Evolution or Creation

[bamthedoc]

Originally stated by Darwin in The origin of Species
NOT AN EXACT QUOTE
Humans are seperated from apes on the evolutionary scale by x distance. However, that distance is reduced by <insert racial slurs for not whites here>. When they are purged or "evolved" out of existance, the distance between the highest humans and apes will be greater.
Chapter VI, I do believe

That help any?

 

[Tempest Storm]

Allright, I can see now why you take a certain dislike to him. But nevertheless, I find his theories on Natural Selection to be a much better and logically sound than the obvious alternative.

 

[MacMan]

If the quote you gave had the word "negro" in it, I don't see why you would call that racist. When Darwin was alive people didn't call black people "black," they said negro or nig, even non-racists said it. Just like today black, or any other people, don't call white people "caucasian," they say white. I don't think I explained that as well as I could have, but it was how they talked back then. Nowadays we call those words racist because only the racists use them in derogatory terms. And if you're trying to say that he's calling black people primitive, he is using scientific thinking, which does have some fact to it.
(I'm not trying to be racist)

 

[Tempest Storm]

Originally posted by MacMan
If the quote you gave had the word "negro" in it, I don't see why you would call that racist. When Darwin was alive people didn't call black people "black," they said negro or nig, even non-racists said it. Just like today black, or any other people, don't call white people "caucasian," they say white. I don't think I explained that as well as I could have, but it was how they talked back then. Nowadays we call those words racist because only the racists use them in derogatory terms. And if you're trying to say that he's calling black people primitive, he is using scientific thinking, which does have some fact to it.
(I'm not trying to be racist)

Oh, he made it sound like Darwin said "******". Negro was not a racist term back then, like Mac said. We call black ppl "blacks" now. Back then, they called them negros or coloreds. They were called coloreds up until the 60's when the civil rights movement began.

In other words, back then they used "negro" or "colored folk" the way we use "blacks" today.

 

[Cert]

no no no u cant say 'blacks' cuz that is racist. all of the black ppl could get together and sue you. they are african-americans.
im sick of these hoes. they have all of these clubs and orginizations out for them only. i swear if we made a college called "Kennedy College for White Caucasians" we would have hell. protests galore. im also sick of seeing all of these cool playgrounds in the hood. when i was little, did i have a playground to go to? no! i had to walk to the ghetto to get to one, and when i got there all of the black ppl that play basketball and those guys who need belts on would just stare at me untill i went away. i want to hold a parade for white people, with big pictures of george washington and Joe Peshi. i want to have my own club, not another damned "Martin Luther King Center" that are like are on every block that offer tons of shit to the poor deprived minority of black people. god! go back to africa and get AIDS or something. didnt u get the picture back in the 60's? we dont want you! sure there are a few good black people out there, but most of them are the black mofos that choose to leave out the last letter in their words...
Hey foo! Was happenin? It's coo up in dis crib. wha's the matta? u outta weed? i gawt suh for yah.

another pointless rambling by Cert. Pay no attention to this cuz im like really tired its 6 am in the morning and im like high and angry at canadians and i really have to go pee but im way too lazy to get up.

 

[MacMan]

You ignorant slut.

 

[bamthedoc]

I, for one, hate the current use of the word "race" toward humans (if any of you recall...). As for Darwin, just because it was the "way of the day", does that mean it's not racist? No, it is just as racist as it is today. Not all people back then "hated" Africans, Aboriginies (sp?, my appologies), Asians, Indians, "Natives", and other non-Caucasian groups (including Hispanic and Latino).

It was Darwinism (many don't associate that with Darwin, but with Herbert Spencer) that started the greatest evils in history. Nazism, KKK, and other recently started genocidal societies. They believed that certain "races", including Jews, were inferior and should be exterminated following that quote from Darwin's "research".

And saying that Darwin wasn't racist for saying that non-Caucasions are inferior is like saying that Hitler was okay killing that gross population of Jews.

FYI: gross as in large.

 

[MacMan]

My point was that regardless of their stance on racism, people referred to blacks back then as people refer to caucasians today. If you are trying to pin Social Darwinism, and all the evil people who used it, on Darwin because of a quote he made, then I would point out to you every fanatic religious group that has sprung from the Bible.
Nowhere in that quote does Darwin mention nonwhites as being "inferior." He places whites as the most recent evolution in archaic Hominid evolution, which is a scientific datum, if it were true it does not make one better than the other and is in no way racist.

 

[bamthedoc]

(I'm sorry if my next arguement sounds...off. But it's getting late and it's Father's Day, so I've had a pretty long day.)

I have effectively argued that Herbert Spencer simply nudged Darwin's theories to the "breaking" point of a society that just wanted something, or someone, to blame for various upheavals. Darwin did, however, say that non-Caucasians are inferior. He said that by saying that they are more closely related to apes than Caucasians. Whether that means non-Caucasians to Caucasians or Caucasians to apes, it may not mater. He also did state that when the non-Caucasians are "evolved" out of existance, that the distance between ape and man on an evolutionary scale will be widened. How, exactly, is the logic in that not related directly to Spencer's logic?

 

[MacMan]

He never said they were inferior... He said they were closer in the timeline of evolution. Seeing as punctuated evolution occurs the way it does, that would mean he is talking about the series of evolutions we went through after the discovery of agriculture, which was fairly recent. All he is saying is that whites are the most recent, the only difference between the two could be the color of their skin. Saying blacks are inferior to whites because they evolved longer ago, is like saying an older model Ford is worse than a newer one because you didn't like the paint on the original. They are both still Fords.
As for the "purging thing," he is saying that after all the defective genes in blacks and whites have been weeded out, a new race will have evolved. Imagine as darker skinned hominids migrated to the Middle East, what happened? They changed skin color to suit their environment. By saying that this occurs is saying that the darker your skin is the more inferior you are? No. It is saying that in the timeline of Human evolution, the evolutions that the Middle Easterns had would come after those of the Africans. It makes sense that a newer race would be placed further from the apes.

I would also apreciate it if would be so kinda as to post the actual quote.

 

[bamthedoc]

(The problem with posting the exact quote is that it's been a while since I've seen it. Searching for it would take time that's been rather...limited for the past several days, and weeks. I've been going between the AS and other BF sections. I've been looking between a few dozen sites, and in chats. I've had IMs and a bunch of other random stuff (inluding my blackboard class). So, sorry about that.)

Considering, scientifically speaking, all humans belong to the same race, homo sapien sapien (wise wise man if you want to know), how is it that "blacks" are placed "lower" on the evolutionary timescale? The only real difference found between humans from different regions of the globe has been levels of melinin in the skin. There is also the "1 degree of seperation" theory that seems to hold true across even regions.

Okay, I can see where you are going with your statements, but I perhaps have a different point of view that could help us converge on something...compromising or the like. But, from what I've seen and read, Darwin was racist (even for his time). Perhaps I can find that "Darwin's letters" site I found before. But that's going to be easier said than done. Let's see...perhaps some of my notes from my Sociology class...at the bottom of one of my many boxes (and a big one at that...). I may have to get back to you on that.

 

[MacMan]

Please, do get back to me.

(Thank you for giving me the definition of a word to sound like you know what you are talking about.)
Kingdoms beget species, beget genera, beget phyla (if you want to know).
As for the evolutionary time scale, look at it this way:
|--0------1--2--3--4--|
Where 0= apes, 1= archaic sapiens, 2= the evolution of black skin, 3= the evolution of skin to brown, and 4= the evolution to white skin. Now, on the timeline, which is closest to the apes? Durr... 1! Does that make all the humans in group 1 ape men? No... hell they've evolved right along with the rest of the species. If they were inferior, they would have been bred out with natural selection, but obviously they didn't, so obviously it's just flesh.

 

[Induhvidual_1]

um without creation there won't be great games like diablo and blizzard won't be making all that money and thousands of people will be losing their jobs including horny cathlic priest

no, i do believe in evolution but i also believe that creation has nothing to do with science so they should just butt out and let them scientist do what their suppose to do.

 

[MacMan]

What did you just say...? God made blizzard?

 

[Primitivo]

Now, do you want to rethink your statement? If not, I'm sure some of the most scientific of the people in here (which includes me at times) will tear you apart with various arguements.

My biggest one right now is a summarized quote:

We believe evolution exists. We have as much evidence that our theories are valid in as much as Christians (I don't know why he singled us out...) can prove GOD exists. But, like a religion, our "proof" is based on faith.

~~scientist accepting some award



Ha! Try that on for size! When was this said? Not sure of the year, but it was very recent. If anyone knows (or the exact quote), all the better to put the point out. I'm not lieing; I don't like doing that. [/B]

I doubt that any creationist can tear me apart. I don't fear people who are constantly using fallacies and deviating arguments. The fact is you said that your proof is based in faith. This says it all. It demonstrates that i'm right about what i've said: Creationism is not sciente because it does not have any falsiable hypothesis. And faith arguments aren't falsiable because they cannot be tested by science.

 

[Primitivo]

Originally posted by bamthedoc
Okay, MacMan, I didn't say bacteria "mate" persay. What they do is form a "binary" bridge with living bacteria to "improve" themselves. From research that I've seen, bacteria can and will absorb and use DNA from dead bacteria to "improve" themselves. I might need to get a better resource for you sometime.

Tempest Storm Okay, I guess I should enlighten you to the neo-Creationists.

>We believe that GOD created all in the beginning.
>We believe that the Bible is the Truth and Word.
>We believe that evolution occurs under GOD's and man's control (less control from man...).
>We don't like Darwin; he was a sexist and a racist.
>We believe in giving the choices that have to be made in life.
>We believe man did not evolve from lower life forms.
>We believe homosexuality and abortion are wrong.
>We believe that GOD loves everyone and hates noone.
>We believe science to be a gift from GOD.
>We believe that it is neccessary to understand ourself and reach our potential.

<>Essentially a "communion" of evolutionary and creationist theory.
<>Please don't ask me to go into details into certians ones. It can get...difficult.
<>Does that help any?

That's the problem. You believe too much. It's OK, but that level of belief should be out of any serious scientific argumentation. Nothing that you believe makes sense to me. Science makes sense because it's completely free from religious beliefs. Imagine how it would be like to discuss these matters with people with differente creation myths. It wouldn't work if they were like you. No, religious belief is forbidden in science.

 

[bamthedoc]

Now, do you want to rethink your statement? If not, I'm sure some of the most scientific of the people in here (which includes me at times) will tear you apart with various arguements.

My biggest one right now is a summarized quote:

We believe evolution exists. We have as much evidence that our theories are valid in as much as Christians (I don't know why he singled us out...) can prove GOD exists. But, like a religion, our "proof" is based on faith.

~~scientist accepting some award



Ha! Try that on for size! When was this said? Not sure of the year, but it was very recent. If anyone knows (or the exact quote), all the better to put the point out. I'm not lieing; I don't like doing that.

Did you not read my entire post? I said a scientist, who has been studying evolution his entire life and believes it to happen/exist, said that all he has is faith in his theories. I believe too much? Almost everything is based on faith. Without belief, there can be nothing. Theories are based in anything more than faith until they can be proven 100%. Now...what does that include? 2 + 2 = 4 maybe. In otherwords, basic, and I do mean basic, math can be proven because humans created it. That's why scientists try to use math to prove theories. And they still haven't proven 99% of them. Calculus isn't even completely based on what we see as "fact", and that's a "math".

Now, I will be the first to admit that uncertainty seems like a horrid way to live. But we've been that way the entirety of human existance. Faith has always been one way to relieve that. I'll also say something that I've said before. Darwinism is a religion of nature. What arguement do I have to prove this? Darwin's own book and scientist, like the one above who just helps prove it, are good enough for now.

 

[BliZZard]

Evolution is not a problem to me. But sometimes evolutionists ( I'm talking about those who follow the ideas of scientist who study live under the Darwinian way of explaining things) are more alike religious fanatics who see evolution scientists has high-priests beyond any suspicion. hahaha. They are always talking about how blind creationists are. Maybe they should look to themselfs.

 

[Ixon]

I think a lil bit of both really. So i have no real opinion.

 

[freestyler]

U know what gets me annoyed! with what 'Banthedoc' said, how scientists have faith in bloody evolution, and how it's just a theory! Well, I'll tell ya, u need a lot more faith to solely trust and beleive in Evolution than u do in creation! And another thing, if it's only a theory, and not a religion (as it seems to be these days) how can anyone justify 'brainwashing' young school kids that it's true, when they cant even bloody understand it in any depth at all!? It's one of the most complecated theories on the planet! One more thing, if u ever did bioligy in Hschool, STRAIGHT AWAY with a little thought, u just CANT believe that evolution is true. The body is SO complex and unimagineably amazing! just one point. The human body at it's present state, would not be able to function properly with any part missing, so how can u explain the point in time when humans were still developing livers? or ears?, or mouths? or hmmmmm rectums? lol