|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Why I Don’t Believe the Theory of Evolution 2
« Back to club forum
| |||||||||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Darwin in his own words…Next, maybe later today, I’ll post about how Darwin’s crackpot ideas were used to justify at least two genocides… <<Although best known for On the Origin of Species, Darwin does not address human evolution and race until his 1871 book, The Descent of Man, in which Darwin applies his theories of natural selection to humans and introduces the idea of sexual selection. Here his white supremacism is revealed. Over the course of the book, Darwin describes Australians, Mongolians, Africans, Indians, South Americans, Polynesians, and even Eskimos as “savages:” It becomes clear that he considers every population that is not white and European to be savage. The word savage is disdainful, and Darwin constantly elevates white Europeans above the savages. Darwin explains that the “highest races and the lowest savages” differ in “moral disposition … and in intellect”. The idea that white people are more intelligent and moral persists throughout. At one point, Darwin says that savages have “low morality,” “insufficient powers of reasoning,” and “weak power of self-command”. Darwin’s specific consideration of intellectual capacities is especially alarming. He begins with animals: “No one supposes that one of the lower animals reflects whence he comes or whither he goes,—what is death or what is life, and so forth”. His remarks soon expand to humans. “How little can the hard-worked wife of a degraded Australian savage, who uses hardly any abstract words and cannot count above four, exert her self-consciousness, or reflect on the nature of her own existence”. Darwin writes that Australians are incapable of complex thought, and insinuates that they are akin to lower animals: His perspective on non-European races is incredibly prejudiced and absurd. Modern evolutionary scholars and teachers tend to ignore or omit that component of Darwin’s theory, but it hasn’t gone completely unnoticed. For example, Rutledge Dennis examined Darwin’s role in scientific racism for The Journal of Negro Education and found that in Darwin’s world view, “talent and virtue were features to be identified solely with Europeans”. White supremacy is clearly embedded in The Descent of Man, regardless of Darwin’s brilliance or the accuracy of the rest of his theory. Darwin makes a disturbing link between his belief in white supremacy and his theory of natural selection. He justifies violent imperialism. “From the remotest times successful tribes have supplanted other tribes. … At the present day civilised nations are everywhere supplanting barbarous nations”. Darwin’s theory applies survival of the fittest to human races, suggesting that extermination of non-white races is a natural consequence of white Europeans being a superior and more successful race. Further, Darwin justifies violently overtaking other cultures because it has happened regularly throughout natural history. The arc of Darwin’s evolutionary universe evidently does not bend toward justice: He has no problem with continuing the vicious behavior of past generations. Claims such as those made evident in the title of a 2004 book, “From Darwin to Hitler,” may not be as alarmist as they seem. Not only does Darwin believe in white supremacy, he offers a biological explanation for it, namely that white people are further evolved. He writes that the “western nations of Europe … now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors and stand at the summit of civilization”. Darwin imagines that Europeans are more advanced versions of the rest of the world. As previously mentioned, this purported superiority justified to Darwin the domination of inferior races by Europeans. As white Europeans “exterminate and replace” the world’s “savage races,” and as great apes go extinct, Darwin says that the gap between civilized man and his closest evolutionary ancestor will widen. The gap will eventually be between civilized man “and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla”. Read that last line again if you missed it: Darwin’s theory claims that Africans and Australians are more closely related to apes than Europeans are. The spectrum of organisms is a hierarchy here, with white Europeans at the top and apes at the bottom. In Darwin’s theory, colored people fall somewhere in between. Modern human is essentially restricted only to white Europeans, with all other races viewed as somehow sub-human.>> |
||||||||||||||
|
two lifeforms truly merged into one organism It does not explain the origin of life itself, but does seem to demonstrate one species evolving into another. For the first time in one billion years, two lifeforms truly merged into one organism www.msn.com |
||||||||||||||
|
I don’t think any evidence exists that a common-sense definition of species ever evolved into another common-sense definition of species or that evolution on that scale takes place by random mutations and natural selection, which is what Neo-Darwinism claims. Neo-Darwinism is a wild hypothesis in search of evidence and has been since Darwin proposed it. In fact, Darwin developed his wild guess first - and then went in search of evidence to support it (and never found it) which is the opposite of how science is supposed to be practiced. But Darwin was a naturalist and not a scientist. |
||||||||||||||
|
I plan to post quite a bit on the strong ties between Darwin’s ideas and genocides; this is just the first. <<Roots of Genocide INTERVIEW: Richard Weikart on how Hitler was Darwin's ideological grandson by Marvin Olasky [This interview was originally published in World magazine in April 2005 and is available at their website: www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=10552 Phillip Johnson, leader of the Intelligent Design movement, writes, "The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed." That philosophy is Darwinism, and its influence on Adolf Hitler has been much debated, but Richard Weikart, a professor at California State University, Stanislaus and a Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute, should close the debate with a well-researched, scholarly book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). He shows how Darwinism made abortion and racial extermination keys to progress rather than reversions to barbarism, and convincingly argues that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian rather than nihilistic principles. WORLD: When late 19th- and early 20th-century Darwinians examined the value of human life through their new lens, what did they tend to find? WEIKART: Not all Darwinists agreed, but many leading Darwinists, such as Ernst Haeckel, claimed that the descent of humans from animals overthrew the "anthropocentric fable." In their zeal to explain all human traits naturalistically, Darwin and Haeckel denied that humans have a soul. Because of this, many Darwinists rejected the Judeo-Christian sanctity-of-human-life ethic. Further, since the human struggle for existence produces mass death, many Darwinists saw the death of the "unfit" as a means to evolutionary progress. Some even took the next step to propose that killing the "unfit" (i.e., the disabled and inferior races) would benefit humanity. WORLD: How did Darwinism contribute to moral relativism and make evolutionary progress, supposedly brought about by racial struggle, the greatest good? WEIKART: Darwin argued that morality evolved from "social instincts" of animals. He explained that moral characteristics, such as loyalty or honesty, are biological traits favoring groups who possessed them in the human struggle for existence. In his autobiography Darwin confessed that one "can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones." Ironically, while relativizing morality, many Darwinists inconsistently made evolutionary progress a new moral goal: Whatever contributed to the health and vitality of the human species was morally justified, and whatever led to biological degeneration was evil. WORLD: What are the major historical connections between Darwinism and Hitler's ideology? WEIKART: German biologists, anthropologists, physicians, and other scholars used Darwinian theory to promote eugenics, euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination long before Hitler arrived on the scene. Many of these thinkers would have been aghast at the Holocaust, since few were as rabidly anti-Semitic as Hitler, and some were even Jews themselves. Nonetheless, their philosophy of death for the "unfit" had a strong influence on Hitler's ideology. The world-renowned geneticist Fritz Lenz even bragged that Hitler's worldview was shaped by Lenz's writings on human heredity, eugenics, and racism. WORLD: How did Hitler's Mein Kampf reflect a belief in an inescapable Darwinian struggle for existence? WEIKART: Darwinist terminology and concepts are prominent in many of Hitler's writings and speeches. In Mein Kampf he stated, "If reproduction as such is limited and the number of births decreased, then the natural struggle for existence, which only allows the strongest and healthiest to survive, will be replaced by the obvious desire to save at any cost even the weakest and sickest; thereby a progeny is produced, which must become ever more miserable, the longer this mocking of nature and its will persists. . . . A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called humaneness of individuals, in order to make place for the humaneness of nature, which destroys the weak to make place for the strong." This quotation illustrates my assertion that Hitler promoted an evolutionary ethic.>> www.csustan.edu |
||||||||||||||
|
This is exactly what the article claims that science is viewing right now. Are you arguing with the scientists or the article that quotes them? |
||||||||||||||
|
I thought that was clear from my post at 14:33. |
||||||||||||||
|
Excerpts… <<Abstract There has been a lot of media hype recently over the discovery of a nitrogen-fixing organelle in a saltwater alga. The hype has been so strong that some pop-sci sites have proclaimed it a “once in a billion year” event. However, stripping away the hype and digging into the evidence reveals that, while the discovery is unique and interesting, evolutionists have nothing to be excited about. It provides no evidence for the evolutionary model. Recently, there has been a raft of pop-sci headlines proclaiming something like this: “Scientists Discover Once-in-a-Billion-Year Event—2 Lifeforms Merging to Create a New Cell Part.”1 Of course, pop-sci articles are largely just propaganda based on university press releases and carefully catered quotes from scientists, so this is hardly surprising. When you strip away the trappings, you’ll discover that the pop-sci articles are all wet (entirely wrong).>> <<Is UCYN-A an Independent Creature or Part of Its Host? As usual, however, the ointment has a rather large and ugly fly. The initial problem is that UCYN-A has not been independently cultivated.5 What that means is it has yet to be separated from its supposed host and grown in the lab. In itself, that is not conclusive. It is possible we simply do not know how to cultivate UCYN-A yet. However, there are other factors to consider. UCYN-A fixes nitrogen and then passes that nitrogen to its host in exchange for carbon. The cell tightly regulates this exchange, even when environmental conditions differ.6 Further, even when environmental nitrogen is plentiful, the cell still relies on UCYN-A to fix the majority of its required nitrogen.7 What this means is that UCYN-A and its host are deeply interconnected. Further, the UCYN-A genome lacks many genes that would be necessary to be free-living. Typical cyanobacteria have a photosystem to produce oxygen and a second pathway to fix atmospheric carbon. UCYN-A lacks both and has a genome much smaller than expected.8 In fact, the genome is even referred to as being similar to chloroplast genomes. In a paper looking at two sub-lineages of UCYN-A, the authors suggested that the two lineages and their hosts had “co-evolved” independently.9 This means that the two hosts and the two UCYN-A lineages were different. These two sub-lineages lack the same pathways and have 96.6% of the same genes, likely indicating a common ancestral origin.10 The standard hypothesis has been that UCYN-A inhabits B. bigelowii as an endosymbiont. As an endosymbiont, it shed a large chunk of its genome that it no longer needed as it could get its carbon and oxygen from its host. In support of this hypothesis is the symbiotic nature of its relationship with its host (both benefit). Also, a 2013 study found that there were DNA similarities between B. bigelowii’s spherical internal structure and UCYN-A, leading the authors to conclude that UCYN-A was an endosymbiont in B. bigelowii.11 Even before then, UCYN-A was hypothesized to be in a symbiotic relationship with B. bigelowii due to its inability to obtain the carbon it needs to survive independently.12>> <<UCYN-A: Not an Example of Evolution So what is really going on? Breaking through the smoke, mirrors, and contradictory evidence, it appears that the researchers misidentified UCYN-A when it was discovered. It is not a cyanobacteria and never was: it is a previously undiscovered type of organelle. One paper even called it “a very unusual cyanobacterium.”17 The fact that UCYN-A needs proteins from its purported host is a very strong point in favor of the organelle position. This, however, does not mean that it evolved from a previous endosymbiont.>> <<In short, UCYN-A would have a lot of hurdles to jump through to go from a free-living organism to an endosymbiont, let alone an organelle. The case of UCYN-A is an interesting one but does not represent what pop-sci articles claim. Whatever it turns out to be, it is definitely not a case of evolution in action. It most likely is a case of mistaken identity that is slowly being corrected. After all, scientists are not infallible.>> answersingenesis.org |
||||||||||||||
|
I agree it doesn’t explain the origin of life but disagree that it demonstrates one species evolving into another. If A evolves into B but B needs A to survive, is B really a separate species? If B lacks the genes to survive on its own, is B really a separate species? |
||||||||||||||
|
Vic |
||||||||||||||
|
If you have no rebuttal to the article I posted and my post at 17:05, it’s Ok not to say anything. You don’t have to pick a fight. |
||||||||||||||
|
BBC Series www.bbc.co.uk. |
||||||||||||||
|
But I’d ask if what he proposes was demonstrated by observation or an experiment because that’s what science is based upon (or used to be based upon before Darwin’s wild guess of molecules-to-man evolution was seen as credible.) As far as I know, scientists have been trying for 50+ years to create life (not to mention create new species out of bacteria and fruit flies) and haven’t been successful. |
||||||||||||||
|
Just food for thought… “Watch This Christian Professor SHUT DOWN Evolution Theory in 5 Minutes!” youtu.be Video is 9:10 |
||||||||||||||
|
“Christian Student DESTROYS Evolutionism” youtube.com Video is 2:58 No, I didn’t post this to rekindle a debate on the theory of molecules-to-man evolution. It just appeared in my YouTube feed. And yes, I’m aware abiogenesis is not part of the theory of molecules-to-man evolution and that an explanation exists from evolutionists as to why transitional creatures are not alive today. But there oughta be tons of transitional fossils and there aren’t, which Darwin himself acknowledged (and it really hasn’t gotten better since.) |
||||||||||||||
|
bridlad 10-May-25, 07:50 |
It has However In 1859, when Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as "the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory," but he explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record. He noted the limited collections available at the time but described the available information as showing patterns that followed from his theory of descent with modification through natural selection. Indeed, Archaeopteryx was discovered just two years later, in 1861, and represents a classic transitional form between earlier, non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Many more transitional fossils have been discovered since then, and there is now abundant evidence of how all classes of vertebrates are related, including many transitional fossils. Specific examples of class-level transitions are: tetrapods and fish, birds and dinosaurs, and mammals and "mammal-like reptiles". You just dont care to hear about them,do you ? I understand, far too much sunken cost in acknowledging Evolution is real for you. And far too many life ties. |
||||||||||||||
|
How many transitional fossils are there? |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
“Stephen Meyer Takes On Darwin's Tree” youtu.be Video is 16:32 “Fossil Evidence for Human Evolution: Hype or Good Science? (Science Uprising Bonus Interview)” youtu.be Video is 12:36 |
||||||||||||||
|
bridlad 12-May-25, 04:14 |
Transitional fossils 1 ? 10 ? 100 ? 1000 ? But I do "know " you, I posted here a couple of years ago So lets say I dont then, you religious by any chance ? |
||||||||||||||
|
But you seem to want to steer this conversation toward religion, which is what evolutionists always do when asked questions about molecules-to-man evolution. And no, I’m not religious. I’m a Christian and have been saved by Jesus Christ and have a relationship with Jesus Christ. So you don’t know how many transitional fossils exist? Doesn’t that concern you as the fossil record is supposed to be the primary evidence for molecules-to-man evolution? Can you even estimate how many transitional fossils exist? |
||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
Evolutionists explain it this way; Throw in a proposed scenario such as your's here, into a big washing machine. Now, let those parts get mixed up and given enough time eventually they will come together and form the scenario they have theorized. Mathamatical probability is a law of mad scientists which firmly believe (requiring more faith than common sense) these ideas have to be true. "22 Professing to be wise, they became fools," / Romans 1:22 |
||||||||||||||
|
bridlad 15-May-25, 06:17 |
So the answer is yes The bottom line is that you are a god believer It doesnt matter which of those clubs you are in, it still makes it impossible for you to digest facts that do not align with godly stuff. Same with Muslims Hindis, Mormons and so on |
||||||||||||||
|
Birdlad The terminology " godly stuff " is a vague, ambiguous and highly subjective form of terminology. Now if you are actually referring to "the Bible"; then that's a different story. Then I offer you to present some specificity to your argument. So that we can discuss it rather than simply making proclamation to one another. What exactly do you see as facts that don't align? Like everyone else on this planet opinions are cheap. |
||||||||||||||
|
Hear! Hear! I couldn't have introduced logical sentiments, or invited clarity in a more practical manner . . Yes, please, some definitions of terms and less ambiguity is indeed in order, please? |
||||||||||||||
|
bridlad 15-May-25, 09:44 |
Godly stuff Do you imagine Muslims, Hindis and so on beleive exactly the same as you ? Bible and Koran, and so on, all very interesting stories and attempts by humans to give some understanding of that which they had no understanding of..thats is all. So the world was made in 7 days 2000 or so years ago ? Carbon dating is not an exact science, but it isnt that bad. |
||||||||||||||
|
Birdlad No, I do not believe that Muslims or Hindus believe as I do. Nor do I believe that they have too. That isn't any of my business and it is way WAY above my pay grade (1 denarius). I don't concern myself with what others believe or don't believe. You should try it sometime it's quite liberating. Also the suppositions that follow about interesting stories. Is duely noted and if course you are entitled to your opinion. "So the world was made in 7 days 2000 or so years ago ?" Show me where in the Bible it says that the "world " was made in 7 days? I'll save you some time... It doesn't. the Bible says creation happened in six days, and the seventh day was when God rested. It also doesn't give a date or say how old creation or the world is. People have mistakenly tried to calculate it's age, by being disobedient to the very Bible it's which states clearly... The part of the Bible that says not to pour over meaningless genealogies is 1 Timothy 1:4. This verse warns against devoting attention to "myths and endless genealogies," which lead to useless speculation and arguments rather than advancing God's work through faith. Paul also gives a similar warning in Titus 3:9 So my friend your suppositions are not exactly correct or accurate. And that's ok because you are entitled to your opinion. Which you seem to think is fact. But that's ok too. Feel free to add any follow up questions |
||||||||||||||
|
Macroevolution Unsubstantiated/ Proven Can you please address the problems and inconsistencies with the evolutionary premise of species of animals developing from one to another? This article from Institute of Creation Research spotlights some of the problems associated with evolutionary science and their adequately explaining that. "The Scientific Case Against Evolution" Evolution Is Not Happening Now First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and -- apparently -- unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. www.icr.org |
||||||||||||||
|
@bridlad If you want to discuss Christianity, God or the Bible, plenty of threads exist for that. Meanwhile, do you have any estimate for the number of alleged transitional fossils that exist? Did you watch the videos I posted about why the fossil record does not support molecules-to-man evolution? Plenty of people who believe God exists also believe (imo quite foolishly) in molecules-to-man evolution, and plenty of agnostics and atheists don’t believe in Neo-Darwinism. It’s really a theory that becomes more and more discredited as time goes on. Perhaps a better naturalistic theory will arise for the origin of species. Check out the Third Way of Evolution’s website for some of the ideas. Darwin’s random variation (now known as random mutation) and natural selection is no longer credible as a way to explain the origin of species, imo. Adaptation, maybe. But not beyond that, imo. |
||||||||||||||
|
VF Now try to eyeball that through fossil format. While fossils are very important and good to study they aren't the be all end all that people think they are and they need other methods of evaluation and measure. It would be great if we could find a way to extract genetic material (, especially through bone marrow) However species can grow and adapt, they can also experience genetic mutation brought about by environmental aspects like cosmic rays, neutrinos and the like that can destroy DND causing mutation. As well as viruses that can reprogram and introduce genes actually editing DNA. And there are more viruses on this planet than Stars in the observable Universe. So evolution is a thing. And I don't blame anyone for questioning the current wealth of knowledge. To quote Max Tegmark, "I'd rather have questions I can't answer than answers I can't question " |
||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
