, even though technically it may be geographically true)

 

I didn't say I believed something with no evidence I said that I find one theory more compelling than another. You said I denied scientific fact which is not true and just because you have faith in something doesn't mean you are religious.

 

I very much question these types of studies. Many partial mulattoes just call themselves white when they are visibly of somewhat mixed appearance. Rather meaningless unless we have pictures, or unless physical appearance was impartially evaluated.

Or they cannot afford to, not without experiencing a drastic reduction in standard of living—down to the level of all the others who are having lots of offspring. Don't you see? There is an effect of displacement, when there are too many people putting a strain on the available opportunity, whites will either have to adjust their living standards down to those they are in economic competition with, or they will decide not to have kids because they can't afford them. Well they could manage to afford them, but how would they be living? White people have a lower tolerance for dealing with having kids when times are tough, it's a normal part of life for the other cultures, they don't have as high expectations.

 

You state again you believe in a supernatural event, that requires total blind-faith. How much closer to the definition of religion can one get?

 

I didn't say anything about belief in a supernatural event. What are you talking about?

 

I think you are suggesting that white people are more fragile than other types so they won't be able to adapt to changing conditions.

What can I say? Evolution in action.

 

Do you just make (*)(*)(*)(*) up and hope no one calls you one it? That is exactly what you claimed.

 

Where? Quote me saying I believe in a supernatural event.