Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gilbo12345

Evolution Ethics Poll

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

18 members have voted

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

    • Yes
      9
    • No
      9


Recommended Posts

You cannot use immaterial phenomena in your definition (i.e. thought, emotions, conscience, etc…) as they are not “physical matterâ€ÂÂ. Therefore your definition fails at its base...

 

But, if you can show me a physical “conscienceâ€ÂÂ; if we can touch it, taste it, smell it, see it and hear it; then I am fully capable of admitting I was wrong, and will admit you were right. Are you willing to od the same?

No, because your definition is left wanting on many levels. It is basically conversion by definition.

It might not be necessary if you cannot deal with the truth, but it is definitely necessary to show everyone at this forum how some atheists attempt to borrow from, and re-define, the metaphysical, in order to lend credence to their flawed “materialistic†philosophy.

No, I’ll stick with real definitions, not those from a mistaken worldview.

71434[/snapback]

I'm sure Glaucus will take this point up, but I'm not a fan of playing word games. If you don't think my beliefs match up with being a materialistic atheist, then stop thinking of me as one. Just think of me as an atheist then. :P

71445[/snapback]

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 pointâ€ÂÂ, 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 YOUR 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay we can agree that Hitler was a liar, and we will probably never know what his religious belief was really.

Did Darwin have any degrees in science

Lol, know, but why would he need one? Pythagoras didn't have any degrees, but he accomplished much. Faraday couldn't even do simple math, but he realized the laws of electromagnetism. Darwin had a really good sense of collecting and sorting out facts, and drawing the right conclusion. There are things he wasn't right in. For example he accepted the Lamarckian theory of inheritance, which was wrong. He might have been racist, yes. Nobel prize winner physicist Fülöp Lénárd was a nazi. Newton was a positive nuisance.

None of these ethics, or characteristics are a reason to ignore anyone's scientific achievements.

Is because you don;t understand how the old covenant worked. In the OT, when you died you did not go to Heaven or Hell right off. And because of this punishment for sin was carried out on earth. The children were guilty because the sins of their fathers made them that way. God's word warned them but they would not listen.

Where do I find that in Bible?

There is a difference between professing Christ and actually possessing Christ. Anyone can hide under any banner or world view. What proves what you are is your life actions that are an example. KKK sets no example here.

So you are saying that there are two types of people who claim to be christians. Those who do good stuff, are the true 'saved', and those who do bad stuff are lying and not really religious. :/ That's just....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 pointâ€ÂÂ, 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.

71457[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 pointâ€ÂÂ, 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.

71457[/snapback]

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.

71459[/snapback]

For the record, my original post, that you replied to, was directed to “Materialistic Atheistsâ€ÂÂ. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that it's an incomplete model, it does seem to be the current model that best fits the data at hand (expanding universe, background radiation, etc.)

I actually have an issue with this approach due to the fact that many hypothesis that attempt to rectify the issue with this model do indeed defy physics and chemistry. I believe that trying to prove a theory that has already been falsified gravely affects Science, just as many atheists argue that believing in God would destroy Science(Which history shows that this is not true of course. :P)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71463[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

believing in God would destroy Science(Which history shows that this is not true of course. )

The mere existence of this forum proves the opposite. If I look around this forum I see that you deny the Fact of Evolution in a purely religious basis despite the overwhelming evidence that is:

 

-the similarities in the genotype of species.

-The geological distribution of species

-The fossil record

-What you would call "micro evolution" IS evolution.

-The anatomy of species: vestigial limbs, nervus vagus. etc.

I will not cite a scientific paper on every one of these facts. You can google them, but I guess you are already aware of these.

Ah yes and a last one just for fun:

-The fact that evolution is happening and we can observe it in labs. http://myxo.css.msu.edu/PublicationSearchR...s.php?group=aad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I'd like to know where you, Ashley, and Glaucus came from. I'm pretty sure that all of you came here together. The Big Bang is not fact, how do you reconcile the abundance of lithium in metal poor stars if The Big Bang is a fact? The abundance of lithium in metal poor stars is a huge problem for The Big Bang, the solution offered by scientists defies physics. It goes to show that our speculative origin is more important than the observed laws of physics.

 

The mere existence of this forum proves the opposite. If I look around this forum I see that you deny the Fact of Evolution in a purely religious basis despite the overwhelming evidence that is:

That was a rather rude statement.

-the similarities in the genotype of species.
This is as much of evidence for a designer as it is for common descent. The issue isn't the evidence, it is the interpretation of the evidence, it has been shown numerous times that while Scientists are good at analyzing data for current phenomenon, when it comes to matters of the past, they are horrible guessers.(Remember the T-Rex blunder?)

 

 

-The geological distribution of species

I don't view the fossil record as a viable testimony for either side due to the tendency of organisms disappearing and reappearing in the strata.

 

 

-The fossil record

See my point above.

 

-What you would call "micro evolution" IS evolution.

This is a form of equivocation. While evolution happens, we assert that it has limits, living fossils are in correlation with this assertion. Micro evolution and common descent are not synonymous terms as you are trying to imply it to be. I don't understand why you guys can't get your point across without resorting to logical fallacies such as these. I recommend that you read the rules before you start posting again or else your stay here will be rather short. I'd love to have an intelligent discussion with you, but so far I am disappointed.

 

The anatomy of species: vestigial limbs, nervus vagus. etc.

There isn't any empirical evidence that any organs are vestigial, it is only assumed based on an unproven prediction by Darwin.(Who was not a scientist.)

 

I will not cite a scientific paper on every one of these facts. You can google them, but I guess you are already aware of these. 
Ah yes and a last one just for fun:
That isn't a problem, we only require you to provide your sources unless asked, unless you were copy and pasting from them that is.

-

 

The fact that evolution is happening and we can observe it in labs.
This is a common misconception from atheists, Creationists do not dispute that evolution is happening, we just say that evolution has limits.

 

 

Please don't take offense to me pointing out that you broke some rules in this post. I just suggest that you go read them before you continue posting or else your stay here will be short. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-the similarities in the genotype of species.

10% of the genome between humans and chimps just mysteriously evaporated from the genome, yet you call that evidence of common descent? I would think that the theory predicted vestigial DNA, but a common designer does not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

]
So do you also justify killing people because Jeffery Dahmer did? What I find ironic is your logic that says: If so and so does it, then if we do it it's not that bad.
You do have to say that because there are some pretty bad things about him. But does that also mean that you guys will also consider it irrelevant any Christians past? I don't think so. So unless your side is willing to treat people the way they want to be treated, the past history of Darwin will be posted again and again. We will stop when you do.
Not at all. In fact, that's the exact opposite of what I was doing. All I was pointing out is that you're trying to say the theory of evolution promotes racism, just because Darwin may have been racist. If you noticed, I asked if god promoted racism, which he/the bible doesn't, yet people have used religion to promote racism. So just because somebody uses an idea or a religion to support another idea, it does not mean that said idea/religion promotes this idea. And I'm afraid your comparison doesn't quite work. Darwin's life is irrelevant, but Christianity's past (for the most part) isn't. Darwin provided a theory of evolution, but evolution itself doesn't have any racist ideas in it, that is A) just the way darwin might have felt and :P how most people felt at the time. Christianity's violent past, however, involves sticking religion down people's throat which at many times has resulted in executions. The difference is that the bible directly instructs its followers to spread the word of God and condemns all those who don't believe to go to hell. So you would have a point, if the theory evolution stated "Races of humans are superior to one another."

 

 

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.

Still trying to justify it. It's okay because someone was already doing it, right? I hope society never applies that to everything. it would be a lawless evil world.
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.

First part of that quote is a perfect example of humanism. "I" decide what's right or wrong, "I" decide how to live my life. That's why I believe the way I do. And because I hate religion, all those who disagree, and all that is wrong with the world is their fault, right? Then you turn around and add some good to your post in hopes that it balances out the bad you just listed. What this shows is that you know it's wrong, or you would have stuck to your guns and not cared what people thought.
What? In what way shape or form did I say that religion is at fault for the problems of the world? I said that I have morals and ethics, but only morals and ethics supported by reason. My morals are not affected by supernatural reasonings. What reason is there to mistreat h*m*sexuals or ban H*mos*xual marriage? None other than "the bible says it's wrong."

I guess no one has ever shown you the long list of non-religious people who killed and murdered in history.
Oh, they have. They have just failed to show me the handy dandy non-theist hand book that directed them to do it.

 

 

(I'll respondn to Ron once I return from my sister's swimming lesson.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71469[/snapback]

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.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For the record, my original post, that you replied to, was directed to “Materialistic Atheistsâ€ÂÂ. 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.

71463[/snapback]

 

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.

71467[/snapback]

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 skinâ€ÂÂ, “racesâ€ÂÂ, “Russia's climateâ€ÂÂ, “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 Atheistsâ€ÂÂ. As I said “you responded to it. Maybe you should go back and re-read…

71463[/snapback]

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 pointâ€ÂÂ, 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.

71457[/snapback]

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.

71459[/snapback]

For the record, my original post, that you replied to, was directed to “Materialistic Atheistsâ€ÂÂ. 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.

71463[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 skinâ€ÂÂ, “racesâ€ÂÂ, “Russia's climateâ€ÂÂ, “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.

71484[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

71432[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. >.>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

71455[/snapback]

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. >.>

71494[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71492[/snapback]

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

]
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.

[snapback]71477[/snapback]

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-talk.net/evolution/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]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

71454[/snapback]

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

71491[/snapback]

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 thingsâ€ÂÂ, 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.

71491[/snapback]

Once again, you are incorrect; I am using the “established definition†for “materialists†and “materialismâ€ÂÂ. 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 functionsâ€ÂÂ.

 

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 functionsâ€ÂÂ

 

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.

71491[/snapback]

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 “rightâ€ÂÂ, 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 skinâ€ÂÂ, “racesâ€ÂÂ, “Russia's climateâ€ÂÂ, “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.

71491[/snapback]

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.

71484[/snapback]

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

71491[/snapback]

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 “censorshipâ€ÂÂ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms