Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Are we all descendants of Adam and Eve?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 286 of 376 (710331)
11-04-2013 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Phat
11-04-2013 3:46 PM


Re: Pride comes before the fall
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Phat, posted 11-04-2013 3:46 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 287 of 376 (710388)
11-05-2013 6:34 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Theodoric
11-04-2013 10:21 AM


Re: First man?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Theodoric, posted 11-04-2013 10:21 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2013 9:26 AM jaywill has replied
 Message 289 by Theodoric, posted 11-05-2013 9:30 AM jaywill has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 288 of 376 (710410)
11-05-2013 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by jaywill
11-05-2013 6:34 AM


Re: First man?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 6:34 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 12:05 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 289 of 376 (710412)
11-05-2013 9:30 AM
Reply to: Message 287 by jaywill
11-05-2013 6:34 AM


Re: First man?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 6:34 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 12:01 PM Theodoric has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 290 of 376 (710443)
11-05-2013 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Theodoric
11-05-2013 9:30 AM


Re: First man?
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 ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Theodoric, posted 11-05-2013 9:30 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Theodoric, posted 11-05-2013 12:17 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 293 by Tangle, posted 11-05-2013 12:28 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 295 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2013 12:34 PM jaywill has replied
 Message 296 by Taq, posted 11-05-2013 1:09 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 308 by AZPaul3, posted 11-05-2013 6:35 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 291 of 376 (710444)
11-05-2013 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by NoNukes
11-05-2013 9:26 AM


Re: First man?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2013 9:26 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by Theodoric, posted 11-05-2013 12:33 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 302 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2013 1:44 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 292 of 376 (710447)
11-05-2013 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by jaywill
11-05-2013 12:01 PM


Re: First man?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 12:01 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 293 of 376 (710448)
11-05-2013 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by jaywill
11-05-2013 12:01 PM


Re: First man?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 12:01 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 294 of 376 (710456)
11-05-2013 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by jaywill
11-05-2013 12:05 PM


Re: First man?
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:
1 "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.
2 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.
3 "Race," ala "racial variant," is still used by modern-day biologists to refer to different populations within species, with no racist connotations, in fact.
4 "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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 12:05 PM jaywill has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 376 (710457)
11-05-2013 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by jaywill
11-05-2013 12:01 PM


Re: First man?
" 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 12:01 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 1:27 PM NoNukes has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 296 of 376 (710461)
11-05-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by jaywill
11-05-2013 12:01 PM


Re: First man?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 12:01 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 297 of 376 (710462)
11-05-2013 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by jaywill
11-01-2013 8:05 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2013 8:05 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 298 of 376 (710463)
11-05-2013 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by jaywill
11-01-2013 7:23 PM


Re: First man?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by jaywill, posted 11-01-2013 7:23 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 1:38 PM Taq has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1942 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 299 of 376 (710464)
11-05-2013 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by NoNukes
11-05-2013 12:34 PM


Re: First man?
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:
What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2013 12:34 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by Taq, posted 11-05-2013 1:35 PM jaywill has not replied
 Message 306 by NoNukes, posted 11-05-2013 5:38 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 300 of 376 (710465)
11-05-2013 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by jaywill
11-05-2013 1:27 PM


Re: First man?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by jaywill, posted 11-05-2013 1:27 PM jaywill 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