You realise, don't you, that you're lying to evolutionists about what evolutionists think, and that therefore everyone you're lying to knows that you're a liar?
Evolutionism says that countless entire populations of species have proven themselves to be inferior by going extinct.
Different human races are not different species.
You say "eugenics/racism". Only racists think that eugenics and racism are the same thing. See my last post. You have to believe that some races are superior to others in order to equate racism with eugenics.
Only racists think that eugenics and racism are the same thing.
Well, there's creationists too.
---
MESSAGE TO CREATIONISTS:
JUST BECAUSE EVERY CREATIONIST ARGUMENT IS A STUPID FUCKING LIE DOESN'T MEAN THAT EVERY STUPID FUCKING LIE IS A CREATIONIST ARGUMENT. SOME STUPID FUCKING LIES ARE JUST STUPID FUCKING LIES.
Have I made myself clear?
---
Why couldn't we argue about some lies that are even relevant to the subject? Why can't creationists lie about Archaeopteryx? They used to. Why can't they lie about the laws of thermodynamics? Why can't they lie about information theory? Why can't the stupid lying halfwits lie about intermediate forms in the fossil record like they used to before we pwned them? It used to be so much fun watching those bozos pretend to be scientists.
Well, the creationists know damn well why they don't dare lie about any scientific question: we're right, we'd win.
So instead they have to lie about stuff that isn't even relevant to the debate, 'cos it may not be creationism, but at least it's stupid lies. Not creationist stupid lies, but at least they're stupid lies. That's as close as they can get.
As I've thrice defeated the original nonsense I think that's enough. It's not hard to gauge the spirit of those who continue to participate. They're not here to learn, but to propagandize and insult; I've see enough of that.
Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this.
Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history.
Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism.
Oh yes, and calling me a racist is what I predicted. Ooooh what a clever trap. And how clever of you to step into it yourselves! You stinking eugenecists are the racists.
But I must revise my previous equasion: eugenecists = gutter racists. That's more accurate. You're less respectable because you try to hide your racism rather than having the guts to say what you are and face your enemies. You're smaller men than skinheads.
If I ever want to be insulted by cowards again, I sure know where to find them. Worse luck next time.
As I've thrice defeated the original nonsense I think that's enough. It's not hard to gauge the spirit of those who continue to participate. They're not here to learn, but to propagandize and insult; I've see enough of that.
In your mind, not in fact.
Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this.
Technically evolutionism is not a real word recognized by spell checking so I assume you are referring to the Theory of Evolution. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, the ToE has nothing to say about racism.
Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history.
It has been misused by people to justify racism in the past. So has the Bible and patriotism.
Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism.
Whatever this means, IMO it has not been shown to anyone's satisfaction except your own.
Oh yes, and calling me a racist is what I predicted. Ooooh what a clever trap. And how clever of you to step into it yourselves! You stinking eugenecists are the racists.
But I must revise my previous equasion: eugenecists = gutter racists. That's more accurate. You're less respectable because you try to hide your racism rather than having the guts to say what you are and face your enemies. You're smaller men than skinheads.
If I ever want to be insulted by cowards again, I sure know where to find them. Worse luck next time.
Declare victory despite evidence, call anyone who disagrees names despite forum guidelines, and then run off while calling all who disagree cowards. How many times as that happened before around here?
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
Reading back on the thread it seems you are just repeating the same claims that you have done already - and you have recieved replies that make your victory appear quite hollow. At this point in the thread it seems that you cannot present new claims to be shot down and must repeat old ones. Why bother then to write out another explaination why your wrong. Your "strike outs" have already been answered. If you repeat something enough do you then think it becomes true?
Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this.
Crashfrog in message 137 writes:
See, that's why it's nonsense. Evolution isn't something you apply; it's a description of what naturally happens in populations of living organisms.
Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history.
RAZD in message 91 writes:
Racists can (and have) misuse religion and science to bolster their position, but that does not mean that either religion or science necessarily results in racist views.
Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism.
Chiroptera in message 138 writes:
Where's the theory of evolution in all of this? This is pretty much mundane animal breeding as it has been practiced for thousands of years, well before Darwin or the discovery of evolution. Animal and plant breeders already knew that systematic extirpation of the superfluous will result in improving the breed. What is the theory of evolution adding to this?
You stinking eugenecists are the racists.
You have yet to show it, but feel free to keep making the claims.
You're less respectable because you try to hide your racism rather than having the guts to say what you are and face your enemies. You're smaller men than skinheads.
And yet each and every person here has shown that they do not believe in racial views regardless of how many times you insist that they do. I find this comment to be disgusting, how dare you compare the people in this thread to be "smaller than skinheads" when they have done nothing but show how racial views are incorrect.
If I ever want to be insulted by cowards again, I sure know where to find them.
As I've thrice defeated the original nonsense I think that's enough.
But everyone reading this thread can see that despite your declaration of yourself as the winner, you have in fact been exposed as a dirty stupid liar, which is why you are now going to run away ...
If I ever want to be insulted by cowards again, I sure know where to find them. Worse luck next time.
... sobbing and snivelling that we're "cowards" as you take to your legs and run.
Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this.
Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history.
Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism.
You know that everyone reading this thread can see that you're lying, right?
Oh yes, and calling me a racist is what I predicted.
Yes, it was. Are you now going to pretend that this has actually happened?
You stinking eugenecists are the racists.
But I must revise my previous equasion: eugenecists = gutter racists. That's more accurate. You're less respectable because you try to hide your racism rather than having the guts to say what you are and face your enemies. You're smaller men than skinheads.
I suppose daydreaming disgusting lies about your opponents makes it easier to hate them. I don't remember Jesus mentioning the advantages of this in the Sermon on the Mount, it must be one of those modern discoveries of this "creation science" we hear so much about.
But could I remind you that when you drool out these dirty lies in public, instead of just fantasising about them in your own mind, then everyone can see that you're a liar, and they know to what degradation, foulness and filth your creationism has led you.
What shall it profit a man if he shall gain a gibble-gabble of halfwitted lies but lose his soul? You seem to be screwed both ways. In return for abandoning morality and decency --- you have succeeded in becoming a bloody fool. This was not a good idea, and if I were you I'd ask Satan Prince of Lies for my soul back.
I can see why you'd want this to be so. I cannot see any reason to think it might be so.
He continues to be a highly-esteemed authority among evolutionists, and more importantly, he makes a sound argument (if you accept his a priori's) which demonstrates the 'need' for eugenics/racism.
But he is not talking about either evolution or racism here, but eugenics (which is not the same as racism, no matter how hard you try to change the definition to make it so). You are the one trying to shoe-horn eugenics into evolution as racism, and it just doesn't fit.
Evolutionism says that countless entire populations of species have proven themselves to be inferior by going extinct. The individual vs. group game won't work, since evolutionism isn't shy and has had much to say about both individuals and groups.
Those species went extinct individual by individual, they did not all drop dead at once. The group can not be selected, because there is no mechanism to do so.
How then can any subpopulation be inferior?
It can go extinct, and that's a pretty good indicator.
How then can that subpopulation be subject to discrimination by other subpopulations if it doesn't exist? If your only measure of inferior is dead there is no living beings that can meet that criteria.
But as we well know, evolutionism says humans are a special case. The consensus among evolutionists has long been that other factors supercede/impede 'natural selection' among humans. We've gone over this before. If your sect disagrees with the mainstream, that's not really my department.
In other words you have convinced yourself this is a fact, and don't need to look at the data.
No, I don't think there's any argument at all that 'superior' and 'inferior' life exists within the evolutionary paradigm.
Again, it appears that you have convinced yourself this is fact in spite of the fact there is no evidence for it.
I think you're talking about animals and not people. There are plenty of traits which occur predominantly among certain groups, and some of them are obvious to the naked eye. How else do you think groups are defined?
And I thought you couldn't distinguish races. :rolleyes: The facts still say otherwise: there is more variation within any subpopulation than there is between populations. None of these visible traits have anything to do with being inferior or superior, or even much to do with being fit for their respective ecologies, so you still have not connected race with inferior or superior abilities.
All traits had to start somewhere, and younger traits can therefore not be present in groups they haven't reached. This is a very good thing, too. I don't expect any creature would live too very long if it were otherwise.
And all of this mumbling, while very interesting, has nothing to do with whole subpopulations being inferior to others.
The more I look at this, the more certain I am that you misworded it. I hope this was not what you intended to say. The first part of the sentence has "trait" singular, and the last part has "differences" plural. The result is akin to "apples & oranges", except with numbers. I'm giving up on it, at any rate.
The trait is the yardstick to measure by (say 20-20 vision), the differences are those between all the individuals with different degrees of the trait in question. It's quite simple really.
Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this.
Jar's claim that evolutionary theory is antithetical to racism is incorrect, as a number of people point out early on in the thread. That's because scientific theories explain things, but do not give moral or political guidance.
The study of genetics does come up with strong ammunition against racism, and why not guess who discovered this? Preachers? Biologists?
You use the word evolutionism above, popular amongst creationists, but , whatever it means, not used in the O.P.
Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history.
Of course, there was a lot less racism in your country before Darwin published his theories in 1859, wasn't there? Nowadays, with evolution having been taught in schools for so long, you have to put up with the symptoms of racism like African slavery, and race separation laws, something you never had in the good old days before the theory of evolution.:rolleyes:
You need to stop confusing your desires with reality, my child.
Religiosity, interestingly enough, has been declining alongside racism.
Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism.
The Huxley quotes you use are about eugenics (which he was against), not racism. If you still think eugenics is racism, then you'd better start writing to dictionaries complaining about their definitions, and promoting the CTD language in place of English.
Oh yes, and calling me a racist is what I predicted. Ooooh what a clever trap. And how clever of you to step into it yourselves! You stinking eugenecists are the racists.
It isn't a question of calling you a racist. It's more likely that you're confused about what the words "eugenics" and "racism" mean. If someone thinks that eugenics and racism are the same things, then they must think that some races are genetically superior to others. Look at the dictionary definition I gave you of eugenics, and it should be easy for you to understand this.
As for the rest of your post, making assertions and calling people names won't make the existence of the creator God of your desires, the needed father figure, any more likely!
You need to try and find mud to sling at evolutionary biologists, because you have no scientific arguments against the theory of evolution.
If you'd like to point out one post that you've made on these forums in which you think you've made a reasoned scientific argument against the theory of evolution, please do it. I'd enjoy a good laugh.
Arguing the case for the truth of an ancient mythology isn't easy, I'm sure. In fact, it's impossible.:)
By the way, I notice that the Ku Klux Klan are OECs. I don't know whether this fits particularly well with their ideology, or whether this just reflects the personal delusions of their Head Guy In Charge Of Being Wrong About Science. Anyone got any ideas?
If you can think of a word that is both polite and accurate to describe someone who calls me a "stinking eugenicist" and a "gutter racist", then I should like to hear it.
Otherwise, I may have to stick with "liar", which at least has the merit of accuracy.
Strike 1 If evolutionism were antithetical to racism, it would contribute in a rational, logical manner to arguments against racism while providing no support for racism. It doesn't do this.
This is the only accurate thing that you have said so far. You are correct; the theory of evolution neither supports nor advocates against racism, just as the theory of gravity neither supports nor advocates against flying in airplanes. The theory of evolution is, at most, a description of what happens in the world. It is not a prescription of how people should organize their lives or their societies.
-
Strike 2 The claim that evolutionism doesn't support racism has been handily defeated by history.
Except that it hasn't. It has been explained that before that only the fake history believed by creationists support their views. In real history, there were creationists who were racists and there were evolutionists who were racists, and they both used the explanatory frameworks available to them to explain what they thought were racist truths.
-
Strike 3 The goalposts were moved, and Huxley managed to find the zone with his curveball, demonstrating that evolutionism logically leads to racism.
No. It is true that the theory of evolution is not antithetical to racism. This was acknowledged, and then the discussion moved on to whether the theory of evolution supports racism. This is not goalpost moving. Goalpost moving would be moving on the question of whether the theory of evolution supports racism while pretending we were still discussing the original question.
-
They're not here to learn, but to propagandize and insult; I've see enough of that.
Seems that you are not entirely innocent of this yourself, Mr. Pot.
In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
™ Version 4.0 Beta
