Evolution And Racism

[Balloon guy 158]

From the onset of the theory of evolution, racism has been hiding in the shadows, either blatantly or subtly implied. After all, once you believe that some lines in the evolutionary tree are more advanced ( Man vs Chimp for instances Pro Quo )then you can conclude that one line is superior to another.What makes up superiority? The ability to reproduce with the best chance for continuing the species. All of evolution is about making the subject better adapted, better able to survive and better looking than the generation before.That is why the vast majority of the early evolutionist were such blatant racist:The title of the Bible for evolutionist is: Origins of Species: The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for LifeDarwin once wrote:"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit.... The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.Thomas Huxley, a great defender and supporter of Darwin wrote;"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites."Evolutionist Samuel Holmes who wrote The Trend of The Race:Pure blacks of proven natural ability of high order are in fact rare. The fact that mulattoes, despite their relatively inferior white parentage, are in all countries, superior to the blacks, is strongly indicative of a marked difference in the average intellectual capacity of the two racesEdwin Conklin the Professor of Biology at Princeton wrote a book The Direction of Human Evolution:“Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained the greater the preponderance of the white race will be....”Now the last two guys were Eugenic supporters from the 1920s, but the entire field of Eugenics derives from evolution, it can gain no other foothold from which to launch itself into the world.Harvard professor Earnest Hooton wrote this;'we must rid ourselves of the false prophets of cultural salvation and the witless preachers of human equality. The future of our species . . . is dependent on [the application of evolutionary] biology. We must have fewer and better men, not more morons . . .Once you make the case that man is changing, you open the door to the notion that the newer model is superior.Natural Selection, which isn't concerned with being politically correct, kills off the lessor adaptations in a species; it lets it starve, freeze or get eaten for being behind the curve.As such you cannot ever remove the argument that some races are more advanced than others.Luckily the Bible clearly does not share this view, as Sir Arthur Kent proclaimed:Christianity makes no distinction of race or color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect, the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?

[KramitDaToad 0]

Luckily the Bible clearly does not share this view

...and yet the KKK is a Christian organisation. Go figure.Hi BG, how you been!?

[Balloon guy 158]

...and yet the KKK is a Christian organisation. Go figure.Hi BG, how you been!?

LOL, wow haven't seen you in a while, hope all is well. I mean as well as can be for a guy following a lie..Mostly this place is slowly dying so I'm trying to spark up some conversation that will result in me equating crow with the Hitler Youth again...it will take about 3 pages I suspect

[KramitDaToad 0]

LOL, wow haven't seen you in a while, hope all is well. I mean as well as can be for a guy following a lie..Mostly this place is slowly dying so I'm trying to spark up some conversation that will result in me equating crow with the Hitler Youth again...it will take about 3 pages I suspect

Yeah it's been a while. My wife and I had a little boy a while back and I've had to make some sacrifices :)Life is good on this side of the pond. Hope it's treating you and yours well.I'll leave you to do what you do best... would be a bit mean to steal your thunder.Just dropped in to say God bless (really!)

[BaseJester 1]

From the onset of the theory of evolution, racism has been hiding in the shadows, either blatantly or subtly implied. After all, once you believe that some lines in the evolutionary tree are more advanced ( Man vs Chimp for instances Pro Quo )then you can conclude that one line is superior to another.

It's clear that people pass on traits to the next generation without evolutionary theory.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah it's been a while. My wife and I had a little boy a while back and I've had to make some sacrifices :)Life is good on this side of the pond. Hope it's treating you and yours well.I'll leave you to do what you do best... would be a bit mean to steal your thunder.Just dropped in to say God bless (really!)

Congrats on the baby.Nothing more wonderful than new life.I'm happy that life is good for you, may it continue to be so.

[Balloon guy 158]

It's clear that people pass on traits to the next generation without evolutionary theory.

So you are saying it is possible for people to live without evolution being needed to explain their existence?

[BaseJester 1]

So you are saying it is possible for people to live without evolution being needed to explain their existence?

I can't tell what that sentence means, so, no, I'm not saying that.Have you ever looked at an argument against evolution and thought, "Wow, this argument attempts to support my position, but it's not really valid because of X."?

[Balloon guy 158]

I can't tell what that sentence means, so, no, I'm not saying that.Have you ever looked at an argument against evolution and thought, "Wow, this argument attempts to support my position, but it's not really valid because of X."?

Duh

[Roll the Bones 74]

1. Why do all the different dating methods pointing to the earth being old, and life being around a long time- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas - from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? These methods are from different fields and are quite diverse, yet manage to arrive at quite similar dates. (This is not answered by saying that radioactive decay is wrong. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)2.Chronological distribution of fossils. Every layer of the earth has uniformly produced fossils that coincide with that time period,e.g. pre-cambian or jurrasic. What is your explanation for this?3.Spatial distribution of living things. Why do certain animals and plants only live in certain areas, like Marsupials in Australia or why are tomatoes and potatoes native to the Americas only? (This is not a question merely of how they could have arrived there, it is also of why only there.)4. Relationships between living things. There is a large body of information about the different species of animals and plants, systematically organized, which is conventionally represented as reflecting genetic relationships between different species. So, for example, lions are said to be more closely related to tigers than they are to elephants. If different kinds are not genetically related, what is the explanation for the greater and less similarities between different kinds of living things? That is to say, why would special creation produce this complex pattern rather than just resulting in all kinds being equally related to all others?

[Balloon guy 158]

1. Why do all the major evils in the modern world all have their roots in evolutionary thought? Communism, Nazism, Eugenics?2. Why do all anarchist groups use evolution as the basis for their denial of any authority?3. Why are the majority of evolutionist lonely and unattractive?

[vbnautilus 48]

1. Why do all the major evils in the modern world all have their roots in evolutionary thought? Communism, Nazism, Eugenics?

Islam and Christianity are suspiciously missing from your list.

3. Why are the majority of evolutionist lonely and unattractive?

Come on, you can't be both smart and attractive, everybody knows that.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

So, are we also going to argue that Einstein's theory of gravity implies fatism? That's basically how I read this thread.

[BaseJester 1]

1. Why do all the major evils in the modern world all have their roots in evolutionary thought? Communism, Nazism, Eugenics?

Is slavery not a major evil? Does it not have roots before 1859?We've already been down this path several times, by the way: the vague association with things you don't like doesn't argue either way for the truth of an assertion. For instance, if someone argues that the story of Cain and Abel justifies slavery, that argument doesn't cause the story of Cain and Abel to be true or false.

[Balloon guy 158]

So, are we also going to argue that Einstein's theory of gravity implies fatism? That's basically how I read this thread.

Well if you mean does Einstein cause people to eat because of his theory, then no. but if you mean do people use Einstein as an excuse to eat, then maybe.

[Balloon guy 158]

Islam and Christianity are suspiciously missing from your list.

I didn't realize they were guilty of using evolution as a major foundational truth to justify their existence...

Come on, you can't be both smart and attractive, everybody knows that.

You beautiful people may know that..but the rest of us...

[Balloon guy 158]

Is slavery not a major evil? Does it not have roots before 1859?We've already been down this path several times, by the way: the vague association with things you don't like doesn't argue either way for the truth of an assertion. For instance, if someone argues that the story of Cain and Abel justifies slavery, that argument doesn't cause the story of Cain and Abel to be true or false.

I was just trying to get the thread back on track. RTB was trying to misdirect in a blatant attempt to ignore the obvious truths my OP generated.And you are right, anyone that argues that Cain and Able justifies slavery would be wrong.However, arguing that since the Bible gives conditions on how to own slaves equals condoning slavery, I am within my logical rights to turn the burden of association to evolution and let you guy defend the notion that Natural Selection would very much be for Eugenics.

[Shia LaBeouf 0]

I was just trying to get the thread back on track. RTB was trying to misdirect in a blatant attempt to ignore the obvious truths my OP generated.And you are right, anyone that argues that Cain and Able justifies slavery would be wrong.However, arguing that since the Bible gives conditions on how to own slaves equals condoning slavery, I am within my logical rights to turn the burden of association to evolution and let you guy defend the notion that Natural Selection would very much be for Eugenics.

do you know the difference between watching two animals fight to the death, and pulling out a gun and shooting one of them?

[Balloon guy 158]

do you know the difference between watching two animals fight to the death, and pulling out a gun and shooting one of them?

To the one that dies?Not much

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

(when I did the google video search for this, my sixth video option was this, which made me chortle. )

[Shia LaBeouf 0]

To the one that dies?Not much

not for the animal. for you. what part did you have in the first? what part did you have in the second?

[Balloon guy 158]

not for the animal. for you. what part did you have in the first? what part did you have in the second?

You don't do a good job when you try to plainly make sense and or make any point that has any merit.I suspect your attempt here will fail even worse.So how about you don't try to use similes, parodies, analogies or parallelisms.It will save us all effort

[Shia LaBeouf 0]

You don't do a good job when you try to plainly make sense and or make any point that has any merit.I suspect your attempt here will fail even worse.So how about you don't try to use similes, parodies, analogies or parallelisms.It will save us all effort

its a simple question, with a simple answer. one needs an affirmative action. the other does not. kind of like eugenics and natural selection.

[Roll the Bones 74]

BG, even if mankind finally learning that evolution was a fact somehow would turn people into raving cannibal zombies has nothing to do with it's validity.If you are trying to make a case that a lack of belief in evolution turns people racist I am failing to see your evidence.

[Balloon guy 158]

its a simple question, with a simple answer. one needs an affirmative action. the other does not. kind of like eugenics and natural selection.

I was right.You have accomplished nothing but muddy up the water because you either can't understand, or refuse to understand what the issue is.Natural Section isn't a random dog fight, it is the purpose behind all life according to Evolution. Without it you have nothing but 15 legged spiders and birds that have 6 wings that hit each other when they flap.Eugenics is nothing but man implementing natural selection instead of waiting for it. In order to speed up what Natural Selection is going to do anyway..which is kill off any race of man that isn't as evolved because of the need for resource preservation, mating opportunities, and the pretend motive that reproduction is a purpose.The people that support Eugenics, ( all atheist/evolutionist ) understood clearly that this is the entire point of life. You are just trapped because you've stolen Christian morality and have lied to yourself about it's source. This double life makes you all irrational.Trying to mix morality with Natural Selection shows you guys are lying to yourself about what Natural Selection is. Or trying to change the rules of a game that's been running for 4 billion years because you cried when Old Yeller got shot.