Debate still rages over Darwin

I cant believe this is still being argued about. Just because evolution exists doesnt mean that there is no devine design and no God. It is hardly even hinting to that.

I have been reading the posts in this topic and noticed that no one really uses the full title of Darwin' book,"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

Though Darwin talks about species changing to fit their environment, there is a dark side to this book. Darwin was a racist and this book was written to show why white man was so much more superior than the other races. the preservation of favoured races. This was the norm for his day.

Oh, and for you that think we came from apes, we didn't. If you take it far enough, according to evolution, we came from rocks. So be careful where you step from now on, you could be stepping on a relative.

Originally posted by MandH2002
I have been reading the posts in this topic and noticed that no one really uses the full title of Darwin' book,"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

no no ones uses the title its just to long (On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection), and well the secondary title just compounds the issue(or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)

besides we all know what book it is even if most of us dont seem to have read it .... and yes i am looking at you

Though Darwin talks about species changing to fit their environment, there is a dark side to this book.

that would be the part thats on the table right? so not recieving any light

Darwin was a racist

who like his grandfather abhored and helped abolish the lave trade ..... wait ... he wasnt a very good racist then was he

and this book was written to show why white man was so much more superior than the other races.

could you point me to the section on human evolution and sepciataion i cant find it anywhere and ive read the book several times

infact it doesnt say a whole great deal about anything to do with where people came from ecept "as to the origins of the human race light may someday be cast upon it"

and well if you had read the book you might have noticed stuff like this

How many of those birds and insects in North America and Europe, which differ very slightly from each other, have been ranked by one eminent naturalist as undoubted species, and by another as varieties, or, as they are often called, as geographical races!

The Origin of Species, Chapter 2 - Variation Under Nature

so races of bird and race of insect ... so the favoured race would be the race that survives and the term has nothing to do with people its general ue term, but lets focus hi work on human in a way he didnt, as the world was populated by a wide variety of people they were all favoured as they all survived o there fore the favored race wasnt black or whites of orientals, the favored race was mankind .....

are you sure he as racist?

the preservation of favoured races. This was the norm for his day.

well as races and varieties were used as substitue for species then favoured races doesnt mean white folk and black folk now does it

and well it was the norm to say slavery was ok on the ground it was in the bible and the blacks were a different 'kind' to the whites, the blacks were a 'kind' of animal and the whites 'kind' were the kind god made with adam and eve

and well as orgins hinted we all had a common ancestor, and descent shows how we are all regional variations of the same 'kind'

then saying the blacks are a different 'kind' to us and god gave us power over the other 'kind' of animals just doesnt work anymore, and now you have to use the other rules in the bible the one for human slaves the ones that say you shouldnt treat them badly or beat them to hard and dont kill them thats outright wrong, suddenly the become people slaves not animal slaves

and yes stating blacks were a 'kind of animal' not the 'kind god made with adam and eve' was a common reason given for why slavery was ok and intollerance and racism didnt matter

so it seems along with research HERE and what we find in his work it wasnt the norm for everyone, infact both the origins and descent had large implications for both slavery and racism and show that there is no religeous basis for it or biological and so the only basis possible were cultural or imagined (both as equally retarded)

Oh, and for you that think we came from apes, we didn't.

no we came from proto apes which came from protosimians etc etc

If you take it far enough, according to evolution, we came from rocks.

wait int dust just powdered rock? Gen 2:7

you really should try ya know reading the book, according to evolution if you take it back as far as it can go you lead all the way back to a single or a small handful of very simplistic species

but hey lets use other fields of science to go back further, abiogenesis ..any rocks? nope .. ok lets go further back .. nope no rock yet .... keep going ... well were now dust made made up of element bieng scatered around the universe (hmm dust ... bibical) ... and now we can see where that dust came from ..stars

take science back far enough were star dust and not having never been rocks

so you think we came from dirt and dust on the floor which is just powdered up rocks and we think we came from stardust from the heart of stars light years away maybe in a long forgotten nebula .....

let just do a quick visual reference shall we? science, athiests and theistic evolutionists compared to biblical literalists




maybe next time youll actually try reading the book before commenting on it and messing it up so badly

www.literature.org... heres a copy, dought youll read it though your faith probabily so weak it couldnt stand the challenge

[edit on 15/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 15/2/09 by noobfun]

[edit on 15/2/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by yogi9969


Just to clarify. There is really no controversy.

Controversy indicates that both sides have reasonably acceptable probabilities of being correct when in fact the theory of evolution has not been disproven and has been backed by much scientific data.

The theory of evolution is NOT science.

We have to get that straight at the beginning.

It's a theory taken over by the atheists, that's all. Just as creationism is a theory taken over by the bible bashers.

Science is about carrying out repeatable controlled experiments. If you do A, B, C and D you get Z.

Anyone who does this procedure will get z. The reasons behind this delves more into theory.

The evolution/creationist debate always gets 100s of posts on both sides who don't budge an inch.

We need to look a little bit outside the box. The first step is for both sides to admit that their theories are flawed (or rather underdeveloped) and that a much more imaginative, developed solution needs to be looked at.

IMO, evolution is for "within the species" fine tuning, whereas creationism is for the macro stuff. Now, don't confuse creationism for God worshiping or anything to do with religion. It could be much much more subtle than that.

We could be the creators for all we know. The set of people who have ever gotten close to the truth IMO are the science fiction writers.

We will find no solution of where we come from in this thread.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The theory of evolution is NOT science.

funny science disagrees with you

and well they have nice white coats so im inclined to liten to them

It's a theory taken over by the atheists,

and the theistic evolutionists and 97% of the world scientists which fall into both previous categories

that's all. Just as creationism is a theory taken over by the bible bashers.

nope not all bible bnasher either jut the ones who want thier god to be some retard with a tool belt

Science is about carrying out repeatable controlled experiments. If you do A, B, C and D you get Z.

or repeated observances of phenomena, sometimes cience just expalin what it i while trying to figure out what casue it later

The first step is for both sides to admit that their theories are flawed

actually the firt step would be learning what a scienctific throey is and how common usage and cience differe so you realie creationim isnt a thoery its a disproven hypothesis

IMO, evolution is for "within the species" fine tuning, whereas creationism is for the macro stuff.

well as evolution accounts for the macro stuff becaue its exactly the same a the micro stuff

its the same set of processes, in one animal breeding population or species we call it micro-evolution, macro evolution is the comparrison of micro changes in 2 or more specie with a common ancetor

same processes but micro looks at 1 group, macro compares and contrats 2 group

Now, don't confuse creationism for God worshiping or anything to do with religion. It could be much much more subtle than that.

creationism without some form of supernatural creator ..... care to explain becasue well its looking like an oxymoron

We could be the creators for all we know.

we created our selves and the univere we find ourself in
? so where were we before creating said universe to be in and what were we before creating homosapens sapiens 120,000 years ago?

We will find no solution of where we come from in this thread.

well its not an abiogenesis thread or a what casued the quantum ingularity thread so i concur and dought we would find the answer there either becasue as a race we simply dont know

but thi i a thread about how all the speicies came about and theres only one thing that anwers all the question and thats evolution

Originally posted by MandH2002
I have been reading the posts in this topic and noticed that no one really uses the full title of Darwin' book,"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life".

Though Darwin talks about species changing to fit their environment, there is a dark side to this book. Darwin was a racist and this book was written to show why white man was so much more superior than the other races. the preservation of favoured races. This was the norm for his day.

Oh, and for you that think we came from apes, we didn't. If you take it far enough, according to evolution, we came from rocks. So be careful where you step from now on, you could be stepping on a relative.

Darwin might have been a lot of things, but a racist??

NOPE.

"Some few, & I am one, even wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against Slavery. In the long run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity...Great God how I shd like to see that greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished."

- Charles Darwin, in correspondence with American naturalist Asa Gray

The reason I think people get this confused is because evolution like most philosophy, is NOT science and while they will deny it citing it as a so called testable and falsified theory with mountains of alleged evidence, we see that invariably, that same evidence gets put into the debunked bin of BS within 6 months to as long as 45 years in some cases.

The Darwinist's like to change the theory to conform to popular opinion. This is why evolution's theory is always "evolving" but not to proclaim this as how Science works because it is philosophy, not science.

the prevailing public opinion was that there was a significant difference between “savages” and “civilised people” . The theory of evolution at the time substantiated that philosophical ideology. Now that evolutionists no longer subscibe to such a racist view, the theory of our human evolution has been changed to become more politically correct.

The ideology has been as it continues today to be one of trying to make evolution fit an idea that discounts design and only about that. In other words, anything that discounts the Biblical account and / or Intelligent Design. This is why it has become the darling of Science's to it's most ardent advocates and the philosophical backround of Atheism.

We have seen this same argument made by Ben Stein in the movie expelled and while Atheist / Evolutionists argue Science doesn't have a Bias it only looks at the evidence, I submit it certainly does have its prejudices and wants nothing more than to make it so homogenuous a tunnel vision for their Godless worldview, that some are using Science as a club to further advance their Atheistic agenda as candidly admitted by Neil Degrasse Tyson www.uncommondescent.com...

As for Darwin being a racist, I am ashamed to say this is one of the most egregious errors passed off as fact by anti evolutionists. One might see this as Racism by todays politically correct standards but considering the language of the day and his belief that man is nothing more than a primate of sorts, one could come to the conclusion he was not racist against any particular race but the entire human race. Having said that I think most would agree that he is talking about man and species as it pertains to a naturalist but I agree it can be taken by todays standards as racism but it isn't really in my opinion www.infidels.org...

This is also where Atheists love to play dumb (if that is what it is) about the use of the word "Kinds" mentioned in the Bible's Genesis account where each animal would carry the seed of it's kind, I.E.: Humans carry the seed of human kind and monkeys carry the seed of monkey kind NOT Primate kind but Monkey kind and that variation in kinds are given for the animals protection and viability the account talks of "pre man" where many think apes or primates may have been this "pre-man" but that God talks about a distinction he has made in making a more perfected man in Adam and a man who like God has the ability to create from all that he has made, using what he has made as textiles and for templates for us to copy from and build off of and to this day everything we make is a copy we see from the template called nature. Jet aircraft and Birds of prey for instance.

The change God speaks of where this creation or "first adam" is one where it would enable man to have dominion over the rest of the animals. This is thought to be the mystery we have yet to find that albeit God mentions it being a small difference in what is obviously our DNA, it is a powerful difference none the less, where it was necessary to create a woman suitable for this new man or Adam as mating with any other females of the pre-man kind was not going to work and why man cannot mate with apes and produce offspring. What ever the small alteration was, however, it was enough to make us vastly different in many ways than any other creature in-spite of our similarities in our DNA to apes, it insured we could not lay with one and multiply. Ironically, that ancient book said it like it is too and it is testable and is evidence to the credibility of that 1st of the 66 books in the Bible's library.

To this day we don't see any other seed in any other fruit but the seed of its kind.

Apples always have apple seed and when you plant them what do you get?

An apple.

Pretty simple stuff actually.

How it has become so obfuscated is the act of hatred for God and is the agenda of Atheists who have hijacked Darwinism as the basis for the argument against God. They have done everything in their power to remove the very word from our life. While they claim this NOT to be a Christian Nation, every single one of those who have signed the constitution agreed by virtue of their signing it they agreed we have right we are endowed with by our what??

OUR CREATOR

So when anyone tells us that so and so was not a theist, remember that signing that Contract called the Constitution of the united states of America, that they also agreed to the tenets written within it, every one of them inspite of what Atheist's have done to remove God from historical speeches like FDR's where God was removed at the end of his speech.

The moment Atheism wins is the moment we can kiss those unalienable rights away as their will no longer be a recognized higher authority than man and you will see how quicky those rights become a privelege,,

and not a right.



[edit on 17-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Aermacchi....Darwin isn't really the debate, after all. It is people like YOU who wish to stir the pot....

Let's ignore Humans, for a moment....after all, they've only been around for, ermm...about 100,000 years.

Let's look, instead, at Darwin's observations, especially when he visited the Galapagos Islands. Very observant, was he....thus, his book.

Really, species, come and they go....sometimes they adapt before they go....Humans will either adapt, or die out, to be replaced by something else...it is the 'Nature' of things. IF it makes you feel better, call it 'god's will'....

Originally posted by weedwhacker

Aermacchi....Darwin isn't really the debate, after all. It is people like YOU who wish to stir the pot....

Let's ignore Humans, for a moment....after all, they've only been around for, ermm...about 100,000 years.

Let's look, instead, at Darwin's observations, especially when he visited the Galapagos Islands. Very observant, was he....thus, his book.

Really, species, come and they go....sometimes they adapt before they go....Humans will either adapt, or die out, to be replaced by something else...it is the 'Nature' of things. IF it makes you feel better, call it 'god's will'....

What pot?

You can assume anything you want weedwhopper, I couldn't care less.

The argument is never about the evidence , it is about the way we interpret the evidence. After all, I am looking at the same birds the same trees the same oceans the earth as YOU are am I not?

So when I look at finch beaks that have variation going on during the rainy season but those same finchs have the same beaks go right back to the size they were during the dry season,, I have seen this same phenomena during the summer when I became as dark as a tootsie roll and now seemed to evolve back into a caucasion! That my Biceps a full 20 inchs during the same summer when lifting weights, are not nearly that now and that doesn't mean that my children will have anything more than what my own DNA can allow for and if their is some environmental pressures put upon me, it would HAVE to be during rush hour traffic but the only evolution I predict will occur from that is a more astute use of radio traffic reports and navigation of maps.

So Darwin noticed some beaks??

BIG DEAL!

That doesn't suggest the beak is going to become the lips of your next lover in your next life a million years from now but that is how some people interpret evidence and as long as their are those who share different presuppositions it doesn't matter what the evidence is because that is the same for all of us but BOTH make up, reasons for how they came about using their own leanings their own beliefs their OWN PRESUPPOSITIONS.

It is our presuppositions we have that make the difference because they have political ramifications for gays and marriage and as long as those vermon "fundies" keep teaching the kids the bible then we who like to commit adultery will always have laws about sex, marriage and many morals things that we admit are our vices and lets not forget what our respective camps want in the order of manipulating public policy!

Lets talk about the Galapagos weedwhimper54 !

Lets seeY now the peppered moths must I remind you how those really went? I mean the REAL FACTS?? No I am certain you have heard all that back when you got your posts rebutted in the "Gullibility of Evolution" Thread or how the presuppositions of one theory influenced haekle to manipulate evidence! Then we have those so determined to find transformational missing links that making frauds for this theory or deceptive artist renderings to how the presuppositions "should" look are what this theory seem to produce MOST!

But the rest is rhetoric and that is all I have heard. So if you want to accuse me of stirring the pot?? THIS would be more an appropriate post but my point is valid as yours is to you.

How an entire army of those sharing that presupposition who felt it necessary to prejudice a JUDGE so that it would be un-constitutional for anyone to ever challenge their precious worldview and their reigion of Scientism ever again!

I GIVE YOU

THE ACLU!

Now weed, my jocularity and propensity for the dramatic aside, your accusations and presuppositions are,,

what stirred THAT pot and by the way, Darwin IS the debate

according to the title

of this thread






[edit on 17-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


OK, I give!!! You win, Aermacchi, because you live for centuries, nay....eons and therefore are uniquly equipped to see how species can variate.

I suggest this: let's isolate you on a desert island, and see how you will change and adapt, with no outside help.

Guessing if there are berries in tall trees, your lips will grow, and so will your neck.....

But, seriously....a species can only adapt and evolve from generation after generation after generation....you, a Human, has a certain (limited) life-span, so what you are able to observe is just a small sliver of the complexity of what Nature has to offer.

All Ive got to say is.. "wow" after the post about the 'vermin'. I had amer on my f-list because was entertaining to argue with. But now I see something a bit deeper.

The post really exemplified the whole anti-evolution sentiment. Political and religious. Not rational. Usually bigoted as well I presume because it challenges the special clause. Amer, don't bother to reply to me, I wont see your posts anymore.

Have a good life.

Originally posted by weedwhacker

OK, I give!!! You win, Aermacchi, because you live for centuries, nay....eons and therefore are uniquly equipped to see how species can variate.

Ironically, that is what Dawkins expects us to believe is that 350 million years ago if you had been alive back then you would have seen a fish become an amphibian and an amphibian a lizard and a lizard a mammal etc, HIS WORDS! lol

I suggest this: let's isolate you on a desert island, and see how you will change and adapt, with no outside help.

Guessing if there are berries in tall trees, your lips will grow, and so will your neck.....

Nope, in fact I don't subscribe to lamarkism, never did but thanks for suggesting it. It is typical of the evolutionist to take things to extremes like this I am used to it. You know the flying spaghetti monster and all that, hehe makes for a funny joke of us I suppose but, it doesn't do much for your credibility much less garnering anything other than a more polarized worldview and more intellectual animosity don't you agree weed?

But, seriously....a species can only adapt and evolve from generation after generation after generation....you, a Human, has a certain (limited) life-span, so what you are able to observe is just a small sliver of the complexity of what Nature has to offer.

It isn't our fault we don't live long enough to see any changes but ya know,, I have seen ancient drawings of bi-pedal man from as far back as the dinosaurs and ya know they had 5 fingers 5 toes on two legs and two arms. The interesting thing is they were also just as intelligent back then as we are today and I would bet that half a million years from now we will look pretty much like we do right now.

if we haven't totally allowed science to screw us all up with its greatest achievements science seems to come up with things that has some deleterious side effects

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
The theory of evolution is NOT science.

We have to get that straight at the beginning.

It's a theory taken over by the atheists, that's all. Just as creationism is a theory taken over by the bible bashers.

Science is about carrying out repeatable controlled experiments. If you do A, B, C and D you get Z.

Anyone who does this procedure will get z. The reasons behind this delves more into theory.

The evolution/creationist debate always gets 100s of posts on both sides who don't budge an inch.

We need to look a little bit outside the box. The first step is for both sides to admit that their theories are flawed (or rather underdeveloped) and that a much more imaginative, developed solution needs to be looked at.

IMO, evolution is for "within the species" fine tuning, whereas creationism is for the macro stuff. Now, don't confuse creationism for God worshiping or anything to do with religion. It could be much much more subtle than that.

We could be the creators for all we know. The set of people who have ever gotten close to the truth IMO are the science fiction writers.

We will find no solution of where we come from in this thread.

I think part of the problem is that people don't understand what a scientific theory really is.

Here's a definition:

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.2 It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

The bottom line with fundamentalists who dismiss evolution is simple...it's nothing more than pride. And the last time I checked pride is a sin. It's insulting to think a human evolved from a lower form of life. Arguing with Amer is basically arguing with pride and ego. It's an argument you'll never win even with overwhelming evidence. His posts are just huge copy and paste fests...it's a simple tactic to wear you out and they are absolutely tiresome. But that's the idea.

Luckily the way nature operates could care less what a fundamentalist/creationist/evolutionist thinks. Simple fact..argue with it as much as you like but it changes absolutely nothing. Nature cares not whether you understand it.

[edit on 18-2-2009 by griffinrl]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Sorry dude....you're really good at cutting and pasting.

But, that's about it.

Smart posters keep their sentences short.

Just to annoy the 'cutters'.

Back on....Darwin started this, by noticing actual observable events....that is called 'science'.

Darwin said NOTHING about Humans....it were the naked apes who read his book that started this 'debate'.

One last personal memory....once, some years ago, a relative of the person I was seeing noticed a science show that featured a mud-flapper....she said "Oh! I wonder what that is related to?" and I said, 'Us".

She turned to me, and said, "You don't bellieve in the THEORY of evolution, do you?" (I put 'theory' in caps, to indicate her whiny voice and tone...)

I told her what I knew....but, it fell on deaf ears.

People either get it, or they don't. I guess that seems too "IF/OR"....but WHEN a person is stubbornly determined to 'think' in one way, despite evidence to the contrary....well, some might label that as insanity.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Well weedwhacker...like I said before luckily the way nature operates doesn't depend on whether you believe it or not. It's about as unbiased as it can be as it works just as well for fundies and all the rest

Originally posted by griffinrl
His posts are just huge copy and paste fests...it's a simple tactic to wear you out and they are absolutely tiresome. But that's the idea.

An internet version of the 'Gish-gallop'. A well-known creationist approach.

rationalwiki.com...

reply to post by melatonin


Hey thanks for that link! I had no idea there was an official term for it!

reply to post by melatonin


Thanks, melatonin.

Horse can gallop....fish can't.

How to explain to the devout?

Might as well tell the tortoise he is faster than the hare....logic?? Poof!

You should listen to your own arrogance as you revel in what you supposedly think is your own superiority.

I have been following this for a while and arrogance is virtually all I see... you resort to 'consensus' bullying of Amer and not one of you have answered his cut and pastes (except Noob who was actually being pedantic and actually just trolling). Sure Amer's posts are generally long, but his substance is sound. And if you guys.. how did you put it against Amer and all Fundies; We are too proud to listen to evidence contrary.. well I state the same for your faith and assumptions in a psuedo-science theory of Evolution.

I will gladly discuss the scientific method, but I agree with a previous poster that most do NOT understand it... especially the pro-evo ppl who throw it constantly at their opposition with no basis or in general a sound knowledge of what they are defending. Most ppl that say Evolution is 'Science' are mixing up Historical Science and Operational Science... the latter is the one that is used for break through in technology for the NOW.. Historical science is an educated guesstimate at best.

There is no way you can manipulate an independant variable to provide evidence of something in the past. Its a leap of inference or dare I say.. a leap of faith?