Evolution is antithetical to racism

Message 166 of 238 (425348) 10-01-2007 9:39 PM

Reply to: Message 164 by CTD 10-01-2007 9:17 PM

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?

Just checking.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 167 of 238 (425351) 10-01-2007 9:52 PM

Reply to: Message 164 by CTD 10-01-2007 9:17 PM

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.

Message 168 of 238 (425356) 10-01-2007 10:11 PM

Reply to: Message 167 by bluegenes 10-01-2007 9:52 PM

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.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 169 of 238 (425359) 10-01-2007 10:20 PM

Reply to: Message 168 by Dr Adequate 10-01-2007 10:11 PM

Of course. I wonder if he can understand that every time he claims that eugenics = racism, he has to be making a racist statement by definition.

Message 170 of 238 (425390) 10-02-2007 4:52 AM

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.

Message 171 of 238 (425391) 10-02-2007 5:16 AM

Reply to: Message 170 by CTD 10-02-2007 4:52 AM

In your mind, not in fact.

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.

It has been misused by people to justify racism in the past. So has the Bible and patriotism.

Whatever this means, IMO it has not been shown to anyone's satisfaction except your own.

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?

The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Message 172 of 238 (425394) 10-02-2007 6:55 AM

Reply to: Message 170 by CTD 10-02-2007 4:52 AM

You have yet to show it, but feel free to keep making the claims.

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.

Keep up the good work, spread the love.

Message 173 of 238 (425395) 10-02-2007 6:59 AM

Reply to: Message 170 by CTD 10-02-2007 4:52 AM

thus making a birdie as fundamentalism went to the penalty box for failing to return the serve.

Another slam dunk for Team Science!

_____

Edited by Archer Opterix, : added box score.

Message 174 of 238 (425399) 10-02-2007 7:13 AM

Reply to: Message 170 by CTD 10-02-2007 4:52 AM

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 ...

... sobbing and snivelling that we're "cowards" as you take to your legs and run.

You know that everyone reading this thread can see that you're lying, right?

Yes, it was. Are you now going to pretend that this has actually happened?

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.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 175 of 238 (425401) 10-02-2007 7:23 AM

Reply to: Message 164 by CTD 10-01-2007 9:17 PM

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.

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 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.

In other words you have convinced yourself this is a fact, and don't need to look at the data.

Again, it appears that you have convinced yourself this is fact in spite of the fact there is no evidence for it.

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.

And all of this mumbling, while very interesting, has nothing to do with whole subpopulations being inferior to others.

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.

Enjoy.

Message 176 of 238 (425405) 10-02-2007 7:38 AM

Reply to: Message 170 by CTD 10-02-2007 4:52 AM

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.

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.

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.

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.:)

Message 179 of 238 (425417) 10-02-2007 9:02 AM

Reply to: Message 178 by AdminPaul 10-02-2007 8:15 AM

Otherwise, I may have to stick with "liar", which at least has the merit of accuracy.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Message 180 of 238 (425441) 10-02-2007 10:43 AM

Reply to: Message 170 by CTD 10-02-2007 4:52 AM

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.

-

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.

-

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.

-

Seems that you are not entirely innocent of this yourself, Mr. Pot.