132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 8 Sep, 2018 07:25 am
As a point of information for the hysteria and hate mongers here: the three-fifths compromise referred to the manner in which representation would be determined in slave holding states. It had nothing to do with the Indians. But then, shooting one's mouth off while completely ignorant of the subject matter to which one refers is OK for the hysterics among us, n'est-ce pas:
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 8 Sep, 2018 07:27 am
For H&G--if you want to call me a bigot, you'll need a reason. I referred to christian bigots after you posted this:

Quote:
I agree. There sure are many false teachers in the world who do get paid well!
Leaders/teachers of Mormonism, Islam, jehovah witnesses, evolutionism etc.


If the shoe fits . . .
camlok
 
  0  
Sat 8 Sep, 2018 08:02 am
@Setanta,
Was it bigotry to jump into the Vietnam, Cambodian, Laotian genocides?
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Sat 8 Sep, 2018 08:15 am
Back on the subject of why someone might doubt Darwin’s theory -

Below is an excerpt from Darwin’s own diary. He wrote it as he looked out from a mountain and contemplated the grandure of his all encompassing vision of how the world works. It is revealing because it shows that he was driven by his own philosophical world view, not by any convincing hard data other than different shaped finch beaks and the like. His theory is at best a narrative attempting to explain what we see. It is convincing only because it cannot be tested or proven. The hubris and hypocrisy in his words as he both embraces a creator and yet dictates how he operates is a fascinating study in itself.

Quote:
16th Aug. What a magnificent view one can take of the world
Astronomical & unknown causes modified by unknown ones, cause changes in geography & changes of climate suspended to change of climate from physical causes, — then suspended changes of form in the organic world, as adaptation, & these changing affect each other, & their bodies by certain laws of harmony keep perfect in these themselves. — instincts alter, reason is formed & the world peopled with myriads of distinct forms from a period short of eternity to the present time, to the future. —
How far grander than idea from cramped imagination that God created (warring against those very laws he established in all organic nature) the Rhinoceros of Java & Sumatra, that since the time of the Silurian he has made a long succession of vile molluscous animals. How beneath the dignity of him, who is supposed to have said let there be light & there was light. — whom it has been declared “he said let there be light & there was light”


The man was clearly in love with his own vision, and it made a fool of him.


farmerman
 
  1  
Sat 8 Sep, 2018 08:58 am
@Leadfoot,
he was wrong in a few areas, but overall he was spot on. Why??? HE relied on his evidence he didnt pick his evidence to agree with his religion.

His galapogos finches were even unknown to him to be finches until he had a noted ornithologist declare that indeed, they were.

Darwin had doubts of a god well before his boat ride. Unlike Lyell, Darwin didnt base his published science on some religious POV that required him to deny what dooesnt agree with Christianity.




Just sayin
camlok
 
  1  
Sat 8 Sep, 2018 09:54 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
HE relied on his evidence he didnt pick his evidence to agree with his religion.


Yes, that is the mark of a true scientist, farmerman. You, on the other hand, do pick your evidence to agree with your "religion".

That is incredibly dishonest, unscientific and, as always, so hypocritical of you.

When you don't stay true to science and the truth, it always comes back to bite you. You have more bite marks on your butt than a moose in a wolf pack attack.
0 Replies
 
OldGrumpy
 
  0  
Sat 8 Sep, 2018 11:18 am
@Leadfoot,
It wasn't even his own theory! it was in reality grandpa's! btw he, his grandfather , was deep in "eugenics". Go figure!

and what again was it's subtitle?

O yeah

""the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life""

Hmmmmmm. sounds very racism to me, but then again....
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sat 8 Sep, 2018 11:58 am
@farmerman,
Here’s a snippet again below. You can still see the struggle here. He can’t quite bring himself to believe it was all an accident. He says the idea of God creating animals from whole cloth so to speak is against the “very laws that he [God] established in all organic nature.”

You see, even Darwin believed 'organic nature' had to have been established by some intelligence. He referred to it as God. You could say Darwin was the very first believer in theistic evolution. God started it all then let nature take its course.

He might even be right. I have said before that it is perfectly possible that the first life was front loaded with all the information or mechanisms needed to create all the species. It’s just that I like to stay evidence based and so far we don’t see evidence that might support that. If it turns up, I’ll modify my view accordingly. Even currently I don’t think the rhinoceros was created whole and dumped on the planet to multiply.

Darwin Quote:
Quote:
How far grander than idea from cramped imagination that God created (warring against those very laws he established in all organic nature) the Rhinoceros of Java & Sumatra, that since the time of the Silurian he has made a long succession of vile molluscous animals.


Setanta
 
  1  
Sat 8 Sep, 2018 06:04 pm
@Leadfoot,
So who gives a rat's ass what Darwin said? Darwin is not the "Jesus" of biology, his words are not holy writ. Before you can bring your imaginary friend into the discussion, you have to provide unambiguous evidence that your imaginary friend is not imaginary, and is active in the cosmos. Otherwise you are, as usual, whistling past the graveyard of failed religions.
camlok
 
  -1  
Sat 8 Sep, 2018 06:37 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
So who gives a rat's ass what Darwin said? Darwin is not the "Jesus" of biology, his words are not holy writ.


According to these folks, a lot of people care what Darwin said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-big-question-how-important-was-charles-darwin-and-what-is-his-legacy-today-1216258.html

As for your opinion, Setanta, we have to note that you often make these big sweeping claims without any evidence. Then you flee from any discussions on your empty of evidence opinions.

Which means that your opinion is worth not much at all.

0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Sun 9 Sep, 2018 05:39 pm
@OldGrumpy,
Quote:
the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

How the **** did I not notice that before?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 10 Sep, 2018 04:42 am
@Leadfoot,
This subtitle has nothing to do with preserving specific human races. Nothing to do with eugenics or racism whatsoever. It's about "land races" of animals and vegetals, ie species and sub-species.

Darwin was anti-racist and abolitionist.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Mon 10 Sep, 2018 04:56 am
@Leadfoot,
Still trying to malign a scientist just because his findings to not concur with your belief system.

Darwin was no saint, but he didn't kill anyone. He didn't butcher women and children in Vietnam. He was a far better man than you.
0 Replies
 
OldGrumpy
 
  0  
Mon 10 Sep, 2018 07:52 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
This subtitle has nothing to do with preserving specific human races. Nothing to do with eugenics or racism whatsoever. It's about "land races" of animals and vegetals, ie species and sub-species.

Darwin was anti-racist and abolitionist.


Really?

Hmm it seems you are now making a fool of yourself:

Quote:
Darwin demonstrated how he believed evolution shaped man in his subsequent book The Descent of Man. In it, he theorized that man, having evolved from apes, had continued evolving as various races, with some races more developed than others. Darwin classified his own white race as more advanced than those “lower organisms” such as pygmies, and he called different people groups “savage,” “low,” and “degraded.”



Quote:
Darwin wasn’t the first to propose biological arguments for racism, but his works fueled the most ugly and deadly racism. Even evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould wrote, “Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory” (Ontogeny and Phylogeny, 1977).[/i]


Quote:
L eading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’.





People are getting desperate now! Because 'evolution theory' is getting obsolete!

what a good sign of the times!!!
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 10 Sep, 2018 08:38 am
@OldGrumpy,
Of course Darwin influenced the Nazis, but unlike you he wasn't spreading their propaganda material.
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Mon 10 Sep, 2018 09:12 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
Of course Darwin influenced the Nazis, but unlike you he wasn't spreading their propaganda material.


Duh? who said he had to 'spread' it? The indoctrination begins at school!~

Come on, you can't be that thick?! Or....


Quote:
And Hickman adds that it is no coincidence that Hitler:

‘ … was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his psychosis, it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important because] … his book, Mein Kampf, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society.’



Quote:
The Nazi view on Darwinian evolution and race was consequently a major part of the fatal combination of ideas and events which produced the holocaust and World War II:

‘One of the central planks in Nazi theory and doctrine was …evolutionary theory [and] … that all biology had evolved … upward, and that … less evolved types … should be actively eradicated [and] … that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore [the Nazis] instituted political measures to eradicate … Jews, and … blacks, whom they considered as “underdeveloped”.’


Quote:
uch as ‘superior race’, ‘lower human types’, ‘pollution of the race’, and the word evolution itself (Entwicklung) were often used by Hitler and other Nazi leaders. His race views were not from fringe science as often claimed but rather Hitler’s views were:

‘ … straightforward German social Darwinism of a type widely known and accepted throughout Germany and which, more importantly, was considered by most Germans, scientists included, to be scientifically true. More recent scholarship on national socialism and Hitler has begun to realize that … [their application of Darwin’s theory] was the specific characteristic of Nazism. National socialist “biopolicy,” … [was] a policy based on a mystical-biological belief in radical inequality, a monistic, antitranscendent moral nihilism based on the eternal struggle for existence and the survival of the fittest as the law of nature, and the consequent use of state power for a public policy of natural selection….’



Quote:
The philosophy that humans can control and even use Darwinism to produce a ‘higher level’ of human is repeatedly mentioned in the writings and speeches of prominent Nazis.25 Accomplishing the Darwinian goal for the world required ruthlessly eliminating the less fit by open barbarian behavior:

‘The basic outline of German social Darwinism [was] … man was merely a part of nature with no special transcendent qualities or special humanness. On the other hand, the Germans were members of a biologically superior community … politics was merely the straightforward application of the laws of biology. In essence, Haeckel and his fellow social Darwinists advanced the ideas that were t


Quote:
Hitler once even stated that we Nazis ‘ … are barbarians! We want to be barbarians. It is an honorable title [for, by it,] we shall rejuvenate the world ….’26 Hitler, as an evolutionist, ‘consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution’.27 Keith adds that:

‘If war be the progeny of evolution — and I am convinced that it is — then evolution has “gone mad”, reaching such a height of ferocity as must frustrate its proper role in the world of life — which is the advancement of her competing “units”, these being tribes, nations, or races of mankind. There is no way of getting rid of war save one, and that is to rid human nature of the sanctions imposed on it by the law of evolution. Can man … render the law of evolution null and void? … I have discovered no way that is at once possible and practicable. “There is no escape from human nature.” Because Germany has drunk the vat of evolution to its last dregs, and in her evolutionary debauch has plunged Europe into a bath of blood, that is no proof that the law of evolution is evil. A law which brought man out of the jungle and made him king of beasts cannot be altogether bad.’




Need I go on?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Mon 10 Sep, 2018 09:38 am
@OldGrumpy,
No need to post more Nazi material.
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Mon 10 Sep, 2018 09:42 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
No need to post more Nazi material.


You mean, you mean, you got it?
0 Replies
 
OldGrumpy
 
  1  
Mon 10 Sep, 2018 09:44 am
Another question. Why all the many hoaxes in evolution?

That looks really awkward!

I call it"defending the undefendable."
OldGrumpy
 
  0  
Mon 10 Sep, 2018 09:45 am
it really is all indoctrination.

starts at school this nonsense. It must be forbidden to tell lies in school.

O, wait no, then schools stop making money!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.85 seconds on 10/05/2024 at 04:28:03