Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

[PLAYER57832]

Good because I forgot I said that and did not start one. If you wish, go ahead, but sounds like a mute point.

[InkL0sed]

Good because I forgot I said that and did not start one. If you wish, go ahead, but sounds like a mute point.

You mean moot point.

Funny how some words are only ever used in certain expressions. Like "moot" in "moot point."

Anyway... Social Darwinist = bad = .

[MeDeFe]

Someone still needs to explain what Social Darwinism is all about. A de facto reductio ad Hitlerum is not enough.

[PLAYER57832]

Good because I forgot I said that and did not start one. If you wish, go ahead, but sounds like a mute point.

You mean moot point.

Funny how some words are only ever used in certain expressions. Like "moot" in "moot point."

Anyway... Social Darwinist = bad = .

Thank you. I have been making far too many such mistakes lately ...
It might be age .... or motherhood...

[Bavarian Raven]

in aspects of evolution in modern society, it would appear society is on the brink of unevolving...where the "smartest" are having less and less kids....

[got tonkaed]

in aspects of evolution in modern society, it would appear society is on the brink of unevolving...where the "smartest" are having less and less kids....

You didnt by any chance just arrive from a Joe Rogan performance did you?

[tzor]

Someone still needs to explain what Social Darwinism is all about. A de facto reductio ad Hitlerum is not enough.

You know in the 21st century this is simply no longer acceptable. The process of knowledge is simple really. (1) Search wiki. (2) Throw it away and look for a real source.

Social Darwinism is a hypothesis that competition among all individuals, groups, nations or ideas drives social evolution in human societies. The term draws upon Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, where competition between individual organisms drives biological evolutionary change (speciation) through the survival of the fittest.

The term was popularized in 1944 by the American historian Richard Hofstadter, and has generally been used by critics rather than advocates of what the term is supposed to represent.

[PLAYER57832]

Social Darwinism was coined to suggest the idea that societies rose and fell along the lines of "survival of the fittest". It included Eugenics -- the idea that we should encourage humans who were more fit to have more kids (more or less). The idea was used to, for example, justify sterilization of the retarded and other atrocities. Hitler, of course, took this to itsmost terrible extreme.

Here is the thing. there is much more than "survival of the fittest" to explain species survival. Did marsupials survive on Autstralia and mamals elsewhere because Marsupials were somehow better than mammals? Or chance. The reality is that "chance'... or the design of a creator (neither answer can be proved, pick your choice) were involved. The "fittest" ISN'T always the one to survive ... for a lot of reasons.

As much as this is true in biological evolution, it is even more so in societies. In society, we have the addition of human intelligence. Today, we have the ability to ensure that genetically "weak" individuals survive. The traights that we need to survive are our brains, not strong bodies. The most important factor today is, arguably, being born to wealthy parents ... but that, too, is inexact. AND... rife with all kinds of complications.

Only in the most broad terms can one talk about societies evolving into something we consider better. On a WORLD scale, for example we have all but elminated slavery. I would certainly call that a good development. Slavery was once "normal" and those opposing it were "abhorrant". Now, it is pretty universally excluded ... other than a few obsure individuals and groups who can be said to be "outside the norm" or abhorrant.

HOWEVER, that applies only to the world as a whole. Individual societies survive and fall, not so much because they are "better", but through accidents... much as which species survives, which individual survives is as much an "accident"(or attributable to "God" or equivalent) as due to true survival of the "fittest".

[THORNHEART]

look seriously if you believe in evlotuion you cant honestly say you think your right...your just looking for an excuse to say that there is no god and therefore excuse yourself from having to be accountable for you actions.

3 quotes..."the fool hath said in his heart there is no god"

"For god hath chosen the foolish thing of the world to confound the wise"

and finally..." O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust avoiding profane and vain babblings and opposistions of science falsely so called; which some professing have erred concering the faith."

[THORNHEART]

btw i think ill just post this also ...transscript of a discussion on another forum

im in a discussion wit a hard core evolutionist who has an evo site and here r some arguements he refued to answer;



Dan Hilmer wrote:
> Hello ...I read some of your stuff on evolution ect. I have read a defense of
evolution and creation before but I do not own any books on evolution because I havnt had
the opportunity or funds to and also because I live in my parents home still and It would
probably offend them. Nevertheless I am not afraid to read about it or debate on it and I
consider myself open minded.I found it interesting as the creation evolution debate
greatly interests me. I will say I believe in creation and have been to many meetings by
guys like Kent Hovind about creation and evolution. But I dont want to bring up any
biblical arguments because i really prefere to leave the bible out of creation debates
and focus on the attitude of evolutionists as a proof that they cant actually believ
evolution or if they do it is to avoid having to agrue that there is a higher power than
them in the universe.
>

so 1. how do you define morality in evolution because by the very nature of the term
evolution it implies someone could potentially gain a different sense of morality than is
accepted by the other less evolved government or citizen...example this higher evolved
person could think that murder is ok or that stealing from the lesser evolved people is
ok and technically we should not attempt to stop this person because he has evolved
higher than us and to try and stop him would be to impede his progress and then he would
have the right to exterminate us because we are a hindrance to his evolutionary
advancement.

2. If evolution and natural selection are true concepts why should we shed a tear
over the extinction of species? Why should we attempt to save creatures that cant keep up
with human advancement in the world. Why should we create safe zones and restrictions and
generally penelize ourselves for another weaker species that cant exist without our
help...Nature and natural selection have determined they arnt strong enough to exist in
our modern and evolving world(though ive not seen any recent evolving of our species.we
seem to be degenerating if anything in to a lawless immoral society) the same goes for
humans in Africa why should we aid them ? If natural selection is true, nature has
obviously decided to eliminate them from the gene pool therefore why do we continue to
help them? Doesnt that show an unacceptable weakness and soft-heartedness in our selves?
If at all possible and if time permits you I would enjoy reading a response from you on
these points, Dan Hilmer

[Snorri1234]

look seriously if you believe in evlotuion you cant honestly say you think your right...your just looking for an excuse to say that there is no god and therefore excuse yourself from having to be accountable for you actions.

How do you manage to operate a computer and log in on the internet?

[MeDeFe]

You know, Thornheart, the reason why he might not have answered those two points is that they are complete bollocks.

Firstly, he process of natural selection has nothing to do with morality. The fact that species change over time and are in a continuous process of adapting to the environment in which they live has nothing to do with cold-blooded murder.

Secondly, nature doesn't "decide" that some species or race isn't up to par and makes it go extinct, nature isn't some conscious person. A reason why we might not want to make every other species go extinct is that we would ultimately harm ourselves, if we overfish all waters, burn all the forests to make room for crops and grazing, release ever-increasing amounts of poisons and green-house gases into the atmosphere we will not survive. It's in our interest not to disturb the current balance too much because that would most probably change our environment more and faster than we can cope with. Does that qualify as a reason?

As for humanitarian aid, hey, apply Kant (categorical imperative), or Hume (morality from empathy), or Jesus (golden rule), or some other of probably hundreds of thinkers who came up with a good reason for not being a jerk.


Also, you need to make up your mind whether being an amoral, cold-blooded serial killer is rather likely to spread ones genes or not to spread them. I'm inclined to say that it's more likely NOT to spread them, because of the existing social norms such a person would be considered unnormal, abhorrent even, what are his chances of getting laid, and if he kills the woman after having sex with her, how can she possibly bear his child? There isn't some "higher level of evolution" to which we will magically jump and those who happen to be born to it (or achieve it by meditation or anything, I doubt even you are clear on what you mean) are the natural rulers of the world and can do whatever they please.
Of course natural selection is still taking place in human society, there are genes that are more likely to be passed on, but this has nothing to do with some persons magically becoming "higher evolved" than everyone else. I really don't know where you got that weird idea from.

[Snorri1234]

so 1. how do you define morality in evolution because by the very nature of the term
evolution it implies someone could potentially gain a different sense of morality than is
accepted by the other less evolved government or citizen...example this higher evolved
person could think that murder is ok or that stealing from the lesser evolved people is
ok and technically we should not attempt to stop this person because he has evolved
higher than us and to try and stop him would be to impede his progress and then he would
have the right to exterminate us because we are a hindrance to his evolutionary
advancement.

The hilarious thing is, that if you learn a little more about archeaology and evolution, you'll find out that this has happened. The number of human-like species is rather big if you look at our progress from the trees up to here. At times there were 6 different species of homonids, and they frequently killed eachother. Homo Sapiens came out as the winner, after killing and eating a species of homonids who were herbivores and had an awesome mohawk of bone among others.

They did try stopping us though, because the fun thing about evolution is that "higher evolved" doesn't exist. The most succesfull organisms on this planet are mosses. Fucking mosses.

[PLAYER57832]

look seriously if you believe in evlotuion you cant honestly say you think your right...your just looking for an excuse to say that there is no god and therefore excuse yourself from having to be accountable for you actions.

You obviously have not read much of this thread (admittedly, its pretty long, but still ...). I absolutely DO believe in God and am a Christian ... as are, the VAST MAJORITY of those (within the US) who believe Evolution.

The idea that Genesis means that the earth was created in 7 revolutions of the earth is actually a pretty NEW concept. The idea that it is only 4000 years old is less than 200 years old.

3 quotes..."the fool hath said in his heart there is no god"

irrelevant

"For god hath chosen the foolish thing of the world to confound the wise"

Agreed

and finally..." O Timothy keep that which is committed to thy trust avoiding profane and vain babblings and opposistions of science falsely so called; which some professing have erred concering the faith."

read this a bit more carefully ...

And I will add one more
"none is so blind as he who refuses to see..."

Oh, and per the "social Darwinism" bit ... this is not anything I believe, it is merely a clarification of definition.

[bradleybadly]

im in a discussion wit a hard core evolutionist who has an evo site and here r some arguements he refued to answer;

Dan Hilmer wrote:
> Hello ...I read some of your stuff on evolution ect. I have read a defense of
evolution and creation before but I do not own any books on evolution because I havnt had the opportunity or funds to and also because I live in my parents home still and It would probably offend them. Nevertheless I am not afraid to read about it or debate on it and I consider myself open minded.I found it interesting as the creation evolution debate greatly interests me. I will say I believe in creation and have been to many meetings by guys like Kent Hovind about creation and evolution. But I dont want to bring up any biblical arguments because i really prefere to leave the bible out of creation debates and focus on the attitude of evolutionists as a proof that they cant actually believe evolution or if they do it is to avoid having to agrue that there is a higher power than them in the universe.
>
so 1. how do you define morality in evolution because by the very nature of the term evolution it implies someone could potentially gain a different sense of morality than is accepted by the other less evolved government or citizen...example this higher evolved person could think that murder is ok or that stealing from the lesser evolved people is ok and technically we should not attempt to stop this person because he has evolved higher than us and to try and stop him would be to impede his progress and then he would have the right to exterminate us because we are a hindrance to his evolutionary advancement.

2. If evolution and natural selection are true concepts why should we shed a tear
over the extinction of species? Why should we attempt to save creatures that cant keep up with human advancement in the world. Why should we create safe zones and restrictions and generally penelize ourselves for another weaker species that cant exist without our help...Nature and natural selection have determined they arnt strong enough to exist in our modern and evolving world(though ive not seen any recent evolving of our species. we seem to be degenerating if anything in to a lawless immoral society) the same goes for humans in Africa why should we aid them ? If natural selection is true, nature has obviously decided to eliminate them from the gene pool therefore why do we continue to help them? Doesnt that show an unacceptable weakness and soft-heartedness in our selves? If at all possible and if time permits you I would enjoy reading a response from you on these points, Dan Hilmer

See now if Dangerboy had posted something similar to this instead of running off then it would have made for an interesting discussion. I'll take some time to read this a few times before I make up my mind on what points you've addressed and what points you think you've scored.

[Neoteny]

You know, it really is insulting when people of the... elitist, no, that's not the word... holier-than-you perspective think that the only way morality can be achieved is through their own ideology. Evolution is a process, not an example for morality. And it's exceedingly clear that anyone who thinks otherwise really needs to spend more time thinking about what the hell they are talking about. So that's my thought process on point number 1. Point number 2 is actually a point that some evolutionists will contest and is not really applicable to the "debate" as a whole. Really, neither point is that applicable to the existence of evolutionary processes; instead, they are red herring questions on morality that contribute nothing to the validity of evolutionary theory.

Congrats to THORNHEART for not contributing anything relevant to the conversation. Again.

I'd hesitate to applaud this, if I were you, Bradley.

[Frigidus]

2. If evolution and natural selection are true concepts why should we shed a tear
over the extinction of species? Why should we attempt to save creatures that cant keep up
with human advancement in the world. Why should we create safe zones and restrictions and
generally penelize ourselves for another weaker species that cant exist without our
help...Nature and natural selection have determined they arnt strong enough to exist in
our modern and evolving world

I agree wholeheartedly. The heavy, heavy majority of species that have ever existed have died out, why start saving the branches unsuited for their environment?

the same goes for humans in Africa why should we aid them ? If natural selection is true, nature has
obviously decided to eliminate them from the gene pool therefore why do we continue to
help them? Doesnt that show an unacceptable weakness and soft-heartedness in our selves?
If at all possible and if time permits you I would enjoy reading a response from you on
these points, Dan Hilmer

I wouldn't call mercy and pity a weakness. I'm not an advocate of social darwinism, primarily because (aside from the obvious "I'm not a pure evil cartoon villain") we're the one species to come close to beating nature. It's not like we're putting evolution on a throne and worshiping it, it just happens to be a driving force of nature. If we want to help someone then we should. It's not like we're violating a law or anything.

[joecoolfrog]

Creationism is the refuge of those too ignorant and narrow minded to consider its obvious weakness, Thornheart seems remarkably well qualified in this respect.On a more general note why do people only look at one side of a story, what is the point of attending dozens of lectures simply to reinforce ones own prejudice, do people really enjoy being blinkered ?

[Frigidus]

look seriously if you believe in evlotuion you cant honestly say you think your right...your just looking for an excuse to say that there is no god and therefore excuse yourself from having to be accountable for you actions.

While on the topic, it has always seemed to me that religion was a good excuse avoiding accountability. People used to blame Satan for terrible things they did, for example. Plus, who can blame you for your faults when God gave them to you? Wouldn't God's non-existence sort of leave nobody but yourself to lay blame on? I dunno, I've just never seen the connection working the other way around.

[Backglass]

look seriously if you believe in evlotuion you cant honestly say you think your right...your just looking for an excuse to say that there is no god and therefore excuse yourself from having to be accountable for you actions.

Look seriously, if you believe in creation you can't honestly say you think you're right. You are just looking for a crutch so you don't have to deal the troubles in your life or the fact that death is permanent, thereby excusing you from having to deal with the world around you. Instead, you offload your troubles and fears to your imaginary friends.

Enjoy fantasy land. I prefer reality.

[PLAYER57832]

im in a discussion wit a hard core evolutionist who has an evo site and here r some arguements he refued to answer;

Dan Hilmer wrote:
> Hello ...I read some of your stuff on evolution ect. I have read a defense of
evolution and creation before but I do not own any books on evolution because I havnt had the opportunity .... But I dont want to bring up any biblical arguments because i really prefere to leave the bible out of creation debates and focus on the attitude of evolutionists as a proof that they cant actually believe evolution or if they do it is to avoid having to agrue that there is a higher power than them in the universe.

The only one who COULD argue such a thing is someone who has never actually learned about real evolution theory.

1. MOST of those who believe in evolution, at least within the US, ALSO believe in God. They believe God set up the world and either uses evolution directly, or set up the processes.

2. No one will suggest that Evolution can be proven 100%, at least now. What IS proven is a whole plethora of things supporting the idea.

Natural selection -- FACT. Some individuals, some species DO out-compete others. They produce more progeny and therefore their genes are passed down in greater number BUT, there are many, many other factors also involved. A prime buck may have the best genes in the world, but if he happens to get caught by a landslide or a car before he can mate ... selection is irrelevant.

Mutation -- FACT. genes change in ways we don't understand. (perhaps random, perhaps through some method we cannot yet determine .. perhaps by God). These cause changes within species over time.

Geologic layers. FACT layers in soil and rock do represent different layers of formation, different times. Inconsistancies DO represent earthquakes, other processes. They are NOT explained by "disturbances" from Noah's flood. A flood would & does leave very different evidence. Although ALL the processes may not be 100% understood in regards to earth's formation, these things ARE understood. ARE factual, not theory.

ETC. reread my previous posts and you will see more examples, but those are the 3 biggest.

so 1. how do you define morality in evolution

You don't. Morality is a human judgement.

Does a landslide kill one person and not another because of morality? Of course not. God, if you believe he directed the slide, might. However, even the most literal Christian believes in free will, choice and "chance". That is, God set up this world and its processes, is available to us for help and consultation, but is not necessarily like a puppet on a string. That one child dies and another lives does not mean one set of parents was evil and the other righteous.

because by the very nature of the term evolution it implies someone could potentially gain a different sense of morality than is accepted by the other less evolved government or citizen...example this higher evolved person could think that murder is ok or that stealing from the lesser evolved people is ok and technically we should not attempt to stop this person because he has evolved higher than us and to try and stop him would be to impede his progress and then he would have the right to exterminate us because we are a hindrance to his evolutionary advancement.

See above, but you are also mixing up the ideas of social evolution (the general idea that societies and people evolve into something better)-- something once considered, but now basically dismissed as untrue and biological evolution (the idea that species change into other species), which is essentially true.

NOTE -- even if one does not believe that all species evolved from slime mold, it is fact that some species have evolved from other similar species.

2. If evolution and natural selection are true concepts why should we shed a tear
over the extinction of species?

First, distinguish between natural or God-driven evolution/natural selection/extinction and HUMAN driven extinction. The North American Continent no longer has vast wetland areas, such as are prime habitat for the
Whooping Crane. It could, then be potentially argued that tis species is simply no longer designed for our world.

HOWEVER, the passanger pigeon died simply because people shot them. There was no "natural" cause. The Buffalo and Walrus almost left because people hunted them to small numbers.

Does it matter? Maybe, maybe not.

BUT, here is the thing. Are you smart enough to know just which species are critical to our survival and which are not?

Aldo Leopold is famous for saying "the first rule of tinkering is to keep all the parts". As a Christian, I add in the further bit that God put these species here for our benefit So who are we to decide that this species or that are irrelevant?

Why should we attempt to save creatures that cant keep up with human advancement in the world.

Because we DON'T KNOW which species are directly important, never mind those that are indirectly important.

Take the yew tree. This is an evergreen found out west. It had little or no value for years. Then one day, someone discovered it contained a chemical that could be used to fight lukemia. Suddenly this worthless tree became very worthwhile, indeed. Now, eventually, chemists figured out how to synthesize the chemical. HOWEVER, here is what you need to understand. It is much, much, MUCH easier to test and then re-create a chemical you can see (still pretty tough) than to not only think up & test a chemical that might or might not have any purpose.

We lose hundreds of small insects every day within the Amazon (because many trees hold multiple species within just the one tree --FACT). Realistically, we can go on just fine without them. BUT, here is the thing. Maybe one of those species held the cure to the cancer your daughter or your neighbor's daughter will have at some point in the future. Maybe one animal is what feeds another animal that is just enough to keep it from starvation... maybe that animal is, for some reason, the only one that will survive this huge drought .... pick any scenario you like. The truth is we DON'T KNOW... and I personally find it scary that we think we can irreversibly eliminate species when we DON'T KNOW the impact it will have.

On the opposite side, are the many, many introductions of species. The common snail, found all over the west, for example, escaped from farms for Escargo. Pigs released and gone feral wreak havoc over the East, the Hawaiian islands, etc.
In some cases, things were introduced on purpose, but now are big problems. Gone fishing for Carp lately? Most folks would much rather catch trout. But, years ago, the europeans introduced carp because it was a nice, edible fish... in contrast to those "horrible" native trout that were not even fun to catch!

Why should we create safe zones and restrictions and generally penelize ourselves for another weaker species that cant exist without our help...Nature and natural selection have determined they arnt strong enough to exist in our modern and evolving world

This is a legitimate question. There are 2 answers.
1. as noted above, there are some species that are probably not "intended" to survive. Problem -- we don't know which they are.

2. Most species extinctions now are not natural at all, they are completely driven by human beings... and at a rate far faster than evolution can adapt or "keep up". When paleontologists talk about "mass extinctions" of the past (as they DO), they generally are talking about things occuring over thousands of years. We are currently seeing die-offs every single day.

3. EVEN IF a species die-off is "natural", there still could be a bad impact on humans. This gets into moral questions. Is it right that humans give sick people medicine? Most Christians say "yes" ( a few don't). Same thing. This is "medicine" for the earth as a whole.

(though ive not seen any recent evolving of our species. we seem to be degenerating if anything in to a lawless immoral society)

This is social evolution... and it is NOT true. We have the capacity to overcome obstacles. We can design ourselves a house that will withstand a landslide ... that buck I spoke of earlier cannot.

the same goes for humans in Africa why should we aid them ? If natural selection is true, nature has obviously decided to eliminate them from the gene pool therefore why do we continue to help them? Doesnt that show an unacceptable weakness and soft-heartedness in our selves?

1. Review history

2. This is social evolution, not biological evolution.

2. This is not "natural selection". This is Europeans exploiting and subverting cultures they don't like. In fact, there is much evidence that we, the europeans are quickly killing ourselves off by destroying the environment...b ut that is off the topic.

Dan Hilmer

gee.. that name sounds rather familiar. historical cooincidence?

[Neoteny]

Wow!

How many people have lit up thorn's one post?

[Frigidus]

Wow!

How many people have lit up thorn's one post?

Well it was just so wrong. I like using the term "lit up" to describe the way we dealt with the post though, makes it seem a lot more awesome than a debate on evolution.

[Neoteny]

Wow!

How many people have lit up thorn's one post?

Well it was just so wrong. I like using the term "lit up" to describe the way we dealt with the post though, makes it seem a lot more awesome than a debate on evolution.

Well, it was all counterarguments and very few defenses; there really isn't another way to describe it.

[im2good4theboard]

Aaaaanyway, Pythagorases theorum. Is this potentially not correct in your opinion, given that it is a theory?

Hmm... I coulda swore that The Pythagorean theorem was a basic geometry concept. I believe the mistake wrote here is a mix up with Wegner's theory of Pangea.

Gonna throw this out, Im just starting to read this, but Strife was correct. The pythagorean therom is a way to calculate unknown side length of a right triangle when two side lengths are already known. A2+B2=C2 (note-2=squared) as A and B are the side lengths that meet at a 90 degree angle.
Pangea is thought to be correct. Pangea is the theory of all the ...tbc