BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Your misunderstanding of a Bible precept (honest people who've had their children killed could wish OTHERS might harm their persecutors) justifies calling living humans sub-humans at modern museums? Double standard!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The biogeographic evidence for evolution
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
Your misunderstanding of a Bible precept (honest people who've had their children killed could wish OTHERS might harm their persecutors) justifies calling living humans sub-humans at modern museums? Double standard!
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I understand the Bible much better than you do. You simply will not own up to your errors which makes you vulnerable to the sort of arguments I am using in response. I am using the same sort of "logic" that you are using.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Can you show me something that references what you're talking about?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
You use Social Darwinism to argue against evolution... interesting...
Audie
Veteran Member
Far from interesting, it is a prominent feature of
low creationist argument, repeated as endlessly
as it is brainlessly and vice versa.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Well, of course .
Audie
Veteran Member
I get to be tiresome coz I am tired? Its been a long day.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Untrue.
Respond to what I wrote, perhaps:
"You are claiming that Social Darwinism is unlinked to Darwinism. Interesting..."
At this point, saying SD has nothing to do with D or E is simply lying.
gnostic
The Lost One
“Interesting” isn’t the word I would use here. *shakes head*
I would go for “predictable”, “typical”, “biased”, “irrelevant”, “unrelated”, “dishonest”, “weak”, “illogical”, “delusional”, “twisted”, “stupid”, “pitiful”...
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Are you claiming that you have abandoned your earlier claims, then?
So yes, you ARE using SD to argue against E.
Glad we got that straightened out.
Why else would you bring it up in the first place?
Kind of like claiming I cannot logically be against slavery if I also eat eggs.
Which you did.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase that originated from Darwinian evolutionary theory as a way of describing the mechanism of natural selection. The biological concept of fitness is defined as reproductive success. In Darwinian terms the phrase is best understood as "Survival of the form that will leave the most copies of itself in successive generations."
Or here - again at your Wiki link:
Social Darwinists[edit]
It has been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to the advent of the theory of "social Darwinism" which was used to justify laissez-faire economics, war and racism. However, these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support.[citation needed] The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944.[16]
It has been claimed that "the survival of the fittest" theory in biology was interpreted by late 19th century capitalists as "an ethical precept that sanctioned cut-throat economic competition" and led to the advent of the theory of "social Darwinism" which was used to justify laissez-faire economics, war and racism. However, these ideas predate and commonly contradict Darwin's ideas, and indeed their proponents rarely invoked Darwin in support.[citation needed] The term "social Darwinism" referring to capitalist ideologies was introduced as a term of abuse by Richard Hofstadter's Social Darwinism in American Thought published in 1944.[16]
Nothing to do with subjugating other groups of humans and the like.
You suck at this. Where did you get your degrees from? Patriot University?
Also - still waiting:
Thats nice - but you didn't even try to explain the terms you used:
1. WHAT is a 'macrochange'?
2. WHAT is "DNA conjoining"?
3. WHAT is "DNA base information"?
STILL waiting....
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The opposite of "DNA acid information" ?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Do you eat eggs?
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Sounds like macrochange to me.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Can you tell me what that might have to do with museums calling aborginals a lower species than homo sapiens sapiens?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Do you not know how poor an argument this is? It amounts to "Some people did something bad, therefore evolution is wrong."
We could do that more than ten times over with Christianity. By your own "logic" Christianity is refuted.
gnostic
The Lost One
You keep saying this, but it still have nothing to do with Evolution.
People of different races or speak different languages or have different cultures or customs, etc, none of these mean white Europeans are not more evolved or aborigines are less evolved, biologically.
What constituted as “races”, have more to do with cultures and politics, not biological advantages to survive because of changed environments.
Aborigines are Homo sapiens sapiens, just like the Irish, Germans, Jews, Chinese, Africans, etc; they are not of different species, nor of different subspecies.
How many times must we say this, before it dawned on narrow-minded brain of yours?
dad
Undefeated
Hilarious.
dad
Undefeated
When your worldview is that man are animals, and even less, that affects society.