It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

the Dark Face of Darwinism

page: 12
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap

The real target of Creationism and creationists is independent thought. They do not want you to think for yourself, to study the world for yourself, to distinguish between things for yourself. You must be a complete and utter slave to the Bible, you must derive all knowledge from what has been pre-selected for you by the Greeks millennia ago.


Or to put it in mythical terms for those present who do not comprehend any other form of expression:
Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge.
Crationists/I.D.ers want to take that knowledge away from humanity and put it back on the tree again.

They want to make people as stupid as they have chosen to be, so everyone will believe their godman myths.
It's an ancient technique for manipulating mankind, a dictator's wet dream, to have everyone turn off their brains and blindly follow religion.




posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Ok first of I would like to say that discussing religion is pointless and it's far from being the important point when it comes to Darwin. Second Darwin was catholic, his family was catholic and his own theory of the evolution has caused nothing but problems to his personal life and his own balance between faith and reason. But as we all know (religion wise) at the end the death of his daughter and the fact that he couldn't cope was the real catalyst behind his journey to dismantle religion as he knew.

So in the end it wasn't just a scientific work were conclusions were reached by analyzing evidences. It became a way to allow him to digest his own personal crises with religion due to his daughter death. And to make all that work in his head he pushed a few pieces around to make them fit and suit his own disbeliefs at the time.

He did a incredible work to explain part of the evolutionary process but he failed miserably when he tried to fit the human kind on the same bill or apply that to the whole picture without actually having enough evidences to sustain his points. Evidences which scientists today still don't have if you look at the allegedly evidences for what they are and not for what scientists want them to be.

So for me the worst thing introduced by Darwin wasn't his theory or his attempt to explain how humans came to be. But the fact that he with his theory from that point onwards had freed any scientists from having to deal with religious aspects by laying a foundation that is still questionable and shouldn't be faced as anything more than theory.

But since being free from having to explain or include god and other related aspects was really advantageous to most scientists they simply started to build over Darwin's theory as if it was a really solid and strong foundation yielding a mess.

In the end his theory became a fact sustained by thousands of works that were later developed using his theory as a starting point or as a argument. Works which never even questioned if the foundation upon which they were being built over was really correct or not.

This for me is the worst aspect of Darwin's work and I must say that it isn't exactly his fault. The fault is probably due to humans false sense of superiority, mixed with a good portion of ambition and short life spans.

Anyways...



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Creationists and certain scientists are both at the extreme opposites of a spectrum. Intelligent beings will stay in the middle.

Reading the Bible or any other religious book by the letter without even trying to interpret it and read from another sources to match everything back and put things into perspective is plain ignorance.

Anything in extremes is ignorance.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:02 AM
link   
Sorry had to edit. that joke was harsh.
edit on 25-12-2010 by Auxili because: Deleting... Deleting...



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by thomas_
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Creationists and certain scientists are both at the extreme opposites of a spectrum. Intelligent beings will stay in the middle.

Reading the Bible or any other religious book by the letter without even trying to interpret it and read from another sources to match everything back and put things into perspective is plain ignorance.

Anything in extremes is ignorance.


WRONG!! There's no such thing as "2 sides"...science backs up their statements with evidence and proof. Religion just makes random statements without ever providing proof/evidence to back up their claims. How can you seriously compare science with random factless statements???

That's like saying creationism is a valid alternative theory to evolution...which of course it isn't given the absolut absence of supporting evidence.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Darwin espoused that man was the result of natural processes instead of being a creation of a divine being.

The philisophical result of this is a lowering of the value of human life. 21st century western society has more abortion, 'mercy killing', talk of pulling the plug on the terminally ill, and violence, than has been seen for centuries.

the Bible teaches that man is one blood, and all should love each other, even thy enemy. violence and hatred is thus un-Christian, if sadly present.

link to a study on Hitler's evolution belief www.straight-talk.net...

I repeat; genetic slaughter is the inevitable result of Darwinism. subspecies compete; the winner lives, the loser dies.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by works4dhs
 



Originally posted by works4dhs
Darwin espoused that man was the result of natural processes instead of being a creation of a divine being.


Because it was true...



The philisophical result of this is a lowering of the value of human life.


Evidence?



21st century western society has more abortion,


Which has nothing to do with evolution and is actually found to be more prevalent among religious women...


Who's having abortions (religion)?
Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

Source



'mercy killing', talk of pulling the plug on the terminally ill,


This also has nothing to do with evolution and is more of an ethical issue. Mercy killing is something found in the past, throughout conceptions in ancient cultures of how it is best to die. Japanese soldiers would kill themselves immediately if wounded in battle as a form of suicide. It would be considered better to kill a comrade mortally wounded in battle if he were unable to perform this sacred duty.



and violence, than has been seen for centuries.


There is no evidence to show that there has been an increase in overall violence aside from the increased mechanization of warfare and the increases in population and population density.



the Bible teaches that man is one blood, and all should love each other, even thy enemy. violence and hatred is thus un-Christian, if sadly present.


...I'm sorry, but which Bible have you been reading? The Bible has god command genocides, the slaughter of children by the sword, the execution of soldiers and then the mutilation of their corpses (circumcision of fallen enemies), etc.

Great Christian theologian Thomas Aquinas called for the death on unbelievers and Augustine called for the torture of heretics.



link to a study on Hitler's evolution belief www.straight-talk.net...


...which deals with...a subtitle from Darwin's book. There isn't a single citation of an internal passage from Darwin's books. It doesn't provide a single quotation from Hitler favoring Darwin, it doesn't provide a single quotation of Darwin favoring genocide, it just uses convoluted logic and a misunderstanding of the term 'races' (phenotypic groups) in Darwin's subtitle.



I repeat; genetic slaughter is the inevitable result of Darwinism. subspecies compete; the winner lives, the loser dies.


No, it's the inevitable result of biology, it has nothing to do with Darwin himself. It happens whether or not we acknowledge it. It's just a fact of the universe. It's not something that is based upon Darwin himself but on the facts of nature.

Of course, there aren't multiple subspecies of human. We're all homo sapiens sapiens.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by works4dhs
Darwin espoused that man was the result of natural processes instead of being a creation of a divine being.
The philisophical result of this is a lowering of the value of human life. 21st century western society has more abortion, 'mercy killing', talk of pulling the plug on the terminally ill, and violence, than has been seen for centuries.
the Bible teaches that man is one blood, and all should love each other, even thy enemy. violence and hatred is thus un-Christian, if sadly present.
link to a study on Hitler's evolution belief www.straight-talk.net...
I repeat; genetic slaughter is the inevitable result of Darwinism. subspecies compete; the winner lives, the loser dies.

Madness has already given an excellent answer to every point here, but there is a little more to be said.


Darwin espoused that man was the result of natural processes instead of being a creation of a divine being.

Darwin was not trying to disprove the existance of god. Darwin was interested in the natural world, and investigated the relationships between lifeforms. His studies revealed a possible system whereby the constant, small changes in organisms might build up until some descendants of one species may become a new species.

Would you have had Darwin close his eyes to his discoveries just because they showed something Christianity had been unaware of? I can believe you would, as this is what the church did to Galileo, putting him under house arrest for the rest of his life, to prevent him propagating the "lie" that the heavenly bodies did not all rotate around the Earth. They too were afraid that men, seeing the bible contradicted in this way, would stop believing the rest of the bible, give up Christianity, and the church would lose its power.

Darwin is important because he laid the foundations for the study of evolution. However his work is only a small part of todays evolutionary science, as thousands of scientists have added their own work to the subject, and peer review has worked to throw out the mistakes and to analyse and understand the context of each new finding.


Currently there is a group of people determined to put this genie back in the bottle.
To do so they attempt to sideline and ridicule the study of evolution by labelling it "Darwinism", despite the fact that science would inevitably have discovered the mechanisms of evolution, even if Darwin had never lived, and the bulk of the work has been done by others.

They try to push the "atheist" label onto evolutionary scientists and suggest that scientists are working on an anti-Christian agenda in an attempt to discredit the science and justify their own anti-science agenda making the two sides appear to be balanced.

Not having any way to prove god was responsible for life, creationists worked to pick holes in evolutionary science by making out that certain things could not have happened naturally and therefore god must have done it. This is on a par with witchdoctors telling tribes that, as they don't understand lightning, it must be a sign from god. They have also lied in order to further this agenda.

With their lies, agenda and lack of proof exposed, now creationists are trying to convince people the knowledge of evolution spells doom for common decency. According to them all the good in the world is due to Christianity, and all the evil is done by atheists. It is this group who are pushing the illogical notion that and understanding of evolution is antithetical to belief in a creator. Creationists are promoting a false dichotomy, but there are actually more than two choices available, despite the fact that many people, having an unshakable belief in god, look at science not as a replacement for god, but as a gradual revelation of how god has worked.

There has never been a need, for one who knows god, to close their mind to scientific evidence, denying the facts and playing the "la la la I can't hear you" game. People who suggest this is necessary in order to live decent lives and go to heaven are libeling god and promoting such a ridiculous belief they are driving people to become atheists.



The philisophical result of this is a lowering of the value of human life. 21st century western society has more abortion, 'mercy killing', talk of pulling the plug on the terminally ill, and violence, than has been seen for centuries.

So you admit these things are not new, and have been happening long before the word evolution became a science. The issue here is that some Christians have certain beliefs and want to force them onto others.
However it is incorrect to suggest the bible forbids abortion. Numbers 5: 12 to 31, details a proceedure for testing to see if a woman has been unfaithful and procuring an abortion if she has.

By the way, do you know how you can tell if someone going into an abortion clinic is a right-to-lifer?
- Right-to-lifers use the back door.

Who has the right to deny a suffering, terminally ill person euthanasia if they request it?
This was a question I once had to face myself, and the story of the death of Mr Ross can be found here.

I was also with my mother-in-law when she was helped to die by a kind nurse. Her illness meant her lungs were filling with water and she was gradually drowning. When this could no longer be controlled she was terrified, every breath a bubbling gurgle as she struggled against drowning. This was torture, and the only natural end was to let it get worse until her increasing panic was finally ended by actual drowning. So a drug was prescribed which would dry out her lungs, but would shorten her life to just a few days. In effect, the hospital killed her, because the drowning could have gone on for weeks. And that's the way some Christians would want her to go, tortured by slow drowning.



the Bible teaches that man is one blood, and all should love each other, even thy enemy. violence and hatred is thus un-Christian, if sadly present.

The bible teaches a lot about blood alright.



You will chase your enemies, and they shall fall by the sword before you. Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you.
Leviticus 26:7



Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
1 Samuel 15:2-3



"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy."
Deuteronomy 7:1-2



"...do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..."
Deuteronomy 20:16



"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.
Joshua 6:21



"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon."
Joshua 10:40-41



You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD.
Jeremiah 51:20-26


There are hundreds more, similar texts in the bible. The old testament is a glorification of murder, genocide and bloody carnage.
Christianity, through the carnage committed in its name and that ordered by the popes, has proved that no subsequent teachings have over-ruled this.


This tactic of blaming the ills of the world onto atheists, threatening that evolutionary science will turn people into atheists, and atheists will cause society to revert to barbarism, is just one more pathetic tactic in the long-running battle between dominionistic Christianity and the understanding of the natural world.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Kailassa
 


Thanks for picking up my slack on that point, I did mean to do that but forgot in the holiday rush.

So yeah, if there is an omnipotent deity that created us, how does that make us anything more than clay dolls for this deities amusement? How does it make the deity anything more than the kid at the top of an ant hill?



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Because it is omnipotent and without ego, it does not posses the ability to be self-aware. It takes an ego to be self-aware, god has no ego



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Schrödinger
 


Then the deity is also unable to act following the logical consequences of this (and other consequences of omni^3 beings) and is thus inert.

...so why is it that we wouldn't just shave it off of the mechanics of the universe with Occam's razor?



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Dbl Post:

edit on 12/25/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


i signed up on to ATS just to reply to this one post.

With that said, I can safely say that you obviously did not read the NatGeo Article about Darwin.
ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

The article itself is stating that that the reason most creationist don't accept the Theory of Evolution is due to the fact that that they are confused and ignorant about the topic and have never never taken a biology course that dealt with evolution nor read a book in which the theory was lucidly explained.
Hence,



Why are there so many antievolutionists? Scriptural literalism can only be part of the answer. The American public certainly includes a large segment of scriptural literalists—but not that large, not 44 percent. Creationist proselytizers and political activists, working hard to interfere with the teaching of evolutionary biology in public schools, are another part. Honest confusion and ignorance, among millions of adult Americans, must be still another. Many people have never taken a biology course that dealt with evolution nor read a book in which the theory was lucidly explained. Sure, we've all heard of Charles Darwin, and of a vague, somber notion about struggle and survival that sometimes goes by the catchall label "Darwinism." But the main sources of information from which most Americans have drawn their awareness of this subject, it seems, are haphazard ones at best: cultural osmosis, newspaper and magazine references, half-baked nature documentaries on the tube, and hearsay.


It goes on to say,


Evolution is both a beautiful concept and an important one, more crucial nowadays to human welfare, to medical science, and to our understanding of the world than ever before. It's also deeply persuasive—a theory you can take to the bank. The essential points are slightly more complicated than most people assume, but not so complicated that they can't be comprehended by any attentive person. Furthermore, the supporting evidence is abundant, various, ever increasing, solidly interconnected, and easily available in museums, popular books, textbooks, and a mountainous accumulation of peer-reviewed scientific studies. No one needs to, and no one should, accept evolution merely as a matter of faith.
[/rx]

Anyways, I'm not gonna quote the article entirely cuz it is a good read. You on the other hand, what my logic is telling me, is that you saw a Headliner that fit your perspective of Evolution and saw that it was done by NatGeo and thought that without reading it your cause would benefit from it. Sorry to say that it didn't and that shows that your blatantly ignorant about the topic.

p.s. I'm not sure if i did the quotes right so if anyone can explain that to me i'll read it tomorrow or the day after. Thank You in advance
edit on Sat Dec 25 2010 by DontTreadOnMe because: source needed, and external quote tags to replace quote tags



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by HeliArc
The article itself is stating that that the reason most creationist don't accept the Theory of Evolution is due to the fact that that they are confused and ignorant


this topic happens to "not" be a Evolution Vs. Creation topic...

the topic is on the negative aspects of Darwin and his theory... if you would like to join in on the plethora of topics you wish to try to discuss you may debate one of the said "Creationist are Ignorant/Insane threads"

thanks for staying on topic...

btw: I do not believe National Geographic uses the language you wish to convey, to their readers.


edit on 12/25/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Just a Theory...


ngm.nationalgeographic.com...

from Darwin to Hitler...


www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...

I am not a Racist...


www.literature.org...

the Dark Face of Darwinism...




I believe society has gathered enough data and have had enough logical and serious debates on sociobiology and the effects that Darwin's Theory has had on the minds of those without understanding nor the means to be enlightened by it. Our Hitlitarian youth (or those susceptible) have missed the point in general and current trends in science and philosophy have proven just how Racist Darwin was as are those predisposed to "preaching" his philosophy.

Darwin at Nuremberg...


"I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust;
but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered,
led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible"

www.law.umkc.edu...

The staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following


Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977

en.wikipedia.org...
www.conservapedia.com...

so it is said pictures say a thousand words...

I believe the strict adherents to this philosophy are just slightly behind the times and are not up to date with current scientific philosophy, and I also believe some aspects especially used in the hand of supreme Racist have done quite a bit of harm to our planet in the not to distant past.

Racism and Darwinism


The greatest influence in the sudden development of racism in the 19th century Europe was the replacement of the Christian belief that "God created all people equal" by "Darwinism". By suggesting that man had evolved from more primitive creatures, and that some races had evolved further than others, it provided racism with a scientific mask.

www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com...



Occam's Razor ???
not in this topic thank you... I believe history would reveal the simplest explanation for the topic at hand.

*to know where you have been is to know where you are going...



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I'm not making it Evolution vs Creation.
The article that YOU presented says that. Maybe if you had read it you would understand that I'm not saying that nor did I ever say that. I'm simply quoting that NatGeo Article you presented.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 



Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
Just a Theory...


ngm.nationalgeographic.com...


Hey, I actually own that issue.

Here's the first page of the article, just read the first word, it's written pretty damn big.




Now you proceed to not say anything and just randomly quote things and provide...a bunch of evidence that books that support your position exist.



from Darwin to Hitler...




Ok, this book exists. How is that proof that its claims are correct?



www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...


Ok, these books exists, but how is that proof that their claims are correct?



I am not a Racist...


www.literature.org...


The full quote



The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species, has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies—between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae between the elephant, and in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna, and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, 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 civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.[8]


This was a statement about imperialism and a flawed understanding of genetics. He wasn't espousing that less advanced societies be exterminated, he was simply pointing out that Europeans, having guns, germs, and steel (yes, I referenced an awesome book) were going to screw up everyone's day.

Now, it does unfortunately draw a parallel between Africans, Aboriginal Australians, and gorillas, but this isn't because he was a particularly caustic racist but because he was comparing levels of society.

There is nothing in that quote to show that he wanted this to happen. I have previously provided you quotes that show that Darwin opposed both slavery and imperialism...so...yeah...



the Dark Face of Darwinism...




Hey...a photoshooped picture! That proves...absolutely nothing.



I believe society has gathered enough data and have had enough logical and serious debates on sociobiology and the effects that Darwin's Theory has had on the minds of those without understanding nor the means to be enlightened by it.


Okay...where is this data? I've not seen it nor can I seem to find it anywhere.



Our Hitlitarian youth (or those susceptible) have missed the point in general and current trends in science and philosophy have proven just how Racist Darwin was as are those predisposed to "preaching" his philosophy.


Again, no evidence has been presented and how is it this applies to 'youth' when the majority of the main proponents of evolutionary biology are aged professors in their ivory towers?



Darwin at Nuremberg...


"I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust;
but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered,
led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible"

www.law.umkc.edu...


Ok, so your claim is true because somebody else made it without evidence as well? Again, no dice.



The staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following


Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977



Haeckel is not Darwin, is he? Haeckel, though a gifted scientist, was a deeply flawed man. But this is because Haeckel had a particular social view, not because there was a necessary consequence of evolution. You can no more claim that evolution was responsible than the holocaust because of Haeckel than you can blame phenomenonology, existentialism, and hermeneutics for the holocaust because of Martin Heideggar's involvement in the Nazi movement.



en.wikipedia.org...


Yes, evolutionary biology has had a social impact. As did heliocentric cosmology. As did big bang cosmology. Now, where is the specific evidence that it was a negative impact?



www.conservapedia.com...


A point by point rebuttal of this ignorance can be found here at rationalwiki, which is a far more reliable source than Conservapedia as it actually demonstrates the insane flaws in that barrel of insanity that passes itself off as reliable....that was a long hyperlink.



so it is said pictures say a thousand words...


What picture? You have not provided a picture...



I believe the strict adherents to this philosophy are just slightly behind the times and are not up to date with current scientific philosophy,


Why?



and I also believe some aspects especially used in the hand of supreme Racist have done quite a bit of harm to our planet in the not to distant past.


Please show me where 'the supreme Racist' (Hitler I'm guessing), used Darwin's principles. Just show me one instance and I'll start taking your position seriously. Show me multiple instances and I might even be inclined to agree with you.



Racism and Darwinism


The greatest influence in the sudden development of racism in the 19th century Europe was the replacement of the Christian belief that "God created all people equal" by "Darwinism". By suggesting that man had evolved from more primitive creatures, and that some races had evolved further than others, it provided racism with a scientific mask.

www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com...


I'm sorry, but where did Darwin say that some races had evolved further than others? He may have acknowledge further social progression, but nowhere did he say in his writings that one race of humans had advanced more than another.

In fact, that is inherently contradictory towards evolutionary principles. Evolution holds that all things are equally evolved, which is why this fails as a false premise. All things are evolving now and have evolved over the same time period. Of course, some animals evolve faster because they reproduce more often with bigger litters, but that isn't something that happens within a species.

In fact, it might be said that bacteria are more evolved than humans because they produce multitudes of generations within the span of a single human lifetime/



Occam's Razor ???
not in this topic thank you... I believe history would reveal the simplest explanation for the topic at hand.


The simplest explanation would be the one supported in evidence...that being that Darwin was not a racist, that his ideas were not the cause for the holocaust, and that your argument is baseless.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


If the topic is the negative consequences of the theory of evolution (thoroughly debunked by almost every response to your threads) then why do you insist on returning to insult atheists, with no context whatsoever and no connection to the topic? Why are you so strict about the topic when other people go off-topic, but you flagrantly defy it by saying things like "atheists are all english speaking spoiled brat caucasian males"?

Your utter failure to respond to the posters in your threads are the reason that they constantly come down on you like a shower of bricks. You do not merit respect for yourself or your topic when you actively denigrate other posters and their arguments without ever addressing them in an honest and cogent manner.

P.S. Calling people "kafirs with chicken bones in their noses" is ironically racist for someone whose argument is that Darwinism is bad because it is racist.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


If the topic is the negative consequences of the theory of evolution (thoroughly debunked by almost every response to your threads) then why do you insist on returning to insult atheists, with no context whatsoever and no connection to the topic? Why are you so strict about the topic when other people go off-topic, but you flagrantly defy it by saying things like "atheists are all english speaking spoiled brat caucasian males"?

Your utter failure to respond to the posters in your threads are the reason that they constantly come down on you like a shower of bricks. You do not merit respect for yourself or your topic when you actively denigrate other posters and their arguments without ever addressing them in an honest and cogent manner.

P.S. Calling people "kafirs with chicken bones in their noses" is ironically racist for someone whose argument is that Darwinism is bad because it is racist.


No one here is denying Evolution, some here are pointing out the way in which others have used this Theory for it's doctrine to make lesser humans of others...

Some are sill doing it to this day, using it for a Dominating aspect which can easily be read by their character.

some people just always have o be right you know ! and dominate others...



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Yes, OK, I get it. You have repeated yourself again, that this thread is about the negative aspects of evolution. Can you respond to what I said now? Why do you keep derailing your own topic and why do you expect other posters not to derail it?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join