1. 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!

Featured The biogeographic evidence for evolution

Discussion in 'Evolution Vs. Creationism' started by Hubert Farnsworth, Sep 7, 2019.

  1. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,106
    Ratings:
    +672
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    Now you're 100% wrong, no offense meant.

    Several hundred individuals trust Jesus for salvation in the NT narratives, no one else becomes a Christian by birth by other means. It's a dichotomy, and if you wish to continue to call NTS on me, and claim some kind of self-identify as Christian, than I identify YOU as a Christian, albeit a backslidden, ticked off one.
     
  2. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,106
    Ratings:
    +672
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    Ah, I see, unfortunately, you wrote "Social Darwinism is irrelevant to the biological theory of Evolution."

    Actually Social Darwinism is DERIVED from an outmoded concept regarding the biological theory of evolved human races.

    Can you FINALLY admit this fact, and move on? I've rarely seen atheists as stubborn as RF atheists on this point, it underscores a HUGE disability in accepting known world facts. Let me help you some more:

    Social Darwinism: the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.

    social Darwinism | Definition & Facts

    Social Darwinism - Wikipedia

    Hitler began reading about eugenics and social Darwinism while he was imprisoned following a failed 1924 coup attempt known as the Beer Hall Putsch.

    Hitler adopted the social Darwinist take on survival of the fittest. He believed the German master race had grown weak due to the influence of non-Aryans in Germany. To Hitler, survival of the German “Aryan” race depended on its ability to maintain the purity of its gene pool.

    The Nazis targeted certain groups or races that they considered biologically inferior for extermination. These included Jews, Roma (gypsies), Poles, Soviets, people with disabilities and homosexuals.

    Source: https://www.history.com/topics/early-20th-century-us/social-darwinism
     
  3. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,281
    Ratings:
    +4,363
    Religion:
    Pi π
    I am agnostic, not atheist, BilliardsBall.

    If anyone is being stubborn in beating a dead horse, it is you. Social Darwinism is an ideology concept of socio-political philosophy, NOT BIOLOGY, and NOT EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY.

    Evolution is biology, Social Darwinism isn’t. The topic is about Evolution, not Social Darwinism.

    I don’t give a pigeon crap about what Hitler believe. He was military dictator who was hellbent conquering ruling Europe through invasion, not a biologist, not a scientist.

    Evolution isn’t about politics, not about Germans’ racial superiority or Jews’ racial inferiority, not about wars and invasions, not about Social Darwinism.

    This topic is about “The biographical evidence for evolution”, NOT ABOUT “The racial evidence for Social Darwinism”.

    If you really wanted to talk about Social Darwinism, then fine. Start a new thread, instead of hijacking this thread.

    You are being tiresome, using false equivalence to make your stupid points.

    I don’t support Hitler or the Holocaust, so I have no idea why you keep blaming me for something that have absolutely nothing to do with me. And I am neither a Jew, nor am I German.

    Are you just dishonest ignorant fool that you don’t understand German and Jews are not of different species or subspecies?

    Do you have anything to say about the OP? If not, then stop bringing up this Social Darwinism crap, and start a new thread.
     
    #843 gnostic, Dec 11, 2019
    Last edited: Dec 11, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    31,407
    Ratings:
    +18,196
    Religion:
    Atheist
    No, you simply do not understand your errors. But that is common among theists. All religions have some unique aspect. That does not help them in their claims. You do realize that the NT does not rely on eyewitness accounts at all, don't you? The Gospels are all based upon oral tradition, though a fairly short one. The only reason that there seems to be agreement between them is that the early church tossed the gospels that did not toe the party line so to speak.

    And it seems that you have gone far afield from your original claims. Perhaps you see your errors. If you want to claim that Hitler and Stalin were "Darwinists" then by your distorted standards they were also practicing Christians. In fact Hitler banned the works of Darwin, yet claimed to be a Christian. That would really make him a Christian by the strange standards that you have used in your Social Darwinisms claim. You are using a self defeating argument.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,106
    Ratings:
    +672
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    I'm not hijacking this thread, you are refusing to acknowledge that "Social" equals what you wrote above, "Social ... is an ideology concept of socio-political philosophy" but refuse to say where the second word, "Darwinism", derives from. You are also refusing to stop talking about Hitler... why?

    All you need to do is tell me where the D-word comes from in Social Darwinism, and I'll stop.

    Admit it, Social Darwinism is a social construct that comes from Darwinian/Spencerian theories concerning the evolution of human races. Why is this so hard to understand?
     
  6. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,106
    Ratings:
    +672
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    None of your rhetoric above addresses my (factual) claim regarding a perceived NTS fallacy and Christians:

    Several hundred individuals trust Jesus for salvation in the NT narratives, no one else becomes a Christian by birth or by any other means.
     
  7. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    31,407
    Ratings:
    +18,196
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Ironically you used a NTS fallacy in your post. That is only your version of Christianity. It is not that of all Christians. And it is besides the point at any rate. You would have to prove that someone that you disagree with does not go to Jesus for their salvation and you really cannot do that. As usual your argument fails on several levels.

    And for your previous post I will use an example that I hope you can understand. There is a movement called "Christian Identity":

    Christian Identity - Wikipedia

    They are: "Christian Identity (also known as Identity Christianity)[1] is a racist,[2] anti-Semitic,[2] and white supremacist interpretation of Christianity which holds that only Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Nordic, Aryan people and those of kindred blood are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and hence the descendants of the ancient Israelites."

    Does that group refute Christianity since they have that in their name? No one here has argued that, what are you bringing up Social Darwinism? Don't get confused by the labels that people choose. They do not necessarily reveal their true beliefs.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,281
    Ratings:
    +4,363
    Religion:
    Pi π
    This thread is about biogeographical evidence “for evolution”, not “for Social Darwinism”, so yes, you are hijacking this thread.

    Plus, Charles Darwin never called his theory or the mechanism after HIMSELF as “Darwinism”.

    The actual name is “Natural Selection”, not “Darwinism”.

    As I kept telling you, and that so dishonestly refused to acknowledge is that Natural Selection is a purely biological mechanism about biodiversity of life, over time, and the driving forces for the “changes”, are due to changes in the environment, eg climate changes, changes to terrain, the availability or scarcity of food sources.

    And Natural Selection concern with all life form, animals, plants, fungi, bacteria and archaea, not just of modern human (Homo sapiens sapiens).

    Other evolutionary mechanisms, beside Natural Selection, include Mutation, Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking.

    Since you are only interested in talking about Darwinism, the Evolution that related to Charles Darwin, hence Natural Selection, then Natural Selection doesn’t concern itself with social or political ideology, like political cultures or agenda, as Social Darwinism do.

    Social Darwinism would falls under the category of social science, ot natural science.

    The division between natural science and social science are quite clear.

    Social science would include anything relating to human culture (eg anthropology, humanities, social customs, sporting activities, music, religion, etc), human activities (eg urbanization, politics, laws, legal procedures, wars, etc) and human behavior (eg psychology, behavioral science, etc).

    None of social science applied to other life forms, other than applying to humans.

    As I have repeatedly said to you before, Natural Selection doesn’t concern itself with politics or any social issues, or with racism, wars, genocides, etc.

    Social Darwinism is again irrelevant to Natural Selection. Jews and Germans may be of different races and of different cultures, they are not of different species.

    Are you so lame that you cannot grasp the differences between genus/species and races/cultures?

    Natural Selection is biology, and it isn’t just about human biology, is biology that concern with other mammals, and with animal kingdom, such as reptiles, birds, amphibians, fishes, as well as plant life and fungi.

    If you want talk about Social Darwinism then start a new thread.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,106
    Ratings:
    +672
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    Not at all (you are abusing the proper application of the NTS fallacy):

    1) we can find an accurate authority as to what a vegan is

    2) either one eats meat or one made a commitment at some point to not eat meat, going forward

    The NT NEVER, not ONCE, describes Christianity as resultant from birth descent, and gives hundreds of examples of individuals trusting Jesus for salvation, to become Christian disciples/students of Christ or from the Greek for "individual follower of Christ in life pattern", "Christian".

    Herein, you claim that people who self-identify as Christian without following the master's and authors' given pattern can do so authoritatively. They cannot, and like typical skeptics, are "pissing into wind" intellectually.

    Just like skeptics claim I can self-identify as a woman despite my prevalence of testosterone over estrogen and my ownership of a functioning penis . . .

    . . . While flying coach last week, I entered the first class compartment, and upon being rebuked, I insisted I self-identify as a first-class kind of person. (Rolls eyes.)

    The rest of your "argument" (does a splinter group refute Christianity by appropriating their name? so how do Social Darwinists refute evolutionary theory?) is a non-sequitur. Rather, I've stated this resolution: Social Darwinism's name comes from two etymological/ideological roots; a social theory, predicated by evolutionary theory, regarding races of human descent.

    I'd ask you to address THAT, but you won't... with respect, daily you are digging yourself a deeper hole, in a spiritual sense.
     
  10. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,106
    Ratings:
    +672
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    My stance:

    Resolved: The term "Social Darwinism" stems from being a social theory predicated upon evolutionary theory regarding human races of descent.

    Either address THAT or don't, but the rest of your post is off-topic, and moot.
     
  11. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,989
    Ratings:
    +2,432
    Writes the fellow that STILL declares that the nervous system somehow catalyzes something and causes the appendix to release beneficial bacteria...
    The fellow that claims the slavery described in the bible was only temporary 'indentured servitude', and that I am a hypocrite for being against slavery and also eat eggs.
    The guy that claimed Hitler and Stalin did what they did "as Darwinists".

    And that person gives sermons????
     
  12. tas8831

    tas8831 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,989
    Ratings:
    +2,432
    Why do you keep harping on 'Social Darwinism' when discussing evolution in the first place?

    Have you finally realized that you cannot actually present anything scientific regarding your programmed hatred of evolution and so must rely on dopey aspersion casting and well poisoning to refute a scientific theory?

    Posted this 20 pages ago:

    One of YOUR linked articles:

    "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."
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. gnostic

    gnostic The Lost One

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Messages:
    16,281
    Ratings:
    +4,363
    Religion:
    Pi π
    I have addressed time and time again, but you are still being stubbornly evasive, dishonest and ignorant.

    How many times must I address it before you realize your stupid mistakes and acknowledge that your are the one being off-topic with your stupid Social Darwinism argument, and you accusing everyone who disagree with you as being racists and Hitler’s lovers.

    If I am sounding irritated is because I am fed up with you hijacking this thread with you bringing irrelevant topic and using strawman.

    You have already beaten the dead horse to pasty goo with your stupid Hitler and SD.

    Will you start a bloody damn new thread about Social Darwinism and Hitler already, and get off this one??!!
     
  14. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    4,267
    Ratings:
    +3,509
    Religion:
    Atheist
    You are just wrong.


    Social Darwinism - Wikipedia

    Perhaps you should read its history.

    I found this part to be quite interesting:

    Creationists have often maintained that Social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to reward the most competitive—is a logical consequence of "Darwinism" (the theory of natural selection in biology).[9] Biologists and historians have stated that this is a fallacy of appeal to nature

    And this also:

    While the term has been applied to the claim that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be used to understand the social endurance of a nation or country, Social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin's publication of On the Origin of Species
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  15. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    4,267
    Ratings:
    +3,509
    Religion:
    Atheist

    The word Darwinism in social darwinism, refers to the "survival of the fittest" aspect of darwinism, where the meaning of "fit" in context of social darwinism is changed into "the strongest, most powerfull", whereas in context of evolution it means "most adapted to the niche in which it lives".

    So no, it has nothing to do with darwinian evolution and instead everything with the far older (and rather barbaric / primitive) notion of only the strong survive.

    A phrase like "survival of the fittest" off course is like music to the ears of power-hungry men with a narcistic superiority complex.

    However, in darwinian evolution, it means something very different.

    Now, put a sock in it.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    31,407
    Ratings:
    +18,196
    Religion:
    Atheist

    Bad analogy. Being vegan is clearly defined. There are not on the order of 40,000 different sects of vegans. Being vegan simply mans avoiding any animal products (there is some debate among them about honey). You used a false personal definition of Christianity that does not apply to all Christians. That is why you were the one that created a NTS fallacy. And now you are trying to defend your NTS with a strawman fallacy.

    Try to debate the points raised against you and not your fantasy points. When one has to go off into la la land one has pretty much admitted that he is wrong.


    Also your problem is that you are not consistent in your definitions. You use one sort of "authority" for Christianity and another for the sciences. Don't do that. Remember how you complained about how the word Darwinism is in Social Darwinism? I found a 'Christian" group with the word Christian in their name. Most Christians would rightfully claim that they are not Christians. All that people are demanding is that you be consistent with your terminology. I never said that Social Darwinists refute evolution nor that the "Christian" group that I mentioned refute Christianity. That was used to illustrate the foolishness and inconsistency of your "reasoning".

    Try again.
     
  17. Jose Fly

    Jose Fly Fisker of men

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2007
    Messages:
    5,945
    Ratings:
    +4,752
    Hoschton official who decried interracial marriage resigns

    "Cleveland...volunteered that he disagreed with interracial marriage and that seeing whites and blacks on television “makes my blood boil because that’s just not the way a Christian is supposed to live.”"

    Huh. Wonder what sort of "Darwinist" that guy is? :rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,106
    Ratings:
    +672
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    Um, you haven't address this ONE TIME, yet:

    The term "Social Darwinism" stems from being a social theory predicated upon evolutionary theory regarding human races of descent.
     
  19. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,106
    Ratings:
    +672
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    You are unaware that unto recent decades, aboriginal man was presented in museums as a lower, less evolved race? Interesting.
     
  20. BilliardsBall

    BilliardsBall Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2012
    Messages:
    9,106
    Ratings:
    +672
    Religion:
    Messianic Jewish Christianity
    You are claiming that Social Darwinism is unlinked to Darwinism. Interesting...
     
Loading...