Evolution And Racism

[Jeepster80125 0]

Oh you get it..you just don't want to face it.

I don't get it, please explain it for me.

[Balloon guy 158]

I don't get it, please explain it for me.

See OP

[Jeepster80125 0]

I see your OP. I am referring to the fact that you seem to be ignoring VB's request for you to clarify. I think it's pretty clear what he's asking you about, and you offer nothing to continue the discussion.I would really like to see what you are trying to say, or get vb to admit or agree to.

[Balloon guy 158]

I see your OP. I am referring to the fact that you seem to be ignoring VB's request for you to clarify. I think it's pretty clear what he's asking you about, and you offer nothing to continue the discussion.I would really like to see what you are trying to say, or get vb to admit or agree to.

Don't think I don't see what you are doing.You have no idea what vb is saying so you are trying to get me to rephrase it so you can understand it.Sorry buddy, get someone else to do your thinking for you.

[BaseJester 1]

This is how I understand BG's position.

1. The human species is better than simple lifeforms like bacteria.
2. If humans are the result of evolution acting on simple lifeforms, then evolution has made the human species better.
3. If evolution makes a species better, then we are morally obligated to encourage further evolution to make the human species better.
4. Attempting to kill people who have genetics different than our own will encourage further evolution. The best genetics will prevail.
5. Therefore, attempting to kill people who are different than us is moral.
6. The previous assertion is false, so humans must not be the result of evolution acting on simple lifeforms.

Is that right?

[Balloon guy 158]

This is how I understand BG's position.

1. The human species is better than simple lifeforms like bacteria.
2. If humans are the result of evolution acting on simple lifeforms, then evolution has made the human species better.
3. If evolution makes a species better, then we are morally obligated to encourage further evolution to make the human species better.
4. Attempting to kill people who have genetics different than our own will encourage further evolution. The best genetics will prevail.
5. Therefore, attempting to kill people who are different than us is moral.
6. The previous assertion is false, so humans must not be the result of evolution acting on simple lifeforms.

Is that right?

Kind of.1. not relevant, mutations to our DNA are for our species, not really connected to others.2. yes3. No, morally implies judgment from an outside source. My point is that we are free from morality judging our actions as long as we align them with evolution.4. Not necessary justified in saying different, because obviously change is necessary for life to evolve. But making the human species 'better' is a goal, isn't it?5. See 46. No, I do not make a conclusion to assert based on the illogical conclusions of evolution, only trying to get the poor logic under the microscope.You attempted to put me in the " Atheist are baby rapers" believer camp.I am saying that Atheist / Evolutionist are in a camp where they themselves are proof that they are wrong.

[BaseJester 1]

Kind of.1. not relevant, mutations to our DNA are for our species, not really connected to others.

I'm confused by this response. Common descent across species is a part of evolutionary theory. Are we disagreeing about that? I'm lost.

2. yes3. No, morally implies judgment from an outside source. My point is that we are free from morality judging our actions as long as we align them with evolution.

I was thinking of vb's definition for morality. I thought you were saying that a belief in evolution compelled us to behave in a particular manner as a matter of principle. Is that wrong?

4. Not necessary justified in saying different, because obviously change is necessary for life to evolve. But making the human species 'better' is a goal, isn't it?

I'm OK with it as a goal. I don't think the evolutionary mechanism itself dictates what I should value as 'better'.

6. No, I do not make a conclusion to assert based on the illogical conclusions of evolution, only trying to get the poor logic under the microscope.

I failed to parse this.

You attempted to put me in the " Atheist are baby rapers" believer camp.

I really didn't.

I am saying that Atheist / Evolutionist are in a camp where they themselves are proof that they are wrong.

Do you think you can lay out that proof step by step for us? I obviously couldn't quite capture it.

[vbnautilus 48]

[*]The human species is better than simple lifeforms like bacteria.

1. not relevant, mutations to our DNA are for our species, not really connected to others.

The premise is false and evolution does not suggest anything of the sort. BG's response also mischaracterizes evolution since natural selection has no concern for 'species'.

[*]If humans are the result of evolution acting on simple lifeforms, then evolution has made the human species better.

2. yes

This is logical fallacy. The second phrase does not follow from the first. Evolution has made humans more effective at surviving in their current environment than some other organisms that failed to do so. That is not equivalent to "better". There are things we are worse at now than some of our ancestors, like surviving in the ocean. If the currency of evolution is an organism's success at procreating, then the "best" creatures around are beetles.

[*]If evolution makes a species better, then we are morally obligated to encourage further evolution to make the human species better.

3. No, morally implies judgment from an outside source. My point is that we are free from morality judging our actions as long as we align them with evolution.

Moral does not imply judgement from an outside source. Moral only implies that there is some value assigned to certain actions. What basis we should use to assign that value (should it be based on what god purportedly said or something else?) is a question worth discussing but natural selection will not provide an answer to this question.

[*]Attempting to kill people who have genetics different than our own will encourage further evolution. The best genetics will prevail.

4. Not necessary justified in saying different, because obviously change is necessary for life to evolve. But making the human species 'better' is a goal, isn't it?

I share it as a goal. Does killing people who don't conform to some ideal make us better? Again, natural selection provides no answer to this question, partly because it has no idea what your idea of "better" is.

[Balloon guy 158]

Look at that Base..vb is attacking both of us at the same time....Man the Chutzpeh.Let's set aside our differences and get the hippy freak!

[vbnautilus 48]

Look at that Base..vb is attacking both of us at the same time....Man the Chutzpeh.Let's set aside our differences and get the hippy freak!

Yeah but the him there was him taking your perspective. I just attacked you twice as much!

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah but the him there was him taking your perspective. I just attacked you twice as much!

Wait till I tell my cop friends...

[Roll the Bones 74]

To clarify, BG is making an attempt to say that since he can't disprove the overmounting evidence that makes evolution a fact but by trying to convince everyone first that evolution equals athiesm and that athiesm is a very bad since it will naturally lead all athiests to Eugenics thus before you know it we'll have Dr. No's on Islands creating hybrid people monsters. Also our leaders will be selfish and greedy and murder millions upon millions.It is the typical Christian/Muslim way to distort facts, create fear and believe anything that will allow them to hang on to their beliefs.BG we have laws against Eugenics and Anarchism.