|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 3497 days) Posts: 28 From: Australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
False humility is revolting.
But have you ever read the Bible Phat? And why would I ever want to impress any of you. LOL.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
How? And please keep your answer rational. There was this century, you see. They called it the 20th Century. Go study it and some Evolutionists influence on it.
Scientific Racism: The Eugenics of Social Darwinism The first five minutes she beats up on the imperfect Abolition of Christianity. So there is blame to go around. Stay with it for Robert Knox, Samuel Mortan, The American School of Race Scientists (Aboriginal. Black, American Indians not fully human), Charles Darwin (29:30),Eugen Fischer, Kaiser-Welham Institute of Anthropology and Human Heredity, Adult "Euthanisia" - NAZI murder of people with glasses, retarded, Jewish, German "Race Hygiene" . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eX5T68TQIo Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Do you even know what Social Darwinism is or? You might just as well be blaming Jesus for the Crusades.
You are just about on par with the least logical posters I've encountered here. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Social Darwinism is not a part of the Theory of Evolution.
You are equivocating and building a straw man. But then agsin you are very good at logical fallacies.
Here are some criticisms of the term that you might even understand if you care to actually read. Care to try again?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Social Darwinism is not a part of the Theory of Evolution. You are equivocating and building a straw man. But then agsin you are very good at logical fallacies. Here are some criticisms of the term that you might even understand if you care to actually read. Care to try again? Why ? Certainly not because you deny the original title and intent of Charles Darwin's book -
" On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. " Care to try some more revision of history ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
Do you even know what Social Darwinism is or? You might just as well be blaming Jesus for the Crusades. Hey, the Gospel of according to Matthew or Mark or Luke or John didn't have a subtitle to it about the Crusades. But Darwin's book certainly had one about its contribution to the idea of favored races:
" On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. " Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Why ? Certainly not because you deny the original title and intent of Charles Darwin's book - What do you think his original intent was?
" On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. "
Are you making logical fallacies again? And what does that have to do with Social Darwinism? Saying the same thing over and over doesn't make it any more true. Did you bother reading the link? Are you now claiming that Social Darwinism is part of the Theory of Evolution?Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Jaywill writes: Why ? Certainly not because you deny the original title and intent of Charles Darwin's book - " On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. "Care to try some more revision of history ? You have never read Darwin's book have you? Do you get ALL your information about evolution from creationist web sites? Can you not at least read the things you're supposed to be against? Oh well. Darwin was referring to animals and plants - not people. People are not discussed in his book. Surprised? from the Wiki
"Race" to a 19th century naturalist simply meant distinct populations within a specific species, not necessarily human races. Indeed, human races, nor even human evolution are not discussed at all in Darwin's first book on evolution. And as such, given as how the "races" mentioned in Darwin's book included various pigeon and pig breeds, as well as certain mollusks, any claim that suggests that Darwin was "racist" is totally absurd. Whoever makes or uses this claim has never so much as read any of Darwin's works, especially since "On the Origin of Species" never discusses human evolution in the first place. "Race," ala "racial variant," is still used by modern-day biologists to refer to different populations within species, with no racist connotations, in fact. "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" is the subtitle of Darwin's Origin of Species. It can be taken to mean the same thing as the later phrase "survival of the fittest" which was not coined by Darwin. The phrase illustrates a consequence of, not a basis for, evolution.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9207 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Hey, the Gospel of according to Matthew or Mark or Luke or John didn't have a subtitle to it about the Crusades. But Darwin's book certainly had one about its contribution to the idea of favored races:
Even a child should know how ridiculous this claim is.
quote:Source Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
" On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. " And what exactly did Darwin have to say about Favoured Races in his book, Jaywill? Despite the fact that Darwin was likey just as much a racist as others in his time, Origin of Species says exactly nothing about the topic of Social Darwinism. Darwin may well have been a racist, but I doubt you can find any notion of that in his book. Just a bit of historical perspective. Two hundred years before Darwin every lived, did whites have any trouble finding a basis for enslaving Africans, or did it turn out that the Bible itself provided plenty of justification and examples? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.Richard P. Feynman If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Why ? Certainly not because you deny the original title and intent of Charles Darwin's book - " On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. " Care to try some more revision of history ?
Revisionist history indeed. You are using the modern usage of the word to make Darwin say things he was not saying. Nowhere in Origin of Species does it even talk about races of humans, as in black, asian, etc. Races simply meant species or subspecies of any type. Also, nowhere did Darwin propose that we should kill off or sterilize humans that we deem to be less fit. You might as well claim that Newton's Laws of Gravity tell us to push people off of tall buildings to make them fall.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Concering ring species of gulls which would not interbreed, The gull species do not interbreed, making them separate species. We can observe these gulls going through macroevolution (i.e. speciation) in real time. Time after time you ask for observations which we then supply. That is followed by you retreating and claiming that it isn't evidence afterall. The truth of the matter is that you have no clue what the evidence is, and are coming to the hard realization that the evidence is stacked against you. You have two choices. Continue to shut your eyes and follow a dogma that requires you to surrender logic and reason, or be like millions of other christians and accept science for what it is. Your choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
On this basis you make macro evolution just about impossible to falsify. I am merely showing that humans and fish sharing a common ancestor and remaining vertebrates meets your criteria for what we should see in biology. You are the one who is making the claims about gulls remaining gulls, etc. Also, I have already shown you how macroevolution is falsifiable. All you need to do is show us obvious and numerous violations of the nested hierarchy in complex life. With evolution, we should see a nested hierarchy. Not so with a common designers. A common designer is free to mix and match design units as the designer sees. Even when humans design organisms we regularly violate the nested hierarchy where we move DNA from one species to a very distantly related species.
Another interpretation of the data is that there was a common design factors. It works well. That interpretation doesn't explain the nested hierarchy. Evolution does. That is why evolution is preferred, because it explains one of the most pervasive observations in biology whereas common design does not.
I know you would like to rule that out a priori. But in the search form truth I will not rule that possibility out. Maybe you feel you have to rule that out. So says the person who has ruled out evolution from the very start.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
And what exactly did Darwin have to say about Favoured Races in his book, Jaywill? Despite the fact that Darwin was likey just as much a racist as others in his time, Origin of Species says exactly nothing about the topic of Social Darwinism. Darwin may well have been a racist, but I doubt you can find any notion of that in his book. Just a bit of historical perspective. Two hundred years before Darwin every lived, did whites have any trouble finding a basis for enslaving Africans, or did it turn out that the Bible itself provided plenty of justification and examples? I accept that Darwin certainly didn't invent racism.I accept that maybe the title of his book was hype that the publishers desired in order to sell it. Publishers do that. I don't know if that was the case. I accept that slavers drew from the Bible - ie. the cursed black race, etc. (though they had to torture interpretation of Genesis to do so). I do not accept that either the biological or social concepts of Darwin are innocent in the barbarism of genocide. The social Darwinism was based on the biological concepts. Any attempt to distance the biological from the application of the concepts to the "human" animal I dismiss. If you want to say other factors influenced the Eugenics movement, I can agree. If you want to say Evolution theory had nothing to do with it, I disregard that as revising history. In Origin of Species Darwin may not have written explicitly much on Racism. But he had more to say in latter writings - Chapter 7 The Descent of Man had arguments in favour of, and opposed to, ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species--Sub-species-- Darwin's quotes on race and slavery are mixed and not always without consideration to the slave. He does not always come across as a bigot. As a scientist though he thought he should have a heart of stone. Here he is human -
quote: By modern standards I think he appears chauvinistic. But the ideas he spawned people ran with with all the viciousness evil can muster. Darwin on race and slavery Distancing Evolution theory totally from Eugenics is futile, IMO.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
I accept that Darwin certainly didn't invent racism. I accept that maybe the title of his book was hype that the publishers desired in order to sell it. Publishers do that. I don't know if that was the case. The only hype is coming from you. You are trying to put words in Darwin's mouth.
I do not accept that either the biological or social concepts of Darwin are innocent in the barbarism of genocide. The social Darwinism was based on the biological concepts. What biological concepts? Nowhere in the theory of evolution or in Darwin's works does it say that we should kill or sterilize people that we deem less fit. Like I said before, you might as well blame Newton for Nazi's throwing Jews off of tall buildings.
Chapter 7 The Descent of Man had arguments in favour of, and opposed to, ranking the so-called races of man as distinct species--Sub-species-- Where did he say that we should commit genocide to rid ourselves of these subspecies?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024