The biogeographic evidence for evolution

Darkstorn · Nov 6, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I don't have to hijack the thread, but atheists seem addicted to challenging me.

Equating evolution and Social Darwinism is a challenge from you.

Everyone else is telling you they have nothing in common, that they were self-titled, and that it's a misapplication of the term "Darwinism." Having two words strung together doesn't mean you get to separate the words and apply all their possible meanings. It's not Social and it's definitions, AND Darwinism, with its definitions separately. "Social Darwinism" is the term itself. It means something specific.

How are you not picking any of this up? It's a misapplication of the term, by self-titled racist and bigots.

It's almost as if your brain just picks propaganda worthy stuff and leaves out all the details that would implicate to yourself the futility and emptiness of your inane claims. They tend to go really bad against reality.

BilliardsBall said:
I'm not arguing against evolution, I believe evolution is true, I'm rather saying that the worst murderers in history were Social Darwinists.

And everyone else is saying it's foolish to equate Social Darwinism with evolution. You are not getting this at all.

It is not even a scientific concept.

gnostic · Nov 6, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I don't have to hijack the thread, but atheists seem addicted to challenging me.

I'm not arguing against evolution, I believe evolution is true, I'm rather saying that the worst murderers in history were Social Darwinists.

Again, what does Social Darwinism have to do with Evolution?

You are completely off-topic, because nothing in Evolution have to do with politics, racism, hatred, genocide and war.

Are you so blindly ignorant that you can’t tell the differences between politics and biology?

No, I don’t think you are ignorant. I think you are simply deliberately derailing this topic with the typical dishonest tactics - the creationist propaganda.

This imaginary link between evolution and social Darwinism you (and other creationists) have built, have already been torn down repeatedly (debunked) in other threads that used “Social Darwinism” argument, but you cannot help yourself of being tiresomely predictable.

BilliardsBall · Nov 7, 2019

Darkstorn said:
Equating evolution and Social Darwinism is a challenge from you.

Everyone else is telling you they have nothing in common, that they were self-titled, and that it's a misapplication of the term "Darwinism." Having two words strung together doesn't mean you get to separate the words and apply all their possible meanings. It's not Social and it's definitions, AND Darwinism, with its definitions separately. "Social Darwinism" is the term itself. It means something specific.

How are you not picking any of this up? It's a misapplication of the term, by self-titled racist and bigots.

It's almost as if your brain just picks propaganda worthy stuff and leaves out all the details that would implicate to yourself the futility and emptiness of your inane claims. They tend to go really bad against reality.

And everyone else is saying it's foolish to equate Social Darwinism with evolution. You are not getting this at all.

It is not even a scientific concept.

You write above, "It's a misapplication of the term." What are the root words of this term? Who coined the term? Why was the term used to describe modern genocide? Etc.

I have NOT equated Social Darwinism with evolution, by the way, but I'm pointing out that yet again, atheists are in SEVERE denial (spiritual denial, I would say).

BilliardsBall · Nov 7, 2019

gnostic said:
Again, what does Social Darwinism have to do with Evolution?

You are completely off-topic, because nothing in Evolution have to do with politics, racism, hatred, genocide and war.

Are you so blindly ignorant that you can’t tell the differences between politics and biology?

No, I don’t think you are ignorant. I think you are simply deliberately derailing this topic with the typical dishonest tactics - the creationist propaganda.

This imaginary link between evolution and social Darwinism you (and other creationists) have built, have already been torn down repeatedly (debunked) in other threads that used “Social Darwinism” argument, but you cannot help yourself of being tiresomely predictable.

I know you're bitter about your Christian past, but I always thought of you as supremely intelligent, until now!

"What does SOCIAL DARWINISM have to do with DARWINISM?"

How can you ask that without sounding FAR less intelligent than I know you are?

What does Mao's Little Red Book have to do with books, or Mao, or the color red?

gnostic · Nov 7, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I know you're bitter about your Christian past, but I always thought of you as supremely intelligent, until now!

"What does SOCIAL DARWINISM have to do with DARWINISM?"

How can you ask that without sounding FAR less intelligent than I know you are?

What does Mao's Little Red Book have to do with books, or Mao, or the color red?

There are two problems here:

First. You have deliberately misquoted me with "What does SOCIAL DARWINISM have to do with DARWINISM?"

What I actually wrote was:

gnostic said:
Again, what does Social Darwinism have to do with Evolution?

I have never in my life called Evolution “Darwinism”, so this is strawman attack.

I always referred to Evolution as “Evolution”, and never as “Darwinism” or “Darwinian Evolution”.

Plus, I have always called what Charles Darwin wrote in his works, he always described his mechanism as “Natural Selection”, and again never as “Darwinism”, because Charles Darwin have never named anything after himself.

And you are forgetting that Charles Darwin wasn’t the only one who was writing about Evolution by Natural Selection and Biogeography; the other author was Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin’s contemporary naturalist and biologist, who wrote Malay Archipelago.

Wallace also didn’t name Natural Selection as “Darwinism”.

Natural Selection is the proper scientific name for one of the evolutionary mechanisms, not “Darwinism” or “Darwinian Evolution”.

So stop misquoting me. You are being deliberately dishonest by using the term “Darwinism” instead of “Evolution” in your post.

So if anyone is being less than honest and not intelligent at all, it is you, BilliardsBall.

Second, associating Evolution with Social Darwinism is not only strawman argument, it is also false equivalence argument. One is not related to the other.

Nothing in Darwin’s works, his travel journey notes in the 2nd voyage of HMS Beagle (1831-1836), On Origin Of Species (1859), The Descent Of Man (1871), etc, does he ever talk of wars and genocides.

Wars and genocides are not part of evolutionary biology or the theory of evolution, because they (wars and genocides) involved with political and social issues.

Darwin was never involved in writing about Social Darwinism. Just because some political philosophers hijacked his name, doesn’t mean Natural Selection is the same as Social Darwinism.

You are the one who repeatedly brought up Social Darwinism, not us, as attack because you know you already have weak argument regarding to biology, so you falsely use Nazi politics and the Holocaust to blame Darwin’s Natural Selection.

I think you are shameless dishonest member, who has been trying to change the subject, by focusing on Hitler, Stalin and Mao, which have absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

You are not a Jew, but you have trying to pass off as one, and you are shamelessly dishonest by bringing up the WW2 Holocaust. You are not a Jew, and yet you are trying to use emotional blackmail by bringing up Hitler and Nazi and what they did to the Jews. You are one sick person.

You are lying again. I have never once mentioned Mao or Mao’s red book. You are still trying to change the subject.

You want to talk about Social Darwinism, then fine, start new thread in the Political Debate forum. Social Darwinism is a social and political ideology, not biology.

I refuse to explain myself again why Social Darwinism is irrelevant in this thread, and will not respond to any more of your posts should you mention Social Darwinism in this thread again.

You are being tiresomely ignorant and biased, by putting words in my mouth.

gnostic · Nov 7, 2019

Darkstorn said:
Equating evolution and Social Darwinism is a challenge from you.

Everyone else is telling you they have nothing in common, that they were self-titled, and that it's a misapplication of the term "Darwinism." Having two words strung together doesn't mean you get to separate the words and apply all their possible meanings. It's not Social and it's definitions, AND Darwinism, with its definitions separately. "Social Darwinism" is the term itself. It means something specific.

How are you not picking any of this up? It's a misapplication of the term, by self-titled racist and bigots.

It's almost as if your brain just picks propaganda worthy stuff and leaves out all the details that would implicate to yourself the futility and emptiness of your inane claims. They tend to go really bad against reality.

And everyone else is saying it's foolish to equate Social Darwinism with evolution. You are not getting this at all.

It is not even a scientific concept.

BilliardsBall is one narrow-minded and dishonest person.

Instead of focusing on evidence for or against evolution and staying on topic, he is trying to attack any atheist, by blaming atheism for racism, for genocide and for wars, and for Nazi and communism, hence changing the subject.

You have read my replies. Not once did I mention Mao, but he is trying to use this strawman. And it is the same with Hitler and Nazi, I never brought them up, BilliardsBall did.

This is just typical dishonest creationist tactics, trying putting words in my mouth.

I am seriously thinking of ignoring him in this thread, if he can’t be honest.

ps BilliardsBall has forgotten that I am agnostic, not atheist.

Bear Wild · Nov 7, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I don't have to hijack the thread, but atheists seem addicted to challenging me.

I'm not arguing against evolution, I believe evolution is true, I'm rather saying that the worst murderers in history were Social Darwinists.

The worst murders in history can not be equated with Social Darwinism which has nothing to do with Darwin. Horrific murders include all groups of people in time including members of religious groups. Your statement does not make sense.

BilliardsBall · Nov 8, 2019

gnostic said:
There are two problems here:

First. You have deliberately misquoted me with "What does SOCIAL DARWINISM have to do with DARWINISM?"

What I actually wrote was:

I have never in my life called Evolution “Darwinism”, so this is strawman attack.

I always referred to Evolution as “Evolution”, and never as “Darwinism” or “Darwinian Evolution”.

Plus, I have always called what Charles Darwin wrote in his works, he always described his mechanism as “Natural Selection”, and again never as “Darwinism”, because Charles Darwin have never named anything after himself.

And you are forgetting that Charles Darwin wasn’t the only one who was writing about Evolution by Natural Selection and Biogeography; the other author was Alfred Russel Wallace, Darwin’s contemporary naturalist and biologist, who wrote Malay Archipelago.

Wallace also didn’t name Natural Selection as “Darwinism”.

Natural Selection is the proper scientific name for one of the evolutionary mechanisms, not “Darwinism” or “Darwinian Evolution”.

So stop misquoting me. You are being deliberately dishonest by using the term “Darwinism” instead of “Evolution” in your post.

So if anyone is being less than honest and not intelligent at all, it is you, BilliardsBall.

Second, associating Evolution with Social Darwinism is not only strawman argument, it is also false equivalence argument. One is not related to the other.

Nothing in Darwin’s works, his travel journey notes in the 2nd voyage of HMS Beagle (1831-1836), On Origin Of Species (1859), The Descent Of Man (1871), etc, does he ever talk of wars and genocides.

Wars and genocides are not part of evolutionary biology or the theory of evolution, because they (wars and genocides) involved with political and social issues.

Darwin was never involved in writing about Social Darwinism. Just because some political philosophers hijacked his name, doesn’t mean Natural Selection is the same as Social Darwinism.

You are the one who repeatedly brought up Social Darwinism, not us, as attack because you know you already have weak argument regarding to biology, so you falsely use Nazi politics and the Holocaust to blame Darwin’s Natural Selection.

I think you are shameless dishonest member, who has been trying to change the subject, by focusing on Hitler, Stalin and Mao, which have absolutely nothing to do with the theory of evolution.

You are not a Jew, but you have trying to pass off as one, and you are shamelessly dishonest by bringing up the WW2 Holocaust. You are not a Jew, and yet you are trying to use emotional blackmail by bringing up Hitler and Nazi and what they did to the Jews. You are one sick person.

You are lying again. I have never once mentioned Mao or Mao’s red book. You are still trying to change the subject.

You want to talk about Social Darwinism, then fine, start new thread in the Political Debate forum. Social Darwinism is a social and political ideology, not biology.

I refuse to explain myself again why Social Darwinism is irrelevant in this thread, and will not respond to any more of your posts should you mention Social Darwinism in this thread again.

You are being tiresomely ignorant and biased, by putting words in my mouth.

I find the claim that I'm not a Jew spiteful, offensive.

I find the claim that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwinism incredibly ignorant.

"Mao's Little Red Book" has to do with Chairman Mao, the small size in its printing, it's a book, and has a red cover.

BilliardsBall · Nov 8, 2019

Wild Fox said:
The worst murders in history can not be equated with Social Darwinism which has nothing to do with Darwin. Horrific murders include all groups of people in time including members of religious groups. Your statement does not make sense.

The "worst murders" include genocide. Kindly post evidence here that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler et al weren't Social Darwinists and that Social Darwinism has "nothing to do with Darwin".

gnostic · Nov 8, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I find the claim that I'm not a Jew spiteful, offensive.

I find the claim that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwinism incredibly ignorant.

"Mao's Little Red Book" has to do with Chairman Mao, the small size in its printing, it's a book, and has a red cover.

Well I think you are lying because I am an Australian, I am not a communist, and I don’t have this frigging red book.

I didn’t bring up Mao’s red book, you did.

You are making ignorant - nonot ignorant statement, more like idiotic and bigot assumptions that all atheists are Nazi or communists.

And yo ignored that I am agnostic, not atheist, which still making up thing about me.

You started this witch-hunt, not me, BilliardsBall.

Tell me, BilliardsBall. Are there any atheist members of RF, who are Nazi or communist supporters?

If no, then you are wrongfully stereotyping atheists. If you were really a Jew, then you wouldn’t be stereotyping atheists as only being either Nazi or communist. It is exactly this type of generalization or stereotyping that led to Nazi persecution of Jews and the Holocaust or McCarthy’s witch-hunt.

Jose Fly · Nov 8, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I find the claim that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwinism incredibly ignorant.

Social Darwinism has as much to do with Darwinism as the Hamitic hypothesis has to do with Christianity.

Kindly post evidence here that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler et al weren't Social Darwinists and that Social Darwinism has "nothing to do with Darwin".

Right after you post evidence that the Hamitic hypothesis has nothing to do with Christianity

tas8831 · Nov 8, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I find the claim that Social Darwinism has nothing to do with Darwinism incredibly ignorant.

So?

You also still believe that Darwin = Hitler even though you unwittingly linked to a source demonstrating that such a belief is totally dishonest.

Unable to come up with any legitimate argument against evolution, you are just employing foolish logical fallacies out of desperation and malice.

tas8831 · Nov 8, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
Kindly post evidence here that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler et al weren't Social Darwinists and that Social Darwinism has "nothing to do with Darwin".

I find it fantastic that you are still able to 'show your face' around here with such mendacity given the fact that you have received such evidence multiple times already, including in this very thread (though you seem to have moved the goal posts - such is the malice in the creationist's heart):

And let us end with a reminder that all of your hemming and hawing and re-defining and re-iteration and re-assertion and burden shifting and pedanatery will not save this, your worst, most-failed "argument", a well poisoning fallacy on its best day, desperate mendacity on its worst, and an utter failure- as shown by your own unwitting hand:

↑
Hitler and Darwin: http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Was Hitler a Darwinian.pdf and
From Darwin to Hitler Quotes by Richard Weikart

I categorically reject anything by Weikart due to many instances of his shoddy scholarship:

"Weikart is best known for his 2004 book From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany.[24][25] The Discovery Institute, the hub of the intelligent design movement, funded the book's research.[26] The academic community has been widely critical of the book.[4][13] Regarding the thesis of Weikart's book, University of Chicago historian Robert Richards wrote that Hitler was not a Darwinian and criticized Weikart for trying to undermine evolution.[27] Richards said that there was no evidence that Hitler read Darwin, and that some influencers of Nazism such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain were opposed to evolution.[27]"

But I do thank you for linking the Roberts article, for it would appear that you did not read it, for it concludes, any emphases mine:

"Countless conservative religious and political tracts have attempted to undermine Darwinian evolutionary theory by arguing that it had been endorsed by Hitler and led to the biological ideas responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. These dogmatically driven accounts have been abetted by more reputable scholars who have written books with titles like From Darwin to Hitler [was that not written by your hero, Weikart the righty propagandist?] ....” In this essay I have maintained these assumptions simply cannot be sustained after a careful examination of the evidence..... Hitler and the Nazi biologists I have considered certainly claimed a hierarchy of races, but that idea far antedated the publication of Darwin’s theory and was hardly unique to it. There is no evidence linking Hitler’s presumption of such a hierarchy and Darwin’s conception. Moreover, Hitler explicitly denied the descent of species, utterly rejecting the idea that Aryan man descended from ape - like predecessors. And most of the Nazi scientists I have cited likewise opposed that aspect of Darwin’s theory. ...
But how could one possibly ascribe that term to Hitler, who rejected evolutionary theory? Only in the very loosest sense, when the phrase has no relationship to the theory of Charles Darwin, might it be used for Hitler. In order to sustain the thesis that Hitler was a Darwinian one would have to ignore all the explicit statements of Hitler rejecting any theory like Darwin’s and draw fanciful implications from vague words, errant phrases, and ambiguous sentences,neglecting altogether more straight -forward, contextual interpretations of such utterances. Only the ideologically blinded would still try to sustain the thesis in the face of the contrary, manifest evidence.
Yet, as I suggested at the beginning of this essay, there is an obvious sense in which my own claims must be moot. Even if Hitler could recite the Origin of Species by heart and referred to Darwin as his scientific hero, that would not have the slightest bearing on the validity of Darwinian theory or the moral standing of its author. The only reasonable answer to the question that gives this essay its title is a very loud and unequivocal No!

Your issues are 1. your refusal to admit to obvious errors (hubris; pride), 2. your reliance on religio-political punditry rather than reason and facts (gullibility; ignorance) , 3. your ideological blindness (self-righteousness/pride).
Stand by your error all you want. Sensible people see the truth.
Hey - remember that time that, in your desperation/ignorance, you tried to claim that I am a hypocrite because I am against slavery (even though your God is all for it) and I eat eggs? That was funny - funny in that it shows how desperate religionists are to rescue their tribal beliefs from the obvious wickedness and moral relativism they espouse.

tayla · Nov 8, 2019

Hubert Farnsworth said:
If a creator was independently creating species, why would he create species on islands that are similar to those on the nearest continent or mainland?

God's ways are not man's ways. We can never know why God does anything unless the Bible or the Church or the local pastor explains it to us.

And we can never know why a good and holy God commanded Joshua to commit genocide on Jericho. (And frighteningly, if God commanded Christians to do something equally horrific, some say they would do so. But hopefully they would be too afraid to actually obey.)

Polymath257 · Nov 9, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
I know you're bitter about your Christian past, but I always thought of you as supremely intelligent, until now!

"What does SOCIAL DARWINISM have to do with DARWINISM?"

How can you ask that without sounding FAR less intelligent than I know you are?

What does Mao's Little Red Book have to do with books, or Mao, or the color red?

What does Christian Science have to do with Christianity or Science?

Why are you insisting on making a connection that isn't there?

Polymath257 · Nov 9, 2019

BilliardsBall said:
The "worst murders" include genocide. Kindly post evidence here that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler et al weren't Social Darwinists and that Social Darwinism has "nothing to do with Darwin".

Why do you want to align Social Darwinism (which is horrible) with evolution (which is scientific fact)? THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. One is a position on how to organize a society and the other is a biological theory of how species change over time.

The autocrats you mentioned were *all* requiring people to have ultimate faith in their leadership and to take their views as absolute truth. That makes them much closer to the way that some religions operate than how any aspect of science works.

BilliardsBall · Nov 12, 2019

Polymath257 said:
What does Christian Science have to do with Christianity or Science?

Why are you insisting on making a connection that isn't there?

Christian Scientists study the Christian scriptures and claim to have built a science of healing. Bad analogy. Social Darwinists slaughtered millions.

BilliardsBall · Nov 12, 2019

Polymath257 said:
Why do you want to align Social Darwinism (which is horrible) with evolution (which is scientific fact)? THEY ARE NOT THE SAME. One is a position on how to organize a society and the other is a biological theory of how species change over time.

The autocrats you mentioned were *all* requiring people to have ultimate faith in their leadership and to take their views as absolute truth. That makes them much closer to the way that some religions operate than how any aspect of science works.

"The position on how to organize a society"--up to genocide leads to the words Social (societal) and Darwinism (based on evolutionary concepts including race, survival of the fittest, etc.).

I wish those at RF would take their lumps on this and move on.

BilliardsBall · Nov 12, 2019

gnostic said:
Well I think you are lying because I am an Australian, I am not a communist, and I don’t have this frigging red book.

I didn’t bring up Mao’s red book, you did.

You are making ignorant - nonot ignorant statement, more like idiotic and bigot assumptions that all atheists are Nazi or communists.

And yo ignored that I am agnostic, not atheist, which still making up thing about me.

You started this witch-hunt, not me, BilliardsBall.

Tell me, BilliardsBall. Are there any atheist members of RF, who are Nazi or communist supporters?

If no, then you are wrongfully stereotyping atheists. If you were really a Jew, then you wouldn’t be stereotyping atheists as only being either Nazi or communist. It is exactly this type of generalization or stereotyping that led to Nazi persecution of Jews and the Holocaust or McCarthy’s witch-hunt.

I'm having trouble following your angry, and frankly, anti-Semetic (you're not a Jew!) rants here.

"Mao's Little Red Book" is so-called because it is a slim red volume of the Chairman's wisdom and proscriptions. Social Darwinism is called "Social Darwinism" because why?

BilliardsBall · Nov 12, 2019

tas8831 said:
So?

You also still believe that Darwin = Hitler even though you unwittingly linked to a source demonstrating that such a belief is totally dishonest.

Unable to come up with any legitimate argument against evolution, you are just employing foolish logical fallacies out of desperation and malice.

Darwin was not Hitler, Hitler was not Darwin.

Please explain the etymological origin of the term, Social Darwinist.

The biogeographic evidence for evolution

This shows how unique i am.

The Lost One

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

The Lost One

The Lost One

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

The Lost One

Fisker of men

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

My dog's name is Tayla

Think & Care

Think & Care

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member