Jump to content


Photo

Evolution Ethics Poll


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

Poll: Does belief in evolution create a de-valuing of life? (18 member(s) have cast votes)

Does belief in evolution create a de-valuing of life?

  1. Yes (9 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

  2. No (9 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 April 2011 - 04:08 PM

The basic idea of the Big Bang, is scientific fact. There could be, and there are of course debates over the details, but the literal big bang is fact. That's due to the inflation of the universe, and the equal distribution of background radiation.

View Post


You entire statement above is illogical:

1- An idea IS NOT a fact (you may want to reflect on the definitions of the two words).

2- Theories are not "scientific facts"(you may want to reflect on the definitions of the two words).

3- There ARE many-many debates over the Big Bang theory, therefore your attempted magnanimity on the subject is not needed.

4- The Big Bang theory is not "literal", nor is it a "fact". (you may want to reflect on the definitions of the two words AND you may want to do a little more studies into both subjects with respect to the theory). The Big bang is a theory postulated (presupposed and a priori) from some facts. But it (the BBT) is not a fact.

MOD HAT: this is your one and only warning (since you have told at least three bold faced inaccuracies/lies). You will re-read the forum rules (that YOU agreed to prior to being accepted at this forum) prior to posting a reply to this post:

http://www.evolution...forum_rules.htm

You will then:

1- Correct your inaccuracies
2- Not post such inaccuracies at this forum again
3- Continue to adhere to the posted forum rules henceforth.

Failure to do so will result in forfeiture of any and all forum usage.



MOD HAT off:

#62 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 29 April 2011 - 04:34 PM


For the record, my original post, that you replied to, was directed to “Materialistic Atheists”. As I said “you responded to it. Maybe you should go back and re-read…

Further, if you make a statement as if it we fact, you are responsible to provide the evidence for it. If you have a problem with that, maybe you need to find a forum that has no rules or standards to go by.

View Post



I say a lot of facts. I've said that darker skin prevents sun burn. I've said that all races are members of the same species. I've said that Russia is colder than Africa. I don't think I have to prove that Russia's climate is generally colder than Africa's. That's what I'm talking about. Obviously, since we are coming from two very different world views, there will be a lot of factual disagreements, but I don't feel the need to cite a scientific paper saying that Russia is north of Africa. The line that separates what should be cited and what doesn't need to be cited isn't exactly clear to me, and I'd appreciate it if someone would point out when I have crossed this line. That is all.

View Post


You have stated absolutely NO facts with respect to your assertions to the materialistic in our conversations. You’ve attempted to equate the metaphysical with the physical i.e… “Sympathy and empathy” (see post # 21) “the spirit” (see post # 27), “meaning, morals, value, and emotions in life” (see post # 30), but you have absolutely no basis (or foundation) to do so. It seems you have absolutely no idea of the differences between the two. Then when cornered, you attempt to cover your misunderstandings (and yes apparent ignorance) with accusations that I am playing “word games” (see post # 43).

Again, you may want to re-read OUR conversations again, because we haven’t discussed “darker skin”, “races”, “Russia's climate”, “Africa's climate” (etc…), therefore you are getting yourself confused in your own attempts at reconciliation between atheism and the real world! And, as I noticed, you totally disregarded the first part of my post (# 54):

For the record, my original post, that you replied to, was directed to “Materialistic Atheists”. As I said “you responded to it. Maybe you should go back and re-read…

View Post

and then you went on to totally misrepresent the second half of my post (# 54) with some contrived “facts” that had absolutely no bearing on our conversation.

This is what we were talking about:

I can see that you (as well as Glaucus) cannot even defend your materialistic and relativistic world-views. So, in not being able to accomplish such, you use the standard Bible scoffer’s tactic of “I’m not a fan of word games” (etc…) in an attempt to cover for your lack of refutations, and lack of factual support of your assertions.

Further, as you’ll quickly notice, Glaucus has attempted to “take up the point”, but has failed. And, as I am wont to do, I will state again; if you are going to make an assertion/accusation it is YOU responsibility to provide the FACTS to support them. In every case, you (and your recent friend here) have failed miserably to do so. Oh, you have provided plenty of opinion… but no facts whatsoever.

I can say this much, if you continue to do so, you won’t last long here.

View Post

For the record, I only claimed to an atheist. You're the one who inserted materialistic into that title. Also, if I assert something that you disagree and feel needs proper citation, point it out and I will either supply proper citations or back down from that stance. If I say something that I know will need citation, I'll add one, but I'm still not sure how much common ground we share, so it's very likely that I'll use a claim as part of an argument that you don't believe without realizing that we don't share that belief.

View Post


For the record, my original post, that you replied to, was directed to “Materialistic Atheists”. As I said “you responded to it. Maybe you should go back and re-read…

Further, if you make a statement as if it we fact, you are responsible to provide the evidence for it. If you have a problem with that, maybe you need to find a forum that has no rules or standards to go by.

View Post


For the record, whatever atheist forum you, Glaucus, Crocoduck, TheGene (etc…) came from, make an invite for those here who want to go there and argue with you.

#63 ashleyhunt60

ashleyhunt60

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 32 posts
  • Age: 18
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Arizona

Posted 29 April 2011 - 06:31 PM

You have stated absolutely NO facts with respect to your assertions to the materialistic in our conversations. You’ve attempted to equate the metaphysical with the physical i.e… “Sympathy and empathy” (see post # 21) “the spirit” (see post # 27), “meaning, morals, value, and emotions in life” (see post # 30), but you have absolutely no basis (or foundation) to do so. It seems you have absolutely no idea of the differences between the two. Then when cornered, you attempt to cover your misunderstandings (and yes apparent ignorance) with accusations that I am playing “word games” (see post # 43).

You assert that materialism cannot include sympathy, empathy, or the spirit of things(by that I mean more the essence than an actual soul for the record). You are saying what a materialist is and what materialism is. It's not a bad thing to explore these idea, but I'm simply not interested in how labels fit on ideas. I really could not care less what you call me, as long as you recognize what my beliefs are. Create whatever labels for me you see fit.

You seem passionate about this however, so how about this; I'm wrong, and you're right. If that is what materialism means, then I was mistaken. I am not a materialist. My mistake.

Again, you may want to re-read OUR conversations again, because we haven’t discussed “darker skin”, “races”, “Russia's climate”, “Africa's climate” (etc…), therefore you are getting yourself confused in your own attempts at reconciliation between atheism and the real world! And, as I noticed, you totally disregarded the first part of my post(# 54)...and then you went on to totally misrepresent the second half of my post (# 54) with some contrived “facts”  that had absolutely no bearing on our conversation.

You were commenting on general forum rules. That it is a forum rule to cite all facts, so I did not feel obliged only to reference the discussion between us. The post I did reference is post number 48 on this thread.

For the record, whatever atheist forum you, Glaucus, Crocoduck, TheGene (etc…) came from, make an invite for those here who want to go there and argue with you.

View Post

There's a lot more people there than just the three of us, and it would be unjust to force them into these discussions.

#64 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 29 April 2011 - 07:58 PM

Also, white people did evolve from black people....

View Post

Excuse me? Where did you get this from? Some quacky egghead with a PhD, who has absolutely no evidence of such a preposterous supposition.

Suppose you give us evidence of such rediculous babbling.

#65 Spectre

Spectre

    Philosopher

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 577 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pensacola, FL
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Pensacola, FL

Posted 29 April 2011 - 08:59 PM

The basic idea of the Big Bang, is scientific fact.

Are you kidding me? Do you REALLY mean to imply that The Big Bang is a fact? You don't have even have a mechanism for The Big Bang. Presuppositions such as this are bad Science. Then again, you are an advocate for naturalism, which isn't science anyways. >.>

#66 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 April 2011 - 10:36 PM

If I'm arguing about a holy book being the source of morality, then it's a valid argument to compare the morality of it's followers and it's creators.  But to debate Creation shouldn't require ad hominmem attacks, rather it should be a fight between evidence for a model.
How many of these people were killed because they weren't atheists?  Or were they killed for other reasons? (Again, rhetorical).

View Post


Yep, murder for reasons you approve is okay. So the numbers below don't matter because you can justify it, right?

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State.
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill.
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State.
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime.

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan's Savage Military.
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State.
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey's Genocidal Purges.
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State.
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland's Ethnic Cleansing.
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State.
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito's Slaughterhouse.

4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea.
1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico.
1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia.

Because if these numbers had anything to do with the supposed Christian crusades, we Christians would never hear the end of it, right?

#67 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 April 2011 - 10:40 PM

Are you kidding me? Do you REALLY mean to imply that The Big Bang is a fact? You don't have even have a mechanism for The Big Bang. Presuppositions such as this are bad Science. Then again, you are an advocate for naturalism, which isn't science anyways. >.>

View Post


You should know by now Spectre, their words are golden, and hold the power to create new truths and new realities. It's a fact because they say so, They don't need empirical evidence anymore. Just an imgination, and a virtual world to create what they imagine

#68 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 April 2011 - 10:43 PM

Excuse me? Where did you get this from?  Some quacky egghead with a PhD, who has absolutely no evidence of such a preposterous supposition.

Suppose you give us evidence of such rediculous babbling.

View Post


Here's a good question. If we evolved from them, why did we not also speciate from them as well?

#69 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 29 April 2011 - 11:07 PM

]
There is not way to justify the racism that evolution plainly shows,and will not back down. Why do you think the KKK loves the theory so?
Again, Evolution DOESN'T show racism. One human is not more evolved than another, they're just better fit for the environment that they're native too. White Europeans are better suited to survive in Europe, but in Africa, those with dark skin are better suited. Likewise, Native Americans are better suited for their environment than the white people who invaded it much later on are. This does not make dark skinned or white skinned people better than one another and nobody that understands evolution could claim it to be so.

As I stated above, that's not what I'm saying at all. Actually, I don't even see how you think I'm doing that. I clearly don't agree with racism, and I don't agree with Darwin being racist either. What I'm saying is that evolution does not promote racism, people are racists for whatever reason and they may use evolution to support their reason, but nobody is a racist BECAUSE of the theory of evolution.
[code=auto:0]

View Post

Yet if you claim that one race of humans "evolved" from the other then you are claiming that the other is "less evolved"... Hence it is insuperior, your claims about being more adapted to their country is nothing..

You may wish to check out this site

http://www.straight-...on/racist.shtml

Here are just some quotes, (and it makes referances if you wish to check its source)


• Darwinian evolution is inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or races evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others.[14]

• Before Darwinian evolution was popularized, when most people talked about "races," they were referring to such groups as the "English race," "Irish race," etc.[14]

• Robert N. Proctor (Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis [1988]) observed: "Prior to Darwin, it was difficult to argue against the Judeo-Christian conception of the unity of man, based on the single creation of Adam and Eve. Darwin 's theory suggested that humans had evolved over hundreds of thousands, even millions of years, and that the races of men had diverged while adapting to the particularities of local conditions. The impact of Darwin's theory was enormous."[17]

• Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "Negro" [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"); viz: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.[49, 3]

• Despite his hatred of slavery, Darwin's writings reek with all kinds of contempt for "primitive" people.[17]

• Thomas Huxley wrote: "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro (sic) is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successively with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, 1871)[17]

#70 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 April 2011 - 11:36 PM

Because, at least where I'm from(America) that is the most common type. Darker people could just as well claim that the lighter-skinned ones are the inferior race. they'd be just as wrong.
The chart you provided.
Posted Image
It shows the evolution from apes to a particular race of humans. You can shows the same chart only for any race.


Posted Image
Posted Image

We started in northern Africa, hence dark skin. Dark skin is better in climates where the sun is stronger, helps prevents sun burns and skin cancer. Some humans stayed in Africa(some even in went to southern Africa)and others went north. When they came to lands where the sun is less intense, lighter skin allowed them to absorb the sun. So that chart is correct in that Caucasians did evolve from darker-skinned early Africans. And since the early Africans stayed in their environment, they didn't need to change as much as the people who migrated about.


How do you know that they (blacks) were not white first and then turned black from living in the environment?

It's not racism, it's just adaptation. Just because white people evolved from black people doesn't mean that white people are superior(or vise versa). Really all it means is a steady climate means little change, while a changing climate(or a population moving to a new climate as the case is) means more rapid change. It doesn't mean anything other than if I want to hike outside in the hot Arizona sun, I better bring lots of sunblock.


Let's reveres the chart. Let's say Darwin was black (starting to get the picture?). And he cam up with an idea that man evolved from animals. And the top of the evolutionary scale was the black race. The blacks evolved from whites making the white lower evolved. Because of this, whites were displayed in zoos as an example of how much further blacks had evolved past the whites.

Posted Image

What about all the biologists that accept evolution but aren't insulating in any way that one race is better than the other? Most are politically correct. The charts don't mean anything other than white people use to be black people, which seems counter to the idea that evolution is a racist idea.


If race is not the issue, why is there not one chart that has white turning into blacks? You know why. Use whatever logic you like, it does not change a thing. I'd like to see a black scientist, like Tyson (a black man) on PBS, come up with a reverse evolution chart where whites evolved into blacks. I wonder if Tyson would hold his Job and status after that?

Darwin could have believed whatever he wanted, the fact of it all is that if he truly was a racist, it doesn't matter. And idea is independent of the people who conceived it. We can see that no race is lesser or great, and that racism is wrong.
No one would care. And lighter skinned people have evolved back into darker skinned people. When people migrated from Africa to modern day Russia, their skin turned from dark to light to match their bodies needs of the sun. Then, when they migrated from Russia to the Americas and back down to climates with more intense sun light, their skins turned dark again. This is widely believed by most people who accept evolution. There was no racist cries of wrong, there was no riots, it was simply accepted as another fact.

View Post


How can you cry out racism when the very people doing it are enslaving you and because you are considered less than human, you don't have a voice. Did you know the idea that blacks were basically animal was already around "before" Darwin made it a scientific idea? Why do you think they were treated as cattle, sold like cattle, beat and killed like cattle?

If the whites even pondered the blacks were of equal intelligence, and not like animals, there would not have ever been slavery. Slavery was around before evolution, right? Any Proof that white man was superior to blacks would be widely accepted, and Darwin capitalized on it.

Example: You are in a time of slavery. It is already deemed that blacks are lower than whites, and some say black are animals. Then smart man named Darwin comes along and shows you that what you thought about blacks and whites was right all along. Would you accept his idea, and possibly buy his book since his view agrees with yours?

But let's look at this in reverse. What if Darwin wrote a book that claimed blacks were superior. And that the evolved from the lower whites. Do you really think that idea would have sold in racist times?

And if Darwin's idea was not to justify slavery, and some races being lower than others. Why was it never used to stop slavery? It took a civil war and many lives to stop it. But just imagine a black person in court fighting for equal rights with whites. Would evolution help or hurt his case? I think you know very well what it would do. Because it would show blacks are not equal which would fuel the continuation of racism.

Question: How does one cry out against a racist idea that is being called a true proven fact? One where you, and your friends who came with you, openly admit that it does not matter if it's racists or not.

#71 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 05 May 2011 - 07:21 AM

You have stated absolutely NO facts with respect to your assertions to the materialistic in our conversations. You’ve attempted to equate the metaphysical with the physical i.e… “Sympathy and empathy” (see post # 21) “the spirit” (see post # 27), “meaning, morals, value, and emotions in life” (see post # 30), but you have absolutely no basis (or foundation) to do so. It seems you have absolutely no idea of the differences between the two. Then when cornered, you attempt to cover your misunderstandings (and yes apparent ignorance) with accusations that I am playing “word games” (see post # 43).

You assert that materialism cannot include sympathy, empathy, or the spirit of things(by that I mean more the essence than an actual soul for the record).

View Post

I would challenge you to provide where I said such a thing. I would further assert that you are playing the role of an interloper into my words to make such an assertion. Therefore, I require you to provide proof that I said “materialism cannot include sympathy, empathy, or the spirit of things”, because I did not, nor have I ever made such an assertion.

Remember, we’re discussing facts, not interpretations. So, it is your responsibility to provide the “facts” for your assertions.


You are saying what a materialist is and what materialism is. It's not a bad thing to explore these idea, but I'm simply not interested in how labels fit on ideas. I really could not care less what you call me, as long as you recognize what my beliefs are. Create whatever labels for me you see fit.

View Post

Once again, you are incorrect; I am using the “established definition” for “materialists” and “materialism”. We can go into further depth if you wish, but I won’t allow you to dither, quibble, or equivocate on the definitions.

The materialist, by definition is: “a supporter of the philosophical theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states can be explained as physical functions”.

Materialism, by definition, is “the philosophical theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions”

And I haven’t called you anything (once again you are interloping on my words); my question was addressed to “MATERIALISTS” and you responded. Do you not understand this fact?








You seem passionate about this however, so how about this; I'm wrong, and you're right. If that is what materialism means, then I was mistaken. I am not a materialist. My mistake.

View Post

I am passionate about truth and facts, and you have yet to provide either to support your assertions. And now, it seems you are willing to falsify your worldview instead of accept the facts posited. You further accuse me of having to be “right”, but I submit that the facts are right, and I am only the bearer of them. That neither you, nor I have the “right” to delude or dilute the facts in a relativistic manner.

So, how about this: accept the truth, or provide the facts that it is not the truth. That is what you should be doing, not dithering, prevaricating, beating around the bush, or equivocating.

Again, you may want to re-read OUR conversations again, because we haven’t discussed “darker skin”, “races”, “Russia's climate”, “Africa's climate” (etc…), therefore you are getting yourself confused in your own attempts at reconciliation between atheism and the real world! And, as I noticed, you totally disregarded the first part of my post(# 54)...and then you went on to totally misrepresent the second half of my post (# 54) with some contrived “facts”  that had absolutely no bearing on our conversation.

You were commenting on general forum rules. That it is a forum rule to cite all facts, so I did not feel obliged only to reference the discussion between us. The post I did reference is post number 48 on this thread.

View Post

You didn’t site any facts that comported with (or were cogent to) our conversation. Therefore your “assumed” facts weren’t sanguine with our conversation. So, the fact remains, you have provided absolutely NO FACTS congruent to the context our conversation.

For the record, whatever atheist forum you, Glaucus, Crocoduck, TheGene (etc…) came from, make an invite for those here who want to go there and argue with you.

View Post

There's a lot more people there than just the three of us, and it would be unjust to force them into these discussions.

View Post


First - Having been there, and read the forum rules, I now understand why you think there is no reason for facts, or forum rules as well; as they really have none there. That being said; there are rules and standards here. Without such, maintaining truth would be as difficult as attempting to measure a writhing alligator with a fixed yard rule. I further submit that you are here, and not there… Therefore you will adhere to the forum rules (you agreed to and accepted when signing on here) established here.

Second – Of course you cannot force them into the conversation, as that would be their free choice. But, as I stated above, they would have to adhere to said forum rules as well. And most of them have already proven that they cannot. Such is the dilemma when the child in an unruly home joins the military (for example). They either make it or they don’t; and they don’t because they have no concept of, or desire to, adhere to standards. They then complain about “censorship” and such because they lack the will power to adhere to said standards and rules.

Therefore – What is unjust is coming to any forum that has standards and rules, not adhering to them (even after stating that you would at induction), then complaining about things like “justice” and “censorship”.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users