Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Social Darwinism

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 26 posts ] 
Social Darwinism
Author Message
GoodKatUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Hell (South Carolina)

Post Social Darwinism

So me and a creationist are having a debate over how my belief in Evolution should affect my actions, I sent him a message asking:
The gist of your argument has been that as an evolutionist I should be behaving in a way that would best promote my own genes, correct?

And he replied with:
You can do whatever you want. However the next person who is found to be killing old people, you should never chastise them, neither should society, after all they are providing a benefcial service.

When there is some racist who tries to cause problems with other races, then they are to be congratulated for they are merely acting to secure their posterities place in the world.

In fact should there be a dispicable old man who decides to impregnate some poor teenage girl (against her will) then surely you (as an evolutionist) will think of him as the future of the human race as he in trying to ensure that his genes are passed on to the next generation in anyway possible, rather than him being a vile piece of scum.

You say that is does not tell you how to live your life it just tells us how life works. Well how things work define what is acceptable in life. You don't punish people for doing what is normal and what causes the human race to advance, that would be foolish. So Hitler far from being the evil man he was protrayed as is actually a great guy, after all he killed all the loon's and the gay people who were wasting the earth's resources that could have gone to health reproducing people?!?!?!

Obviously he doesn't understand the implications of our social nature, and doesn't seem to know how to justify morality without religion, though I'm not quite sure how to articulate my words to tell him.
My discussions are a search for truth, and for that search to be honest, all parties involved must be open to the prospect of being wrong.
What is there to gain in guessing about that which cannot be known?
Fri May 08, 2009 8:18 pm
desertedcitiesUser avatarPosts: 74Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:53 amLocation: wØØt

Post Re: Social Darwinism

Awwww, I "bawww'd."

Now whenever morality and religion are put into the same sentence, I always think of that survey on torture. It almost clouds the rest of the thoughts on the subject...

I don't know how to help, honestly, so I'm not going to be much help... (This looks like a job for theowarner!).
Derp.
Fri May 08, 2009 8:23 pm
YIM WWW
PuppetXenoPosts: 131Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:23 amLocation: out there

Post Re: Social Darwinism

Well, he says "How things work define what is acceptable in life", but this is not the case.

You already said it: "he doesn't understand the implications of our social nature"

Indeed, what we FEEL and THINK define what is acceptable in life.

And if you want it hard-boiled: What are genes worth if they cause despair, pain, anguish and fear in the lifeforms they produce? And, if compassion and empathy are (atleast partially) embedded in our DNA, then surely we will find the old man attempting to rape a young woman despicable, and we will want to keep him from doing so: if it is in his genes to not care about the young woman's feelings, then surely we will not want those genes passed on to a future generation.

Hope it helps a bit.
Fri May 08, 2009 8:34 pm
Aught3ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 4290Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:36 amLocation: New Zealand Gender: Male

Post Re: Social Darwinism

This is the naturalistic fallacy, he's claiming what is 'natural' is right or good. I think you should start with this point, and explain that we use other criteria to decide whether a certain action is right or wrong.

Then follow up with your second point about human being naturally social anyway. Killing and rape are not beneficial to group cohesion and hence, would have impacted on individual survivability.

If you wanted to you could point out that races are so closely related genetically that genes wouldn't 'care' about racist behaviour in term of reproduction, but instead racism is more likely to flow from in group cohesion behaviours. This takes you full circle to the naturalistic fallacy as we no longer consider racist behaviours acceptable.

Flesh it out a bit, and his argument is destroyed.
Wanderer, there is no path, the path is made by walking.
Fri May 08, 2009 9:27 pm
WWW
GoodKatUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Hell (South Carolina)

Post Re: Social Darwinism

I replied with
You are greatly oversimplifying the matter to the point that you completely disregard the implications of our social nature. All humans share a very large percentage of their DNA, in fact, the two most genetically different humans alive today share approximately 99.5% of their genes. What this means is that even those who do not reproduce, but contribute to society(gay people, seniors, ect.) still are aiding in the progress of humanity, and are even helping their genes to propagate.

If everyone behaved selfishly as you describe society would crumble, and humanity would lose one of its greatest advantages- group cooperation. This cooperation is vital to our survival, without it we would have died out long ago, and essential to our ability to cooperate is a moral code.

As I said before, racism is ridiculous as genetic diversity helps ensure a species' survival in ever-changing environments. And from a philosophical standpoint, there is no objective system to judge the inherent value of a human, thus the best assumption is equal human rights.

Tell me, if I were to convince you of the validity of evolution(I certainly hope you consider this a possibility, if not, I'm wasting my time), would you be swayed by your own arguments? And in that light, I would also like to know your opinion on the age of the earth, how much of the theory of evolution is valid, the reliability of the Bible and how it is to be interpreted, and the trustworthiness of the scientific community.
My discussions are a search for truth, and for that search to be honest, all parties involved must be open to the prospect of being wrong.
What is there to gain in guessing about that which cannot be known?
Fri May 08, 2009 9:50 pm
PuppetXenoPosts: 131Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:23 amLocation: out there

Post Re: Social Darwinism

That's a great response!

You also gave him a queue to play Devil's Advocate a bit "would you be swayed by your own arguments?" That's generally a good tactic to exploit. If necessary, try to make him think of arguments against his own, "what evidence and/or arguments could convince you that evolution is real?"

It's ofcourse only fair to return the favor in advance, what would convice YOU that divine creation is real? (personally I have a hard time thinking of anything.....)

There's a possibility he will slam shut, then you could go over the evidence one bit at a time. "What about the fossil record? How can the fossil record convince you? Why doesn't it convince you?"

What about dating methods, (interspecies) DNA comparison, up to astrophysics etcetera etcetera. Just put the emphasis on the scientific side of things, and keep asking what the requirements are for convincing him and why the present evidence is not convincing. He'll expose the flaws in his knowledge which you can then point out and correct.

This is a strategy I've been succesfully using on a coworker of mine, he is still theist but no longer creationist. Well atleast I drove him back to the big bang.. lol
Fri May 08, 2009 10:08 pm
OzymandyusUser avatarPosts: 986Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:02 pm

Post Re: Social Darwinism

The counterpoint to this is of course that all religious people should seek death as soon as possible and fight tooth and nail (and machine gun) to convert everyone as this is the highest good you can do in life - convert someone to your religion thus getting them a life of eternal salvation.

It doesn't matter if you kill anyone who already believes, because they are already going to heaven, and if you kill someone in an attempt to convert them you either have done something really good (converting them, saving them from eternal torture) or good (sent someone damned to the place God wants them to be.) And if you die, you were doing God's work. Virgins here I come!
And in an instant all progress towards the sublime, the great and enduring in man fell away and became a monkey's trick.
Fri May 08, 2009 10:13 pm
SpasePosts: 135Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:25 amLocation: California, USA

Post Re: Social Darwinism

Your response was pretty solid.

The only thing I would add, and you covered it pretty well, is that morality has nothing to do with whether natural selection is responsible for speciation. That's like putting moral value on gravity. It's not more moral to jump off a cliff because it's gravity at work.. it isn't immoral to fly.. the act of sitting down isn't morally superior to standing up. Natural selection is an explanation, not a prescription.

I don't understand where this strange connection to morality comes from in these people's heads.. unless they've just been told so many times that "Darwinism" is a dogma that they really believe we derive our morals from it rather than the natural moral instincts humans come equipped with.. which ironically enough are tuned to give us the most evolutionary advantage possible..
Sat May 09, 2009 9:03 am
GoodKatUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Hell (South Carolina)

Post Re: Social Darwinism

I can't believe his response....

"You are greatly oversimplifying the matter to the point that you completely disregard the implications of our social nature."
No I'm just saying your idea of social behaviour (equal rights) works completely against evolution. For a species to progress the weak must die off, this cannot happen if they are being artificially maintained by the strong of the group. This is contrary to how things should function.

If you think gay people and seniors still contribute to society, instead of arguing we can just change the topic to invalids, I dont know wht the PC term for them is, so please don't take offence.

"humanity would lose one of its greatest advantages- group cooperation"
I agree, evolution doesn't. It would hold back our speicies and so in years to come more efficient creatures with no compassion will over rule us because we're inefficient and backward.

"genetic diversity helps ensure a species' survival"
You say that, but evolution says that the weak MUST die out which by definition requires removing DNA which is not appropriate. Your thoughts are not consistent with the theory.

"And from a philosophical standpoint"
Errr, no, you have to run on science not philosophy, that would suggest that we have morals, animals don't have morals and we're just intelligent animals.

Tell me, if I were to convince you of the validity of evolution would you be swayed by your own arguments?
No, because I can see that morality is necessary for human life to function. "Ahhh" you say, "so you agree!". Yes I do agree that morality is necessary but that is WHY I know that evolutions is a crock in the first place. It says that A + B + C = a great society and then when you add them up yourself A + B + C = a disfunctional pesudo-hell. So you know its not right.

It also says E + F = disfunction and then when your work it out E + F = the most efficient society that can possibly exist. This is the VERY point I am making.
One can only accept evolution if they blindly ignore every piece of experience they will ever receive, I'm not sure if you're read 1984 but it reminds me of doublethink.

I would also like to know your opinion on the age of the earth, how much of the theory of evolution is valid
micro evolution

the reliability of the Bible
100%

how it is to be interpreted
with great care and hours of consideration

the trustworthiness of the scientific community
depends, I can't make an accurate generalisation and would be foolish to try.

You didnn't say about endangered species...

And in that light, I would also like to know your opinion on the age of the earth, how much of the theory of evolution is valid, the reliability of the Bible and how it is to be interpreted, and the trustworthiness of the scientific community.


I'm simply dumbfounded.
My discussions are a search for truth, and for that search to be honest, all parties involved must be open to the prospect of being wrong.
What is there to gain in guessing about that which cannot be known?
Sat May 09, 2009 6:43 pm
PuppetXenoPosts: 131Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:23 amLocation: out there

Post Re: Social Darwinism

Wow, scary shit.

It seems he doesn't understand that evolution isn't an active process, it just comes with successive generations of reproduction. A species doesn't "progress", it changes by adapting to environmental/habitational changes. Evolution isn't a ladder, and the "weak" do not have to die off. It is flawed to think of weak and strong individuals in the matter of reproductive success, how does one define who is weak and who is strong? Weak and strong to what criteria? Keeping the old and the sick alive because they're family is contrary to how things should function? There are no rules to how evolution should function, there are mechanisms by which it does function. And it is indeed not a prescription, but a description.

His understanding of evolution is deeply flawed.
Sat May 09, 2009 6:58 pm
MokyUser avatarPosts: 175Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:41 am Gender: Female

Post Re: Social Darwinism

It's why I don't even bother to argue in the first place. It saves you the frustration.
Sat May 09, 2009 7:00 pm
darthrender2010User avatarPosts: 273Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:35 amLocation: Emmitsburg MD, USA

Post Re: Social Darwinism

he obviously doesn't have an understanding of the theory. you should definitely incorporate that into your next response if there is one.

especially that evolution doesn't say the weak die off, it says that those who pass on their genes are more prevalent in the gene pool. "Survival of the fittest" has little to do with actual survival of an individual, but if that individual succeeds in reproducing.

that's one of the main flaws with Social Darwinism.

edit: lol, I see someone beat me to the punch
"It's just a theory"
Theory of Gravity
Cell Theory
Atomic Theory
Theory of Evolution
Sat May 09, 2009 7:04 pm
Aught3ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 4290Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:36 amLocation: New Zealand Gender: Male

Post Re: Social Darwinism

If you're going to reply I'd point out that societies occur in nature. Anything from the other great apes to social insects like bees and ants. Co-operation is a consequence of evolution.
Wanderer, there is no path, the path is made by walking.
Sat May 09, 2009 9:48 pm
WWW
OzymandyusUser avatarPosts: 986Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 8:02 pm

Post Re: Social Darwinism

Beyond that, even people that we perceive as inferior in some way may have beneficial traits that may be heritable, thus it is in our best interest to keep everyone alive. Genetic diversity is beneficial for the entire population, and it may well be that someone with huntington's or down's syndrome that this guy would sterilize/kill also has other beneficial traits like immunity to the coming superbacteria....

Edit:oh you said that he just didn't understand.

Beyond on that, evolution is just one thing about humans - our social evolution is just as important and works by many of the same principles of genetic evolution. Evolution is not my way of life, its just how I came to be. People that don't understand that just don't think deeply about anything. Not much you can do about it.
And in an instant all progress towards the sublime, the great and enduring in man fell away and became a monkey's trick.
Sat May 09, 2009 11:47 pm
MappUser avatarPosts: 324Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 2:12 pmLocation: Washington, DC, USA

Post Re: Social Darwinism

I think Potholer54 had the most eloquent answer with regards to Social Darwinism: If people actually believe that might makes right is what evolution is all about, then that's all the more reason to teach people the truth about the theory.
Sun May 10, 2009 2:07 am
ImprobableJoeLime TordUser avatarPosts: 6195Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 3:24 pm

Post Re: Social Darwinism

Moky wrote:It's why I don't even bother to argue in the first place. It saves you the frustration.

It seems to be the best way to go. You should make the first attempt, but when someone refuses to attempt to understand the basics of what they are trying to argue against, they are letting you know that they do not intend to have an honest discussion with you.
Come visit my blog! There will be punch and pie!
Sun May 10, 2009 2:10 am
GoodKatUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Hell (South Carolina)

Post Re: Social Darwinism

Ok, update time, I replied with:

First I will answer the questions about my opinions.

"The age of the earth"
~4.55 Billions years, judging by radiometric dating of the oldest homogeneous lead-lead isotope systems on the planet and meteorites from the same accretion disc which formed the planet.

"How Much of the theory of Evolution is valid"
The theory has been refined, added to, and corrected over time. It's core principals continue to hold true after 150 years of critical inquiry by geniuses. I see it in the same light that I see Sir Isaac Newton's theory of Gravity, it is approximately correct in most common situations, but is not as specific as Einstein's.

"The reliability of the Bible and how it is to be interpreted"
I see the Bible the same way I see any other book of primitive mythology. When looked at in this light it becomes much easier to understand, all the "why?"s go away.

"The trustworthiness of the scientific community"
Every scientists has at least two jobs, one is to do their own research, and the other is to critique the work of their peers. If a scientist publishes a report with faulty reasoning or insufficient evidence to support its claims, the other scientists will rip it to shreds. If a scientists fakes findings, the combined research of other scientists will eventually reveal their deception, and they will be blackballed by the community. Thus generally the longer the community has been in agreement over an idea, the more likely it is to be correct. Articles in scientific journals are generally very reliable, things uttered during interviews are to be taken with a grain of salt.


I will respond to the rest of your message later, it appears I have been tasked with the drudgery of manually removing all the misinformation and faulty reasoning that has been given to you.


To which he responded:

"I see the Bible the same way I see any other book of primitive mythology. When looked at in this light it becomes much easier to understand, all the "why?"s go away."
On the contrary, if it was just a load of Myths the astounding wisdom of it just doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense that Jesus would speak such truth and then at the same time be a complete liar.

"The theory has been refined, added to, and corrected over time. It's core principals continue to hold true after 150 years of critical inquiry by geniuses."
The geniuses of the world used to think the world was flat.

"I see it in the same light that I see Sir Isaac Newton's theory of Gravity"
I really... really don't.

While usually science is objective when it comes to God that isn't always the case. Check the quote on my channel for the most honest example.

"it appears I have been tasked with the drudgery of manually removing all the misinformation and faulty reasoning that has been given to you"
My condolences, all information regarding I have received either in formal education or from secular web based sources. Feel free to complain to either about the false information they provide... oh wait one video I have was based on what was said by a Cambridge University Lecturer, I suppose doesn't fall into either of the former categories.

Hope you're good
P

(Note he didn't contest the age of the earth)

And following up my other message, I sent:

"I agree, evolution doesn't. It would hold back our species and so in years to come more efficient creatures with no compassion will over rule us because we're inefficient and backward."
Sou you agree that cooperation is one of our greatest strengths, but you think it would hold us back? Did you know that ants compose more of the bio-matter on earth than any other animal?

"You say that, but evolution says that the weak MUST die out which by definition requires removing DNA which is not appropriate. Your thoughts are not consistent with the theory."
Who is and isn't "weak" is determined by the environment, and because of this, the "weak" DO die out, bear in mind that we have exponentially more influence on our environment than any other species. For example, the during the holocaust, the Jews were "unfit" for survival BECAUSE of the nazis, just like if a government order was issued that all people with blonde hair are to be executed, I would immediately become "weak" due to the environment such an order would create.

"Errr, no, you have to run on science not philosophy, that would suggest that we have morals, animals don't have morals and we're just intelligent animals."
We are talking about what is logical in the case that evolution is correct, one cannot logically justify racism in terms of evolution because there is no objective measurement for "fitness", and because different races increase diversity, increasing adaptability. Also, all social animals have moral codes.

"micro evolution"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution#Misuse
And you neglected to mention your opinion on the age of the earth.

"100%"
So when the Bible tells me in Genesis that Abraham named the place that he almost sacrificed Isaac at "The Lord will Provide"(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2022:14;&version=31;), and then in Exodus tells me that God was not known to Abraham by the title "The Lord"(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%206:2-3;&version=31;) What am I supposed to think? (Jehovah{The Lord} being the same Hebrew word in both verses: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H3068 and http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=H3070 {note the actual Hebrew letters})

"You didn't say about endangered species..."
I missed that one. Most species become endangered due to human activity, causing many to feel responsible for their survival, of course that is at most vaguely connected to our species' well being. Many endangered species play a vital role in their environment, and if they were to disappear, it could negatively affect the wildlife in a way that would be detrimental to humans.

The rest of your questions/assertions should be nicely answered/countered by this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

I ask that you please consider all of the information I have sent you before responding, I know it's a lot, but I think the knowledge gained will be worth it. As I said, you seems to have several misconceptions about evolution that I honestly can't blame you for, but your willingness to listen makes this worthwhile.
My discussions are a search for truth, and for that search to be honest, all parties involved must be open to the prospect of being wrong.
What is there to gain in guessing about that which cannot be known?
Sun May 10, 2009 11:10 pm
Aught3ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 4290Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 3:36 amLocation: New Zealand Gender: Male

Post Re: Social Darwinism

You're doing quite well imho GoodKat :D

GoodKat wrote:Who is and isn't "weak" is determined by the environment, and because of this, the "weak" DO die out, bear in mind that we have exponentially more influence on our environment than any other species. For example, the during the holocaust, the Jews were "unfit" for survival BECAUSE of the nazis, just like if a government order was issued that all people with blonde hair are to be executed, I would immediately become "weak" due to the environment such an order would create.
I think this comment is likely to come back waaaaay out of context though.

I would take him to task on the 'flat earth' comment. People used to think Earth was flat because it make sense from the observation of the world around them. It's similar to the LHC at CERN, if you walk through the underground tunnel it appears to be a straight line but you eventually come back to where you started. Furthermore, once the Greeks worked out that Earth was spherical the only authority that continued to insist that it was flat was the church. There are even some people who believe it today based on bible verses.
Wanderer, there is no path, the path is made by walking.
Sun May 10, 2009 11:28 pm
WWW
GoodKatUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Hell (South Carolina)

Post Re: Social Darwinism

Here are his replies.
Almost all mythology and folklore has been embellished with moral lessons and intelligent observations
Yes and some of them are just rubbish, what are we to learn from the story of Sisyphus? Rolling rocks are hard work? Repetitve tasks are boring?

Some fables have interesting points but in themselves they are no where near the collection of wisdom that the Bible is. In addition there are lots of principles that the world accepts (nice guys finish last etc) which are just plain wrong. I don't find the same flawed logic in the Bible.

I have honestly never heard any ground-shaking truths from the Bible
Probably because your culture has been based on it for the past 1000 years and familiarity breeds contempt... if you lived in an Islamic country or acient Israel the respect Jesus gave to women probably would be ground breaking.

"I wouldn't call Jesus a complete liar, most cult leaders at least partially buy in to their own rhetoric."
Lair is really quite a binary word, either are or you are not. If you are saying Jesus lied He you are saying He was a liar, the latter part of your sentence suggests He was was insane/delluded. I find that people who lie tend to do it continuously and rarely come out with such wisdom.

One problem is knowing what Jesus actually said, none of the Gospels were written by him, and some of them even provide conflicting reports.
Conflicting reports? Lol like you would accept it if it WAS written by Him... :P
I can hear the argument now... "you can't trust it, it was written by Him, of course He is going to say that". Come on, its written by sveral independant wittnesses, there IS no better evidence.

"The scientific method as we know it did not exist at that time"
I beg to differ, Galileo was just lucky guessing?

"That wasn't science, it was a scientist. Science is Agnostic, it has nothing to say about God."
Science is, people aren't, and last time I checked the body that accepts or rejects findings are people.

"I say all of this because your comments lack the willful ignorance I have seen in so many creationists, and seem to be fueled more by misconception, I am very happy that you seem open to the possibility of being wrong, as anyone should be in an honest discussion."
Careful thats practically fraternizing with the enemy ;-)
I joke, if you would care to highlight my 'misconception'.

"Sou you agree that cooperation is one of our greatest strengths, but you think it would hold us back?"
No.... I agree but evoltion doesn't. That is to say the concept that cooperation is a great strength contradicts evolution.
You are giving me practical eplanations why helping out all memebers of society is a good thing. I know that helping out society is a good thing, it says so in the Bible and I know in practice thats the case. The two line up and thats why the Bible is true.
What you need to consider is that while in practice we can see that co-operation/helping the weak/supporting all memebers of society whether they seem pointless of not, is the key, you have to reconcile that with evolution that argues the opposite. And please don't say that it doesn't. It will just go around in circles.
You are going to say that if co-operation works then obviously thats the most evolved way to be... in that case reconcile the two.

On the one hand co-operating is the most efficient way for us to live.

On the other, if we let the weak and the deficient die off it would progress the species faster.

Those are two statements that you are seeking to support that are mutually exclusive, if you think they're anything else then you are being.... 'optimistic' shall we say?

"Who is and isn't "weak" is determined by the environment, and because of this, the "weak" DO die out, bear in mind that we have exponentially more influence on our environment than any other species. For example, the during the holocaust, the Jews were "unfit" for survival BECAUSE of the nazis, just like if a government order was issued that all people with blonde hair are to be executed, I would immediately become "weak" due to the environment such an order would create."
So? Still makes my point. Were the Nazis not part of the enviroment? Yes of course they were, therefore the Jews become weak part of society. Sick twisted? Yes. Would it fit with Christianity? No. Would it fit with evolution? Yes.

If you want we can go a step further. Make things simpler: people who are so disabled that they cannot talk properly move etc so they are (from an evolutionists perspective) nothing but a drain on society, they are blatently weak by the standard of evolution, are you going to allow them to die? Again Hitler was down with that idea. There is no way you could possibly justify them as anything other than weak, and yet I'm betting you wouldn't kill them. That is preaching evolution and living Christianity.

"one cannot logically justify racism in terms of evolution because there is no objective measurement for "fitness", and because different races increase diversity, increasing adaptability."
Oh but we can, evolution has set us a very good test, its called 'if you die, your not the strongest', therefore if someone has the brains or strength to kill someone else then thats natures way of declaring a winner. Diversity will develop out of the winner when he 'mutates' new genes, remember!

"Also, all social animals have moral codes."
Hmmm, no they are programmed to function in specific ways, which is why if you stimulate the brain of a rat in a certain area it will kill a nearby mouse, even if it has never seen anothr rat doing it and it has never had a lack of food, its just programmed.
And even if you say they do, does that mean we can take morals from animals that generally practice: rape, patricide, domestic violence, incest etc etc.

Age of the earth?
Erm don't know. But I'm inclined to think around 10,000 years.

"So when the Bible tells me..."
I don't have a Hebrew to English Bible only a Greek to English New Testament. I'll have to try and find it somewhere.

"I missed that one. Most species become endangered due to human activity, causing many to feel responsible for their survival, of course that is at most vaguely connected to our species' well being. Many endangered species play a vital role in their environment, and if they were to disappear, it could negatively affect the wildlife in a way that would be detrimental to humans."
Tuh da!!! You're right 100% well and truely correct! And that is the COMPLETE opposite of what evolution tells us, it is the complete antithesis.
To be honest however if you cannot accept that a concrete evidence I don't think that anything will convince you.

That word one however does stump me at the moment. No doubt I'll have to mull over that for a while and see what pops into my head.

No doubt my response is a bit of an essay, but hey, all fun and games eh!

I've had a think about what you said. Very interesting point

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."

It actually makes me wonder whether they interpreted it incorrectly, for example:

Numbers 16:9
Is it a small thing to you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to Himself, to do the work of the tabernacle of the LORD, and to stand before the congregation to serve them;

The person speaking is being rhetorical, there are many examples in the Old Testament of such rhetoric, it makes me wonder if, it actually reads:

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them?*"

*putting in the question mark to make my point
Aurthorised Version (I don't use it but I check with the NKJV and AV when confused

Jehovah (LORD) had personal a connotation and so that would have been making a point also.

This is probably boring as it gets to you but either way I think you may have a point, pity I can't read ancient Hebrew really.
My discussions are a search for truth, and for that search to be honest, all parties involved must be open to the prospect of being wrong.
What is there to gain in guessing about that which cannot be known?
Mon May 11, 2009 8:02 pm
GoodKatUser avatarPosts: 776Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 11:07 pmLocation: Hell (South Carolina)

Post Re: Social Darwinism

My responses(in order)
Sometimes I think the collective wisdom of the Bible is counterbalanced by its collective stupidity(gays are an abomination, women shouldn't speak in church, lust=fornication, anger=murder, me being sinful because of Adam's fuck up, ect.)

I said I wouldn't call Jesus a "complete liar", the reason I pointed out that it wasn't written by him is that if it were, the idea that his wise teachings were his own would be more substantial. Of course, not all of His teachings were so wise(turn the other cheek, forgive 70x7, ect.)

"I beg to differ, Galileo was just lucky guessing?"
He was winging it, the scientific method employed by today's scientists was formalize by Muslims(oh irony) during Islam's golden age.

"Science is, people aren't, and last time I checked the body that accepts or rejects findings are people."
Which is why its good to have that body made up of many diverse people looking for holes in each others' ideas, it kills off bias.

"Careful thats practically fraternizing with the enemy ;-)
I joke, if you would care to highlight my 'misconception'."
In my discussions there are no enemies, just two acquaintances searching for truth. As for your misconceptions, did you read the wikipedia articles?


"No.... I agree but evoltion doesn't. That is to say the concept that cooperation is a great strength contradicts evolution."
Ok I'm going to start having to demand sources from you, I gave you the one on the evolution of morality, but from your reply it looks like you didn't even read it. You keep stating this and that about evolution and much of it has been incorrect, so find me a reputable source that agrees with you, I'm getting sick of countering bare-assertions.

"The two line up and thats why the Bible is true."
(coughbaseratefallacycough)

"On the other, if we let the weak and the deficient die off it would progress the species faster."
As I said, environments change constantly(and rapidly due to our own actions), letting people die off because they aren't as well suited for the current circumstances is extremely short-sighted. How many times will you make me explain this? I hope you aren't being dense on purpose.

"So? Still makes my point. Were the Nazis not part of the environment? Yes of course they were, therefore the Jews become weak part of society. Sick twisted? Yes. Would it fit with Christianity? No. Would it fit with evolution? Yes."
The nazis wasted all that effort to create an environment which was bad for a group of people they hated irrationally, it was stupid and a complete waste of time. If you are really out for humanity's success and you have the ability to manufacture environments, you will make one which is suited for the maximum number of people.

"If you want we can go a step further. Make things simpler: people who are so disabled that they cannot talk properly move etc so they are (from an evolutionists perspective) nothing but a drain on society, they are blatently weak by the standard of evolution, are you going to allow them to die?"
What like Stephen hawking? He sure isn't helping society at all...

"Oh but we can, evolution has set us a very good test, its called 'if you die, your not the strongest', therefore if someone has the brains or strength to kill someone else then thats natures way of declaring a winner. Diversity will develop out of the winner when he 'mutates' new genes, remember!"
Adaptability almost always wins out over efficiency, why wait for new genes to mutate when they're already present in other races? Cooperation>Conflict

"Hmmm, no they are programmed to function in specific ways, which is why if you stimulate the brain of a rat in a certain area it will kill a nearby mouse, even if it has never seen anothr rat doing it and it has never had a lack of food, its just programmed.
And even if you say they do, does that mean we can take morals from animals that generally practice: rape, patricide, domestic violence, incest etc etc."
Animals do not have human morals, but they do have morals, I bet if I inject you with enough testosterone, adrenaline, and methamphetamine and gave you a gun you would kill someone for bumping into you.

"Erm don't know. But I'm inclined to think around 10,000 years."
So I suppose God created the world with enough radioactive decay just to f*** with us, and all the galaxies we see in our telescopes never really existed(Andromeda is 2.5 million light-years away, we see it as it was 2.5 million years ago, but if the world is only 10,000 ears old, we are looking at an illusion.)

"I don't have a Hebrew to English Bible only a Greek to English New Testament. I'll have to try and find it somewhere."
I sent you one.

"Tuh da!!! You're right 100% well and truely correct! And that is the COMPLETE opposite of what evolution tells us, it is the complete antithesis.
To be honest however if you cannot accept that a concrete evidence I don't think that anything will convince you."
No more bare assertions my friend, source or gtfo.


The two websites I linked to are excellent sources. The only way I can see the exodus verse being rhetorical is if there was an "also" between not and known, this would change the entire message of the verse and I seriously doubt that all of the translators of all the versions I have checked would have missed it. I honestly find such things entertaining, I used to debate these things constantly on a forum.

"pity I can't read ancient Hebrew really."
Too bad the all-knowing creator of the universe didn't make His single message to mankind a little easier to understand...
My discussions are a search for truth, and for that search to be honest, all parties involved must be open to the prospect of being wrong.
What is there to gain in guessing about that which cannot be known?
Mon May 11, 2009 9:19 pm
Next
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 1 of 2
 [ 26 posts ] 
Return to Creationism/ID

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest