Jump to content


Photo

Up The Evolutionary Ladder


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 15 August 2017 - 10:49 AM

Up the Evolutionary ladder
"Much ado about nothing!"

Given all the celebrations, conferences, special issues and TV programmes, everyone must know by now that it is 200 years since Charles Darwin was born and 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species (1859). Among the spate of books published on this occasion, one actually stands out in its novelty: the claim that Darwin's evolutionary theory was inspired by his hatred of slavery, as especially experienced during his epic Beagle voyage (Desmond & Moore, 2009). It is a nice try, but it does not convince me; Thomas Malthus and the Galapagos finches provide a much more plausible origin for the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. --Steven Rosson Embo Reports website


According to the latest scientifiic conclusions, humans are 99.98% genetially identical. The .02% percent difference between any of us is largley aesthetic ( just as Darwin and we observe it to be--skin color, hair type and color etc.--all trivial differences).

Darwin viewed himself as "white" and atop the evolutionary ladder. Lower down the rung were the yellow, brown, blacks (the closest to the apes). Finally, there were the mongrels (mixtures of the "pure strains") of any of the aformentioned groups (used as a term of convience).

Usually we think of evolution, in terms of new body types or transitioning body types. Where are these evolving body types evident in the so called differennt races Darwin defined into existence?

Racism as we observe it today is not a function of biology but is a mental cognitive construct of the human mind. We color our view of others as if their skin color controls them! No indeed! We control our view of others by our worldview, relgigon or phiolsophy of life--our belief system! Our personal philsophy, which in most cases is eclectic, is the source of our conflicts between oursellves and others.

We tell, ourselves how to respond to our ennvironment by use of our philosophical (mental) concepts we have stored in our mind (our philosophy of life) Feelings (emotions) are triggered by our cognition of our philosophical concepts (thinking).

The deception is that external events and circumstances trigger our emotions. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Our mind has been set up by us! We are deceived when we tell ourselves things like "They made me mad!" So ,like a troop of insane actor we deliver our lines to ourselves and believe we are controlled by events and others. Worse yet, we have formed a neurotic agreement with others to back up our self deception! Anyone that dares to take exception to our neurotic agreements will suffer our rejection.

Listen in on your conversation with yourself and you will discover where all you problems come from!

Thus, instead of owning causation of our disturbance, we blame exterals (others and or the environment). This is a misdiagnosis. Instead of "I upset myself over what she said," it's "She upset me!" or, "It made me mad!" Notice, there is no reasoning with it as it is not a concious entity. Thus, an exercise in fuility!

In truth, we are individuals controlled by individual minds equiped with numerous and often conflicting philosophical concepts! We individally tell ourselves how to respond to stimuli in our evironent.

"Oh! That person has brown skin and I have white. That means that they are inferior to me. They shouldn't exist and I am bothered by them existing! How dare such vermen cross my path!" etc.

Until we address the actual cause of our inability not to get along (our personal belief system) we will continue to neurotically interact with ourselves and others. Get it? So, ask yourself.What am I telling myself to feel the way I do? The only way to stop the insanity is to quit! :)



#2 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 17 August 2017 - 03:38 AM

According to the latest scientifiic conclusions, humans are 99.98% genetially identical. The .02% percent difference between any of us is largley aesthetic ( just as Darwin and we observe it to be--skin color, hair type and color etc.--all trivial differences)

.
Can anyone tell me the difference between "is largley aesthetic" and "is aesthetic." I won't wait for an answer. The answer is no.

FYI, there should be a link provided to the content quoted: the text-string "Steven Rosson Embo Reports website" is not sufficient.

#3 what if

what if

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • indiana

Posted 17 August 2017 - 05:06 AM

FYI, there should be a link provided to the content quoted: the text-string "Steven Rosson Embo Reports website" is not sufficient.

even if he posted a link, it wouldn't matter.
i posted a link to peer reviewed science sources that EXPLICITLY says there is NO EVIDENCE that natural selection encourages complexity.
and what do we get?
we go right back to the same old "natural selection/ random mutation" paradigm like the link was never posted.
  • Mike Summers likes this

#4 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 August 2017 - 06:28 AM

What if said:

even if he posted a link, it wouldn't matter.
i posted a link to peer reviewed science sources that EXPLICITLY says there is NO EVIDENCE that natural selection encourages complexity.
and what do we get?
we go right back to the same old "natural selection/ random mutation" paradigm like the link was never posted.

I couldn't agree moreL Like Dale Carnegie said: "Conviced against your will of the same opinion still!"
 



#5 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 17 August 2017 - 08:44 AM

Up the Evolutionary ladder
"Much ado about nothing!"

Given all the celebrations, conferences, special issues and TV programmes, everyone must know by now that it is 200 years since Charles Darwin was born and 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species (1859). Among the spate of books published on this occasion, one actually stands out in its novelty: the claim that Darwin's evolutionary theory was inspired by his hatred of slavery, as especially experienced during his epic Beagle voyage (Desmond & Moore, 2009). It is a nice try, but it does not convince me; Thomas Malthus and the Galapagos finches provide a much more plausible origin for the theory of evolution by natural selection.
Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. --Steven Rosson Embo Reports website


According to the latest scientifiic conclusions, humans are 99.98% genetially identical. The .02% percent difference between any of us is largley aesthetic ( just as Darwin and we observe it to be--skin color, hair type and color etc.--all trivial differences).

Darwin viewed himself as "white" and atop the evolutionary ladder. Lower down the rung were the yellow, brown, blacks (the closest to the apes). Finally, there were the mongrels (mixtures of the "pure strains") of any of the aformentioned groups (used as a term of convience).

 

 

I am not familiar with the idea that Darwin's theory was inspired by his hatred of slavery, but from what I understand Darwin was fairly progressive on the matters of slavery and racism for his day.

 

The 0.02% difference (I didn't bother to check the number) is more than just aesthetic differences, but I digress; racists will take the differences and blow them out of proportion attaching significance where none exists, and meanwhile the politically correct will refuse to entertain the notion outright.

 

While Darwin did recognize that different races exist (although the proper scientific view of race is more complicated than mere skin color or the archaic groupings of Victorian classifiers), I'm going to call BS that Darwin viewed the "white" race as being evolutionarily superior to other races. The motif of Darwin's work in relation to fitness is that it is environmentally dependent; i.e. the differences observed between the races is the result of different environmental pressures with which one being 'superior' depending on the environment in question. An unequivocal superior race is nonsensical in a Darwinian view.

 

I have no reason to think your words are anything other than lies (either from yourself or from your source) unless you can show otherwise.

 

 

"Oh! That person has brown skin and I have white. That means that they are inferior to me. They shouldn't exist and I am bothered by them existing! How dare such vermen cross my path!" etc.

Until we address the actual cause of our inability not to get along (our personal belief system) we will continue to neurotically interact with ourselves and others. Get it? So, ask yourself.What am I telling myself to feel the way I do? The only way to stop the insanity is to quit! :)

 

 

If you want to fight against racism I am on your side, but to suggest that racism is a consequence of evolution (as per your opening quote and statements) is to ignore history and the racist movements themselves. The KKK for example has a history of opposing evolutionary theory. Years ago I was a member on the infamous white supremacist forum Stormfront (anyone can register), and there I was told evolution was a lie. Before the time of Darwin clergy literally debated among themselves if the different races really all descended from Adam and Eve, with many of them concluding that the different races were made separately by God and were inferior to their race, and this belief is echoed by various KKK factions. In case anyone doesn't know the KKK is an explicit Christian organization, and unless you affirm your Christian belief you cannot join no matter how pure your blood and soil is.

My point here is that if you want to rant about racism I'm with you, but if you are using it as an opportunity to blame evolution for racism you are misinformed and undercutting your own anti-racist position. Let me ask you a personal question: Once upon a time you said that you used to be racist; when you were racist were you an evolutionist, and did you consider yourself a Christian?



#6 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 19 August 2017 - 06:34 PM

Before the time of Darwin clergy literally debated among themselves if the different races really all descended from Adam and Eve, with many of them concluding that the different races were made separately by God...

Actually, they all descend from Noah.
 

In case anyone doesn't know the KKK is an explicit Christian organization, and unless you affirm your Christian belief you cannot join no matter how pure your blood and soil is.

I didn't know they had to affirm they were Christians, but that just sounds like cover to help them justify their actions. After all, many many blacks were and are Christians too. The KKK was actually formed as the military arm of the Democrat Party.

Why all the angst about racism? I didn't know the 0.02% number, but I knew the genetic differences were slight. I was taught that in school. I thought everyone was.

#7 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,657 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 19 August 2017 - 11:26 PM

 
 

In case anyone doesn't know the KKK is an explicit Christian organization, and unless you affirm your Christian belief you cannot join no matter how pure your blood and soil is.

I didn't know they had to affirm they were Christians, but that just sounds like cover to help them justify their actions. After all, many many blacks were and are Christians too. The KKK was actually formed as the military arm of the Democrat Party.

 More specifically, the KKK would be limited to white northern European protestants.

 

Catholics aren't welcome either.



#8 Goku

Goku

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 25
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • USA

Posted 20 August 2017 - 06:07 AM

 

Before the time of Darwin clergy literally debated among themselves if the different races really all descended from Adam and Eve, with many of them concluding that the different races were made separately by God...

Actually, they all descend from Noah.
 

 

And Noah descended from Adam and Eve. ;)

 

It was not an uncommon belief a few hundred years ago to believe that God created the 'new world' (the Americas) independently of their known world and that those inhabitants did not descend from Adam and Eve (and thus not from Noah either).

 

I didn't know they had to affirm they were Christians, but that just sounds like cover to help them justify their actions. After all, many many blacks were and are Christians too. The KKK was actually formed as the military arm of the Democrat Party.

Why all the angst about racism? I didn't know the 0.02% number, but I knew the genetic differences were slight. I was taught that in school. I thought everyone was.

 

Christendom is by no means a monolithic group. I will agree that racism runs counter to the soul of Christian holy texts: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." - Galatians 3:28 

 

That said the KKK does view itself as a Christian group, and this is not a front but what they truly believe; and they do hate Catholics as Piasan said. In the South you will hear phrases like 'the blacks have the mark of Cain'. If you recall in Genesis after Cain kills Abel God curses Cain with a mark, and while the Bible itself doesn't say the mark was dark skin or that dark skin is the mark of Cain, that's how many racists interpret the passage. This was seen as one reason why blacks were inherently inferior and why they should even be subjugated into slavery.

 

I assume Mike started this thread due to the increasing publicly visible tension of race in America. I don't know how accurate Mike's 0.02% number is, but either way you know the number is going to be less than 1% anyway. I have debated several racists online over the years, and I think their standard reply to the low genetic differences would be that small genetic differences can have a big impact, and even a small percentage difference can mean millions of DNA differences.



#9 KenJackson

KenJackson

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland, USA
  • Age: 59
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Maryland, USA

Posted 20 August 2017 - 08:39 AM

And Noah descended from Adam and Eve. ;)

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were wrong. But while Adam was created just the other day in evolutionary terms, Noah's descendants started a quarter of that age more recently. Darwinists think billions of years would be enough time to evolve all of our proteins, but they know very well that a few thousand years wouldn't be enough for much of anything. So the fact that all races descend from Noah is more pointed.
 

It was not an uncommon belief a few hundred years ago to believe that God created the 'new world' (the Americas) independently of their known world and that those inhabitants did not descend from Adam and Eve (and thus not from Noah either).

I haven't heard that and I don't believe anyone who believes in the God of the Bible would think that. The flood covered the whole earth so anyone outside the ark was wiped out.
 

In the South you will hear phrases like 'the blacks have the mark of Cain'.

I've heard reference to the "mark of Cain", but only when people mentioned how silly it is since all of Cain's direct male-line descendants were wiped out in the flood. So I wonder just how "Christian" these KKKers were if they didn't know the Bible.
 

I assume Mike started this thread due to the increasing publicly visible tension of race in America.

I join your assumption. But sadly, I think most of the commotion has nothing to do with actual racial tension, but is bought and paid for by political operatives to smear the President. DNA is irrelevant in this controversy.

#10 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 20 August 2017 - 09:48 AM

 

Before the time of Darwin clergy literally debated among themselves if the different races really all descended from Adam and Eve, with many of them concluding that the different races were made separately by God...

Actually, they all descend from Noah.

 

 
 I'd assume that is that way, it's however still interpretation. An interpretation which is however supported by the fragments one finds in people's of different races traditions and Mythology.
 
 There was some speculation on who descended from which son of Noah, though.
 
 

 

In case anyone doesn't know the KKK is an explicit Christian organization, and unless you affirm your Christian belief you cannot join no matter how pure your blood and soil is.

I didn't know they had to affirm they were Christians, but that just sounds like cover to help them justify their actions. After all, many many blacks were and are Christians too. The KKK was actually formed as the military arm of the Democrat Party.

Why all the angst about racism? I didn't know the 0.02% number, but I knew the genetic differences were slight. I was taught that in school. I thought everyone was.

The Klan was first founded as a self-defense organisation after the War of Secession ended and the South was subdued. There was a lot of upheaval then. Apparently it even had Coloured members in the beginning. It's a secret organisation, and a lot of ritual seem to stem from Freemasonry. Just that anybody seems to be allowed to open a chapter and declare themselves a "Klan". I'm not sure, if every chapter has that requirement people have to be Christians / Protestants. But then many masonic. lodges have that kind of requirement, too 
 

As for percentages in genetic differences. I read the figure 0,1% once sometimes given higher, sometimes lower. But it has to be quite low, given that DNA has to contain all the structural, growth and protein information. We all breath air and metabolize on carbohydrates, etc. etc. I'm btw. quite suprised of how much data the human genome is comprised, I'd expected far more than that. But perhaps it works like a zip-file. 

 

As for human biodiversity taught in school. That subject was avoided almost completely. I recall some sweeping statement that everybody is actually equal and that everything depends on a person's environment. Everyone would be the same, if the environment would be the same. I was a bit astonished at the time, since that also would mean that people are kind of environmentally predetermined without the ability of making choices. To me environment has got some explanatory value, but I don't view this as absolute. 



#11 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 20 August 2017 - 12:31 PM

https://youtu.be/Y8MS6zubIaQ?t=20



#12 MarkForbes

MarkForbes

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,265 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Africa
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Waverley

Posted 21 August 2017 - 07:42 AM

Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. --Steven Rosson Embo Reports website

That seems to stem more from archaeology and what has subsequently be observed with anthropological discoveries in the world. 

 

Lewis Morgan wrote about this:
 

 

 

Ancient Society Or
Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from
Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization By
Lewis H. Morgan, LL. D Part I
Growth of Intelligence through Inventions and Discoveries

Chapter I. Ethnical Periods

Progress of Mankind from, the Bottom of the Scale. — Illustrated by, Inventions, Discoveries and Institutions. — Two Plans of Government — one Gentile and Social, giving a Society (Societas); the other Political, giving a State (Civitas). — The former founded upon Persons and Gentilism; the Latter upon Territory and Property. — The First, the Plan of Government of Ancient Society. — The Second, that of Modern or Civilized Society. — Uniformity of Human Experience. — Proposed Ethnical Periods — I. Lower Status of Savagery; II. Middle Status of Savagery; III. Upper Status of Savagery; IV. Lower Status of Barbarism; V. Middle Status of Barbarism VI. Upper Status of Barbarism; VII. Status of Civilization.

Chapter II. Arts of Subsistence

Supremacy of Mankind over the Earth. — Control over Subsistence the Condition. — Mankind alone gained that Control. — Successive Arts of Subsistence — I. Natural Subsistence; II. Fish Subsistence; III. Farinaceous Subsistence; IV. Meat and Milk Subsistence; V. Unlimited Subsistence through Field Agriculture. — Long Intervals of Time between them.

Chapter III. Ratio of Human Progress

Retrospect on the Lines of Human Progress. — Principal Contributions of Modern Civilization. — Of Ancient Civilization. — Of Later Period of Barbarism. — Of Middle Period, — Of Older Period — Of Period of Savagery. — Humble Condition of Primitive Man. — Human Progress in a Geometrical Ratio. — Relative Length of Ethnical Periods. — Appearance of Semitic and Aryan Families.

https://www.marxists...ncient-society/

 

They viewed human development as "evolutionary" from savage to civilized society, if you want. People supposedly "climb a ladder". Why there may be some truth to it, I disagree with the view that it is a ladder. There maybe other reasons for people having different forms of lifestyles, given circumstances and preferences. 



#13 Schera Do

Schera Do

    Referent Police

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,251 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Critical analysis and referents, Ephectic, Ultimate questions & how to answer, political philosophy, Constitutional Conservatism
  • Age: 55
  • (private)
  • Agnostic
  • Northeastern U.S. of A.

Posted 21 August 2017 - 08:47 AM

...
They viewed human development as "evolutionary" from savage to civilized society, if you want. People supposedly "climb a ladder". Why there may be some truth to it, I disagree with the view that it is a ladder. There maybe other reasons for people having different forms of lifestyles, given circumstances and preferences.

.
The word "evolve" is mis-used outside the context of biological evolution throughout numerous scientific fields as well as continuously in the general public.

It is mis-used and abused more than the word "random."

#14 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 August 2017 - 01:05 AM

I am not impressed by Darwin--one of the most arrogant self-righteous men of history. He took it upon himself to categorize himself as a member of the superior race and then categorized the rest of mankind as his inferiors. He reminds me of Adolph Hitler. As we used to say as kids, "Who died and left you (Darwin in this case) in charge?

Contemporary scientists have long since debunked Darwin's racial hierachy. They have concluded the human race (the only race) has not been arround long enough to have any subspecies. Race is a cognitive construct--a neurotic agreement.

"We hold these truths to be selfevident that all men are created equal"

I had a young man in therapy for identiy issues which led to depression and thoughts of suicide. Though he looked "white" he believed he was partially "black". He told me he sometimes "passed" for "white." There was a war in his mind because he thought he was worhless and inderior because he was "racially" mixed snf therefore shouldn't exist!. He told me the only solution to his dilemma was to kill himself!

Fianlly, after several sessions, I was able to get him to see that he had just as much right to walk this planet as anyone. He was no more or less of a person than anyone else. Moreover, there is only one race and the rest of the so called races only exist by definition. Guess who the owner of the definition is?

One brown skinned young man told me he went out to dinner with some of his fair skinned ("white") Christian friends. As he got out of his car to go into the restaurant, some young "white" boys started calling him names. He ignored them and went on into the restaurant. When he finished dinner and came out someone had poured acid on the hood of his late model car. He asked me why God would alloww that to happen to him? I asked him if he loved God? I asked who created him and gave him brown skin? He answered as I expected that God had create him. So, I said, "If someone does not like your skin color, whoose handywork are they crticising?" "God's," he responded. "Right," I said. "Their problem is not with you! It is with them and God! You had nothing to do with your skin color, did you? If they don't like who and what God created that's between them and God! Believe me God will get arround to dealing with them."

The most efficient way to hate someone is to teach them to hate themselves. I undo Darwin's nonsense whenever I can!

Darwin didn't invent "racism" but he sure legitimized it and made it "scientific!"



#15 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 22 August 2017 - 02:31 AM

Goku said:

The 0.02% difference (I didn't bother to check the number) is more than just aesthetic differences, but I digress; racists will take the differences and blow them out of proportion attaching significance where none exists, and meanwhile the politically correct will refuse to entertain the notion outright.


So what are thos "major" differennces that are so unobious to us?

Well, I bothered to check out the race issue and scientists find no justification for more than one race.

While Darwin did recognize that different races exist (although the proper scientific view of race is more complicated than mere skin color or the archaic groupings of Victorian classifiers), I'm going to call BS that Darwin viewed the "white" race as being evolutionarily superior to other races. The motif of Darwin's work in relation to fitness is that it is environmentally dependent; i.e. the differences observed between the races is the result of different environmental pressures with which one being 'superior' depending on the environment in question. An unequivocal superior race is nonsensical in a Darwinian view.

You neeed toread his book the Decent of Man where he talks about how he views mankind!

He didn 't recognize, he created the idea. He thought there were major differences based on supericial characteristics.

We know today he got it wrong or so contemporary scientists have discovered based on genetics! 

I have no reason to think your words are anything other than lies (either from yourself or from your source) unless you can show otherwise.

It's not my job to prove anything to you. That's your job. I suggest you do just that.

Calling someone a liar shows your ignornace as to just what a lie is. The liar, to lie, has to know what the truth is and yet speaks the opposite of that truth. That would hardly be what I am doinng. I do not believe evolution is true. Therefore, from your perspective i would be deceived not a liar!

 

If you want to fight against racism I am on your side, but to suggest that racism is a consequence of evolution (as per your opening quote and statements) is to ignore history and the racist movements themselves. The KKK for example has a history of opposing evolutionary theory. Years ago I was a member on the infamous white supremacist forum Stormfront (anyone can register), and there I was told evolution was a lie. Before the time of Darwin clergy literally debated among themselves if the different races really all descended from Adam and Eve, with many of them concluding that the different races were made separately by God and were inferior to their race, and this belief is echoed by various KKK factions. In case anyone doesn't know the KKK is an explicit Christian organization, and unless you affirm your Christian belief you cannot join no matter how pure your blood and soil is.
My point here is that if you want to rant about racism I'm with you, but if you are using it as an opportunity to blame evolution for racism you are misinformed and undercutting your own anti-racist position. Let me ask you a personal question: Once upon a time you said that you used to be racist; when you were racist were you an evolutionist, and did you consider yourself a Christian?

Why of course evo is responsible (survival of the fittest). According to most evo scientists, evo is the cause of everything! Don't you believe?

There you go again ignoring what the author of Christianity says to look at, a person;s fruit. "He who says he loves God and hates his brother is a liar and the truth is not in him!"

Surely you can see the incongruence of KKK logic? If they claim evo is not true, then who is responsiible for brown skinned people but God? Doen't sound very Christian to me! "Most illogical captain!"



#16 mike the wiz

mike the wiz

    Veteran member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,123 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:mikey mischief.
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • England

Posted 22 August 2017 - 04:50 AM

 

 

Mike Summers: Surely you can see the incongruence of KKK logic? If they claim evo is not true, then who is responsiible for brown skinned people but God? Doen't sound very Christian to me! "Most illogical captain!"

 

"Excellent.........excellent." - Khan (in appreciation of intelligent thought) - Space Seed.

 

(As for this war between you and Goku, Mike - it's been going on a while now, I never understood why you guys have this friction). It's a war of the gurus. ;)






1 user(s) are reading this topic

1 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    KenJackson