Racial Evolution 101

Not too up on the old history caboodle are you?Recovering The DanelawI refer you particularly to this part: "Aethelred, the then English king ordered the massacre of all 'Danish' men in The Danelaw in 1002" - over nine hundred years earlier, an english king ordered the slaughter of all 'danish' men in an entire country because he didn't like them.Not to mention numerous accounts of genocide in the Old Testament.(And were you ever planning to returning to this thread: http://EvC Forum: Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity -->EvC Forum: Dinosaurs and the reduced felt effect of gravity )[This message has been edited by Mr Jack, 04-26-2004]

As before, I think you are simply mistaken about it. The racist and genocidal beliefs associated to Darwinism come from the view of varieties of organism competively encroaching on each other. Same as it was in creationist Speke's doctrine about Hutu's and Tutsi's and other "races" competitively encroaching, in now predominantly catholic Rwanda.I don't believe it comes from not recognizing God, and I'm pretty sure that Hitler did believe that God created man, even if his conception of God as "eternal nature" seems quite deist.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The "Thou shalt not kill" which you read in English bibles is a mistranslation; translated properly it would read "Thou shalt do no murder". Neither Christianity nor our own constitution were meant to be suicide pacts and protecting your own land and your own people from viking incursions is not the same thing as trying to exterminate an entire group of people to improve the planet's genetic pool. The tenth century English kings never thought of that one.

You claimed that the idea of trying to wipe out someone you hated was new. This is false.Either defend your claim or admit your error - don't just make a different claim and pretend you've said the same thing.

>You claimed that the idea of trying to wipe out someone you hated was new.Not really. What I AM claiming is that the idea of viewing your fellow man as a cosmic accident is new, and that this has allowed killing at a scale beyond anything ever previously seen prior to the 20'th century.

Gee, that's going to be difficult to make an argument for. How are you going to remove the effect of improved technology from the statistics? What analysis have you done so far? Where have you collected your statistics?

quote:

---

Chuck Darwin has a hell of a lot of blood on his hands. My advice to you would be to stop the crybaby acts and actually read some of the material in question, and the three links I posted above would be as good a place to start as any.

---

Would you then say that Marie Curie has blood on her hands because of what happened in Nagasaki, Hiroshima, and the ensuing Cold War? Afterall, without her discovery of radioactive elements . . .Maybe you could answer this question. Do the atrocities committed in the name of evolution make the theory incorrect? Do the atrocities committed by an atomic bomb make atomic theory incorrect? Do you think that the most important thing scientists want is an unsullied god by the name of Darwin? I think you are blowing smoke up our collective arses.

>Maybe you could answer this question. Do the atrocities committed in the name of evolution make the theory incorrect?No. Evolution doesn't require horrific consequences to be incorrect; the gross violations of probabilistic laws will suffice.What I am pointing out is that, unlike the "big bang" theory or the theory of the aether which one might categorize as harmless BS, evolution is not harmless BS. Evolution is the worst of both worlds: it's junk science and it's an ideological doctrine which has had horrific consequences.

quote:

---

No. Evolution doesn't require horrific consequences to be incorrect; the gross violations of probabilistic laws will suffice.

---

Probabilistic law violations that only exist in your daydreams.

quote:

---

What I am pointing out is that, unlike the "big bang" theory or the theory of the aether which one might categorize as harmless BS, evolution is not harmless BS. Evolution is the worst of both worlds: it's junk science and it's an ideological doctrine which has had horrific consequences.

---

Kind of like putting a PhD behind a creationist's name. It gives them power of authority that they should never of had. Evolution is not a theory that is meant to guide human society. As Crashfrog stated earlier, natural selection is a trend not a command. It is the misreading of the theory that has to be corrected, as we sane minded evolutionists here on EvC strive to do with narrow minded finger pointers like yourself. Crusades: caused by a misreading of the Bible and a powerful theocracy. Displacement of Native Americans: caused by greed. Holocaust: directly caused by the writings of one man, Darwin, who neither supported nor commanded the genocide of any human race. Great logic Ted. Perhaps you can find a way to blame Kermit the Frog for causing the sexual abuse of pigs.

Eh... I don't know what to make of this. Seems to be a lot of BS here. Junk Science compared to what other Science?...Ideologocal doctrine which has had horrific consequences? Compared to the "crusades" and "holy wars" throughout time, I think you'll find that religion have had more horrific consequences for man than any evolutionistic view.You could use evolutions "The Survival of the fittest" theory to describe any hideous act done by man throughout time, even that done by Christians, Muslims etc. But that is just an explanation on how the TOE works in all aspects of the animal kingdom. But then again you would have to believe in the TOE, which I'm sure you are incapable of.SkepticScand

Redwolf: you appear to have forgottten to answer Message 36.

Gee, that's going to be difficult to make an argument for. How are you going to remove the effect of improved technology from the statistics? What analysis have you done so far? Where have you collected your statistics?

You can dig up the stats for the two world wars as easily as I can; there's nothing remotely close to that in history books, the closest thing to being close being the wars of Chengis Khan 700 years ago.European wars in particular from the late middle ages until the time of Napoleon were generally wars between ruling families and the one time those truly got out of hand (the 30 years war) seemed to be more a case of a new kind of military/industrial paradigm having arisen in Sweden than anything else, i.e. a sort of an unintended consequence of technological advance. Then you had the Napoleonic wars, driven by the French desire to remake the world "comme il faut", and then, for a hundred years more or less, you didn't have any real wars in Europe, the little Franco/prussian war and the Crimean war being the only blips on the screen in all that time more or less.That's the really meaningful statistic. For about a hundred years prior to WW-I, almost NOBODY had been killed in a European war.In 1913, after a century of being cool, Europe was sitting on top of the entire world and had it all. All they had to do was go on being cool, and they'd still be sitting on top of the world. They'd be so fat and happy, they'd not know what to do with themselves.Instead of doing that, of course, they all got to reading a bunch of BS by Chuck Darwin and Fred Nietzsche, and we all know what happened.

Excepting the 400 years of genocide in the Americas, which killed upwards of 100 million, commited by Christians.

Of course there is an effect of improved technology. It is a natural part of evolution: "S U R V I V A L O F T H E F I T T E S T". It has always been there!! That doesn't mean that the smartest win. It's the boys with the biggest toys.And you still didn't answer the question of what you meant with junk science? You should read up on your history hispeed.com - This website is for sale! - Hi speed Resources and Information., I think. Acually, the 30 years was a struggle between Catholic and Protestant princes aided by non-German coregilionalists. And compared to the population and the weapons they had back then, I do not dare to think what they could have done with 20th century technology.You seem to insist that everything that happened in the two world wars last century was the doings of Darwins theory. Do you actually think the two world wars wouldn't have happened if Darwin never had published his theory? Of course they would No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/9587/attrelig.html.

Your bizare idea of European history has already been critiqued.However, given the fact taht a lot of people have been killed in the 20th century, you haven't even tried to establish a connection with Darwin's work. You've just asserted one. Sorry, that doesn't cut the mustard.You need to demonstrate that Darwin's work was the cause. To do this you have to separate out the effects of better technology, coimmunications, social development, and a whole host of other factors.I can't conceive of a way that it could be done. If you can do it, go for it.But claiming that Darwin caused the many deaths after he lived is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy; for the Latin-challenged that means that just because B happened after A, that doesn't mean that A caused B.