By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

Tyrannical on 15 May 2009
fmc83 said:
Tyrannical said:

Wouldn't you prefer if God created and loved all men equally?

Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where milk and honey flows, and everything is exactly how you like it to be?

Well, guess what: There's a difference between imagination and reality.

 

 Well, if evolution was correct, wouldn't it justify racism or genocide? I seem to understand that homo sapien sapiens may have commited genocide against Neanderthal man, but I suppose that is just evolutionary progress. I suppose killing off the american indians was just evolutionary progress too. I suppose blacks living in the more backward part of Africa would be next on that list in the name of evolution.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Around the Network
highwaystar101 on 15 May 2009
Tyrannical said:
fmc83 said:
Tyrannical said:

Wouldn't you prefer if God created and loved all men equally?

Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where milk and honey flows, and everything is exactly how you like it to be?

Well, guess what: There's a difference between imagination and reality.

 

Well, if evolution was correct, wouldn't it justify racism or genocide? I seem to understand that homo sapien sapiens may have commited genocide against Neanderthal man, but I suppose that is just evolutionary progress. I suppose killing off the american indians was just evolutionary progress too. I suppose blacks living in the more backward part of Africa would be next on that list in the name of evolution.

I don't think you understand evolution. If they were truly genetically unsuited to their environments they would die off naturally. Well that ain't gonna happen now with homosapiens as we are equal is it. So no, Evolution doesn't condone genocide or racism in any way.

In fact, you saying this is telling me that you can't proove ID so you are taking cheap shots.

 



Gnizmo on 15 May 2009
Tyrannical said: 

 Well, if evolution was correct, wouldn't it justify racism or genocide? I seem to understand that homo sapien sapiens may have commited genocide against Neanderthal man, but I suppose that is just evolutionary progress. I suppose killing off the american indians was just evolutionary progress too. I suppose blacks living in the more backward part of Africa would be next on that list in the name of evolution.

 How would it? Evolution says nothing about how we should behave.



Starcraft 2 ID: Gnizmo 229

Tyrannical on 15 May 2009
highwaystar101 said:

I don't think you understand evolution. If they were truly genetically unsuited to their environments they would die off naturally. Well that ain't gonna happen now with homosapiens as we are equal is it. So no, Evolution doesn't condone genocide or racism in any way.

In fact, you saying this is telling me that you can't proove ID so you are taking cheap shots.

 

 

 Neanderthals weren't geneticaly unsuited to their environment, but were purposely killed off in an act of genocide by competeing homo sapien groups. Evolution only encourages that behaviour.

I suppose instead of sending the Peace Corp to under developed nations to help them, we'd be better of commiting genocide and suplanting their people instead because that's just evolutionary progress. I guess if they had better "genes" they'd have developed bombers and nuclear weapons instead of us.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

highwaystar101 on 15 May 2009
Tyrannical said:
highwaystar101 said:

I don't think you understand evolution. If they were truly genetically unsuited to their environments they would die off naturally. Well that ain't gonna happen now with homosapiens as we are equal is it. So no, Evolution doesn't condone genocide or racism in any way.

In fact, you saying this is telling me that you can't proove ID so you are taking cheap shots.

 

 

Neanderthals weren't geneticaly unsuited to their environment, but were purposely killed off in an act of genocide by competeing homo sapien groups. Evolution only encourages that behaviour.

I suppose instead of sending the Peace Corp to under developed nations to help them, we'd be better of commiting genocide and suplanting their people instead because that's just evolutionary progress. I guess if they had better "genes" they'd have developed bombers and nuclear weapons instead of us.

Hold on, there was no organised genocide of neanderthals, they were killed off gradually because they couldn't handle the competition from homosapiens. This is what happens, two species live in the same area, only one can thrive and so one species loses out. They may be killed in battle or whatever, but the fact remains is that they were not superior so they could not compete.

Stop making evolution sound like a bunch of mass murderers because it is not, it's the natural way of things.

 



Around the Network
akuma587 on 15 May 2009
Kasz216 said:

The only problem with that Akuma is that if evolution was only within species you would still expect similar species to be near it due to it being what's best for that particular enviorment.

Convergent Evolution is ironically a good example of this.

Birds and Bats both have wings yet their last common ancestor did not.

It does not seem impossible that a creature could develop a system that is very similar to another less complex creature.

 

But why is there an extra phospholipid bilayer that exists almost nowhere else in nature?  That is incredibly strong evidence that they were actually brought into ancestral cells through their phospholipid bilayers (as a vesicle) and eventually became a functioning part of the cell.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

hsrob on 15 May 2009
Tyrannical said:
highwaystar101 said:

I don't think you understand evolution. If they were truly genetically unsuited to their environments they would die off naturally. Well that ain't gonna happen now with homosapiens as we are equal is it. So no, Evolution doesn't condone genocide or racism in any way.

In fact, you saying this is telling me that you can't proove ID so you are taking cheap shots.

 

 

 Neanderthals weren't geneticaly unsuited to their environment, but were purposely killed off in an act of genocide by competeing homo sapien groups. Evolution only encourages that behaviour.

I suppose instead of sending the Peace Corp to under developed nations to help them, we'd be better of commiting genocide and suplanting their people instead because that's just evolutionary progress. I guess if they had better "genes" they'd have developed bombers and nuclear weapons instead of us.

First of all Neanderthals, while in the same genus as Homo Sapiens, are a different species so regardless of what happened it's technically not genocide.

Secondly saying evolution "encourages" genocide is like saying the force of gravity encourages people to fall and injure themselves.  Evolution and gravity are not human inventions, they are discoveries and the theories that describe them, are just that, attempts to describe the means by which these phenomena operate. 

 

 



fmc83 on 15 May 2009
Tyrannical said:
fmc83 said:
Tyrannical said:

Wouldn't you prefer if God created and loved all men equally?

Wouldn't you prefer to live in a world where milk and honey flows, and everything is exactly how you like it to be?

Well, guess what: There's a difference between imagination and reality.

 

Well, if evolution was correct, wouldn't it justify racism or genocide? I seem to understand that homo sapien sapiens may have commited genocide against Neanderthal man, but I suppose that is just evolutionary progress. I suppose killing off the american indians was just evolutionary progress too. I suppose blacks living in the more backward part of Africa would be next on that list in the name of evolution.

 

Of course evolution was handled in a wrong way to justify genocides, but the idea of a god is and was handled to justifiy that as well.

 

There are many theories about the end of the Neanderthaler. One is, that they were simply to specialized in eating meat (they needed more energy than homo sapiens), so he basically died, because our ancestors killed the mammoths and other big animals and the ice age was over.

 

Actually some of the killing of the Indians is caused by a evolutionary reason. New illnesses coming to the Americas which never occured there before. Measles, whopping cough and small pox killed nearly half of the Cherokees and Iroquois.

This small differences are definitely caused by evolution. The rest of the killing is simply caused by the fact, that most Europeans at that time thought, that white skin is superior to other. But as evolution describes what happened and not what happens next, it's just misused for racists.

 



http://nintendo-geheimtipps.blogspot.com

Tyrannical on 15 May 2009
hsrob said:

First of all Neanderthals, while in the same genus as Homo Sapiens, are a different species so regardless of what happened it's technically not genocide.

Secondly saying evolution "encourages" genocide is like saying the force of gravity encourages people to fall and injure themselves.  Evolution and gravity are not human inventions, they are discoveries and the theories that describe them, are just that, attempts to describe the means by which these phenomena operate. 

 

Well, some scientists classify Neanderthals as the same species, just a different sub species. Just as some scientists classify the three major races, caucasian, mongoloid, and negroid as different subspecies of homosapiens.

I seem to recall reading an article that gave the genetic difference between the three main human races is greater then the difference beteen some species.



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

highwaystar101 on 15 May 2009
Tyrannical said:
hsrob said:

First of all Neanderthals, while in the same genus as Homo Sapiens, are a different species so regardless of what happened it's technically not genocide.

Secondly saying evolution "encourages" genocide is like saying the force of gravity encourages people to fall and injure themselves. Evolution and gravity are not human inventions, they are discoveries and the theories that describe them, are just that, attempts to describe the means by which these phenomena operate.

 

Well, some scientists classify Neanderthals as the same species, just a different sub species. Just as some scientists classify the three major races, caucasian, mongoloid, and negroid as different subspecies of homosapiens.

I seem to recall reading an article that gave the genetic difference between the three main human races is greater then the difference beteen some species.

So basically what you think is that you can justify the genocide of black/white/asian people based on evolution?

Man you are barking up the wrong bush with these claims Tyranical.