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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


If the Theory of Evolution was the "perfect tool so many Atheists and Dictators were looking for", wasn't the Story of Creationism the perfect tool for Religious Authorities wishing to control their followers through the use of Fear and Exploitation of the Unknown?

edit on 22/12/2010 by Dark Ghost because: reworded




posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
Are you well? Saying there is no proof? have you never heard of DNA before? Have you been living under a rock or in a chruch all your life and think everyone is lying to you?

ATS is a place for civil and sciencitific dissusion, not nonsencial gibberish, hidden with religious indoctrine.
It is sad when any mind (capable of intellgent thought) cannot understand reality, this is the reality you live in, evolution is real, god did not make you, you are nothing special (which i imagen is the most hardest thing for you to believe in)

Anyone who doesnt believe in your magical fairytale is ruining the world? But most wars are about religion, fighting eachother because they are worshipping the same thing but fight over, the name of thier god or some other belife.

All religion has done is cause violence greed and hatred for fellow humans. So who really is the "devil" logical minded people who want to understand the unvierse and how it all works, or crazy nutjobs that want to pray to an invisible man all day or else they burn forever, which one sounds like it came from a mental hospital?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by works4dhs
 




the big difference, as I see it, is this; when a Christian kills it is almost always a violation of his belief system, making one wonder if this is a 'true Christian', or perhaps a 'Christian in name only'. athiests (Marxists, darwinists, supremacists) who kill in the name of race can use evolution as a defense and an inspiration ('just weeding out the competition, your honor'). conclusion; the more anti- and non-Christian belief systems spread, the worse the violence.


You can see by my signature I'm not an evolutionist. And while I might agree with the first half of your statement, I'm not so sure about the second half of it. Darwin advanced a theory. Yes, others have perverted it, and used it to further their own agenda, but I don't see that his theory pushes for deliberate extermination of anything or anyone. And I certainly don't see that he was trying to find an excuse to turn natural selection into unnatural selection. I may not agree with him, but perverting his theories isn't helpful.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
A scientific theory has many benefits, such as furthering the advance of science whether or not it is disproven later. Darwinism can mean many things, so i'm going to go with the "Darwinism = Evolution" assumption, okay?

Now, with darwinism, there is substantial evidence for its "existence". What people do with these discoveries is completely irrelevant. Are you saying knowledge is not meant to be tapped as man can do horrible things with it? If we followed that principle we would not have anything we have now, not your computer, not your car, nothing. Each scientific idea and breakthrough can be used for negative purposes, whether for rationalisation of a psychopaths bloodlust, misdirection of charismatic individuals requiring a purpose, or weapons of war.

We built great walls to fortify cities, and in turn improved our construction methods.
We built weapons of war, and in turn developed our understanding of physics, in turn allowing construction of much of what you see today.
We, (originally charles darwin) proposed a theory on natural selection, and we have evidence to back it up, in order to satisfy a scientific reason for our existence where magical thinking is not present (religion)

It is not science that leads to atrocities, it is people that cause them.

Science is slowly replacing religion as a rationalisation for a persons desire for power. In the distant past they fought over God/Gods, in the recent past they fought over racial purity.
edit on 22-12-2010 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by Dark Ghost
 


where is the :yawn: emoticon ?

please direct any religious rhetoric to the appropriate sections...



Let's just ignore all the religiously motivated wars, right


Darwin made some remarks that reflect the culture at that period. He's been disproven in some cases (like the male is superior to female thing), but his general natural selection and evolutionary theory are sound and in over 150 years haven't been "debunked". Fact is, natural selection exists, we see it ever day as species die out.

Now, as for those ridiculous videos you posted: You do realize that they attribute a ton of wars to being Darwin's fault (lol) when in reality, most of them were done over money/gold/resources. Take the conquistadors in South America for example. They didn't kill the locals because they believed to be superior, they wanted their gold. They might have thought they are superior, but that wasn't the reason for the slaughter. And as for the locals being "peaceful"...you might wanna read up on Aztec and Mayan history. They weren't all that peaceful


Like it or not, in the end we have a common ancestor with today's apes, and a few 100,000 years ago we were happily swinging from tree to tree without judging others based on their disbelief.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:24 PM
link   
All living things have DNA.
Of course we are all related.

Why would a God who loves us, not give us the ability to adapt to our surroundings?
I do not understand the arguments here.

We are not monkeys, monkeys are not human, nor are we plants or other animals.
This is the one fact we can all agree on. Yes?

Yet, we all have similar DNA. This is a fact.
Why do these subjects turn into hate?

Should we just not agree on the facts? The facts are...what?
We all exist and came from somewhere? Where? Even if we knew it was God, the next question would be, where did God come from?
Why can't human beings who can think, create, love, pity, feel joy, empathy, peace, etc. just be who we are.
Why do I have to shove my opinion down your throat? I do not.
That would be in contrast to what I believe.
Belief. Faith.
They will never be proven.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I've wondered ever expected this much to come from his theory. I dont believe he did. He was a product of his times and probably used more "scientific method" than most "scientists" nowadays.

to much of politics and money in science now.

Darwinism has its place but MUST be balanced with a bit of creationism. You have to have a source.

Monkeys to humans? No. I'll stop before I go into Atlantean cruelties.

Margret Sanger , while contributing to fewer unwanted pregnacies via contraceptives (5+ were common at the time) and the women being told to "lay back and think of England", DID use Darwinian principles in the end for negative ends.

She was :

Socialist,
Eugenicist,
and a Darwinian.

Her Darwinian stance has also led to millions of needless abortions.

I dont think Darwin was necessarily "evil" but (as in many cases) his work was pounced on and used as an excuse for evil things.

Both of their views on eugenics have points but to give that power to a government body? No dice.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anthony1138
Are you well? Saying there is no proof? have you never heard of DNA before? Have you been living under a rock or in a chruch all your life and think everyone is lying to you?


no, the 95% percent of the rest of the planet thinks the Atheist who wish to use Evolution, are delusional.

I never said I do not believe in Evolution, I am just wondering what people personally thought about it themselves.

Atheists attacking Christians for a video made by a Muslim, you do the math !



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
Science is slowly replacing religion


Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind. -Albert Einstein

yes the Theist are consuming it, but as I said... alot of it turns bitter in the stomach.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


Are you the sysop known as 'conservative' on Conservapedia?


no, and I have my opinions on that mentioned site too... but alot of people are now in the process of looking away from and for better non-biased opinions other than Wiki, I am sure everyone here has realized that by now ?

thanks Julian ! that was a total hat-trick !

I would be looking for another name by now if I was Wikipedia....
edit on 12/22/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by felonius
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


I've wondered ever expected this much to come from his theory. I dont believe he did. He was a product of his times and probably used more "scientific method" than most "scientists" nowadays.

to much of politics and money in science now.

Darwinism has its place but MUST be balanced with a bit of creationism. You have to have a source.

Monkeys to humans? No. I'll stop before I go into Atlantean cruelties.

Margret Sanger , while contributing to fewer unwanted pregnacies via contraceptives (5+ were common at the time) and the women being told to "lay back and think of England", DID use Darwinian principles in the end for negative ends.

She was :

Socialist,
Eugenicist,
and a Darwinian.

Her Darwinian stance has also led to millions of needless abortions.

I dont think Darwin was necessarily "evil" but (as in many cases) his work was pounced on and used as an excuse for evil things.

Both of their views on eugenics have points but to give that power to a government body? No dice.


Bravo


food for thought... and not one mention of religion or specifically Christianity (over Theism)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
this video confirms that darwin was a racist atheistic bigotory arrogant fool.

this video confirms that all atheist morons are are a bunch of racists too.

it also confirms that hitler got his spark from him aswell. maybe we should blame darwin for all of this destruction over the years.


i am not surprised, monkey see monkey do.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cobra.EXE
maybe we should blame darwin for all of this destruction over the years.


I do not believe that either, I was curious also if Darwin and his Theory provided Justification to alot of the miserable actions we have witnessed from the use of the theory since its introduction.

it is still in it's infancy pretty much, the first studies only took off in the early 1970's of its effects...

"sociobiology" www.seop.leeds.ac.uk...


edit on 12/22/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Please, for a neutral that agrees with posters who say that you seem to be ignoring those who present arguments against your OP with no mention of religion at all, please, reply to this post:

 
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Bloody eye phone
edit on 22/12/10 by Horza because: Double post



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


The Selfish Gene Metaphor

Sociopaths are by definition selfish people. The phenomena of selfish and altruistic behaviors are of special interest in clarifying the sociobiological research program, because one's first impression of how natural selection works is that it “helps those who help themselves.” Richard Dawkins (1976) introduced sociobiology with his infamous metaphor of ‘the selfish gene,’ which appeared to be a genetic gloss on ‘the selfish individual’ (see also Williams, 1966, for an early development of ‘genic selectionism’). This concept has continued to be a cornerstone of the field. Many took Dawkins to be explaining psychological selfishness by ‘genic’ selfishness. That is, many took Dawkins to argue that, if human behavior were connected to natural selection, we would all be selfish. Accordingly, both normal cooperators and selfish cheaters (e.g., sociopaths) would be ultimately ‘selfish’; they simply describe different strategies of acting selfishly to maximize one's own reproductive success in different sociocultural mileux. Moreover, critics such as Mary Midgley (1978) took Dawkins's view to involve viciously circular reasoning. In particular, they claim that he starts by taking a human behavior (altruism/selfishness), generalizing it to describe the genetic basis of the evolutionary process in all organisms, and then using that process to explain the original human behavior (genuine altruism/selfishness) as a special case.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact
 


How does that quote argue against the evidence that Darwin was not racist and that Hitler hated Darwin? Keeping in mind that these two points go a long way to debunking the videos that you posted in the OP.

Oh, by the way, if you are going to quote something, provide a link to a source so your info can be checked.

Just in case you are a little confused reply to this, a previous post. The link is below www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 23/12/10 by Horza because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join