Social Darwinism

[Ubeyde]

Asalamu Alaykum wa Rahmutalahi wa barakatu. All praises due to Allah, the Exalted Most High.

Today I shall attempt to give you some little insight which I posses about Social Darwinism, its practictioners, its meanings and the effects of it on society.

Social Darwinism, what is it?

Social Darwinism is the belief, and almost a religion formed over the disproved theories of a man named Charles Darwin.

He believed that every specie of animal, be it Human or fish, etc. had evolved throughout the ages through a process of Natural Selection.

Natural Selection is the process, according to theory, of species evolving, whereby the weakest gene is removed from a gene pool and only the strongest reside. Therefore, the genes of any particular species of animal will constantly be filtered and it will result in a "Super-form" of that particular animal, whereby it is vastly superior to its predecessors.

Now, let's see how that relates with Humans. If the theory of Natural Selection did exist, then for every Human blood shed should be looked forward to and not to be disheartened by it. In fact, every war- every battle should be looked forward to because we, as humans, have the oppurtunity to "clean" our gene pool of inferior races.

Wow, sounds very extreme doesn't it? This is because it is very extreme.

If you look back at the history of War you will see how it has advanced. Before the last few hundred or so years, when war was fought, it was fought out between the armies of two conflicting nations, however, as of the First World War, the harming of innocents on both nations has become commonplace. Instead of fighting the wars on the battlefield- war now involves innocents and those who want nothing to do with fighting, e.g. the disabled, elderly, women, children, etc.

Now you may ask why war has evolved so?

The reasoning behind the evolution of the way in which wars are conducted in Modern Day is because people who are practitioners of Social Darwinism believe that their race is the "most pure" and "the strongest" and therefore they should be deemed the Ruling Race.

There are many modern day examples of people who practice this "faith", some are listed below:

• Adolph Hitler (Nazism)
• Stalin
• Zionism in general (however, they use a different method of believing and accounting for the mass loss of innocent blood shed)

Hitler believed that his nation of Germans was the most technologically and sociologically advanced race on the planet. And, therefore, should be the Ruling Race.

Therefore, the Nazi-German party used the theory of Darwinism to kill countless civilians throughout Europe. Wherever the soldiers went, they killed those in the way and torched the dwellings of the people. They would, as well as all of the parties involved in the War, use bombing raids, chemical warfare to extinguish eachothers populations. Millions died.

Darwinism is actually linked to a form of Shaitan worship. I.e. blood sacrifices, etc. in order to please Shaitan. It is also linked to these people making preparations for the coming of the Dajjal. Look up the reasoning behind the "BP oil spill" and the "Operation Market Garden" so called disasters.. and check their dates as these will correspond to something very relevent.

I will not go into this further- i.e. the ideals of zionists, etc. so it is up to the reader as to look into these subjects.

Jazakarallah Khair.

[Verdetequiero]

Set sail for fail.

[Pygoscelis]

Darwinism is actually linked to a form of Shaitan worship. I.e. blood sacrifices, etc. in order to please Shaitan. It is also linked to these people making preparations for the coming of the Dajjal. Look up the reasoning behind the "BP oil spill" and the "Operation Market Garden" so called disasters.. and check their dates as these will correspond to something very relevent.

LOL

This post wins the most ridiculous and misinformed post of the year award. It looks more like parody than a real post.

Darwinism is liked to Satan worship and blood sacrfifice? How so? Evolution by natural selection is disproved? Show us.

[Gator]

How so? Evolution by natural selection is disproved? Show us.

Brian, DON'T!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Ubeyde]

At Pygoscelis.

Hi, about your post relating to my original post.

Social Darwinism is a "front" and I should have labelled that used by Zionists to control the weak minded and those easily corrupted. IF you put into the minds of the weak that they are some form of superior race, then they will be willing to do anything to become the "ruling class"- thus resulting in huge bloodshed.

If you look up what freemasons must do as part of their secretive religion you will see why it is linked to Satan worship. Don't believe me? Look it up bro, you'll find all your answers.

[LavaDog]

Now, let's see how that relates with Humans. If the theory of Natural Selection did exist, then for every Human blood shed should be looked forward to and not to be disheartened by it. In fact, every war- every battle should be looked forward to

I was an athiest and this was pretty much how i viewed war.

Hitler believed that his nation of Germans was the most technologically and sociologically advanced race on the planet. And, therefore, should be the Ruling Race.

This is what I could never understand about athiests. Even when I was one others would say these things were wrong. But with out a god or religion to follow then all that is left is natural selection. It seemed like the perfect version of natural law to me where the masses of the weak are there to be exploited by the strong just as nature intended.

[Pygoscelis]

Even when I was one others would say these things were wrong. But with out a god or religion to follow then all that is left is natural selection

Lavadog, I'm sorry to see you calling yourself a sociopath. Most of us would disagree with the above (as you noted). Regardless of how they arose, we do have ethics and values.

And none of the above has anything whatsoever to do with evolution or Charles Darwin.

[Pygoscelis]

Brian, DON'T!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WNrx2jq184

I think you're right LOL. I'll stop feeding the madness.

[LavaDog]

Lavadog, I'm sorry to see you calling yourself a sociopath. Most of us would disagree with the above (as you noted). Regardless of how they arose, we do have ethics and values.

But what are the ethics and values based on. Why should someone follow them if they don't believe in god. We have prisons full of people who claim they were born to kill so thats what they will continue to do until they die. Are they wrong if there is no real meaning to life. And it was not like the other athiests were godless philanthropists, they would kill with ease as long as they thought it was ok.

[Zafran]

Lavadog, I'm sorry to see you calling yourself a sociopath. Most of us would disagree with the above (as you noted). Regardless of how they arose, we do have ethics and values.

And none of the above has anything whatsoever to do with evolution or Charles Darwin.

never knew atheism had a pope who spoke for most atheists.

[Pygoscelis]

But what are the ethics and values based on. Why should someone follow them if they don't believe in god. We have prisons full of people who claim they were born to kill so thats what they will continue to do until they die. Are they wrong if there is no real meaning to life. And it was not like the other athiests were godless philanthropists, they would kill with ease as long as they thought it was ok.

I see this stance taken every now and then by a theist. The idea that without God there can be no morality and that if they lost their faith... they'd be doing all sorts of anti-social and destructive and cruel things. It is textbook sociopathy and I do not think those who speak it really mean it. I don't think you do.

The above also shows a confusion of obedience for morality and drive directly into the Euthyphro Dilema: Is good good because God wills it or does God will it because it is good?

If you honestly believed that God spoke to you and told you to kill your child as a sacrifice, or commit genocide on the nation next door, or fly a plane into a building, would you do it?

That is actually one of my main sticking points with Islam and Christianity. They appear to be primarily about obedience to power and ethics seem an afterthought.

To answer the question posed above, where do ethics and morality come from? I would suggest social convention, mutual self interest, and empathy.

[LavaDog]

To answer the question posed above, where do ethics and morality come from? I would suggest social convention, mutual self interest, and empathy.

I understand what you are saying but this always bugged me even when I was an athiest. I have met sociopaths before with zero empathy. Maybe most people would not like what they do but without a god I don't see why they should care. If there is no god to actually tell me its wrong why should I care. Or a better question is how do you personally find the ability to care.

[Lynx]

I understand what you are saying but this always bugged me even when I was an athiest. I have met sociopaths before with zero empathy. Maybe most people would not like what they do but without a god I don't see why they should care. If there is no god to actually tell me its wrong why should I care. Or a better question is how do you personally find the ability to care.

We have the police for Sociopaths !.! But of course, there are things like Buddhism, Kantianism, Utilitaranism, that offer a brand of ethical behavior outside of God which a sociopath can follow if he find them convincing. And as Pygo stated, if you need God to tell you not to rape and kill others then you might be a sociopath, so please stay Muslim :P

[LavaDog]

We have the police for Sociopaths !.! But of course, there are things like Buddhism, Kantianism, Utilitaranism, that offer a brand of ethical behavior outside of God which a sociopath can follow if he find them convincing. And as Pygo stated, if you need God to tell you not to rape and kill others then you might be a sociopath, so please stay Muslim :P

This is the never ending debate I have with athiests though. You say sociopaths can follow those beliefs but why? There are no repercussions so why would they bother? Without a god why would anybody care? But really the only reason I started this was because the only other posts on here were making fun of the thread starter and I thought that was unnecessary. So im pretty sure im not a sociopath.

[Pygoscelis]

This is the never ending debate I have with athiests though. You say sociopaths can follow those beliefs but why? There are no repercussions so why would they bother? Without a god why would anybody care? But really the only reason I started this was because the only other posts on here were making fun of the thread starter and I thought that was unnecessary. So im pretty sure im not a sociopath.

You are again equating obedience with morality. The question you are asking is why should we be good without reward/punishment or without fear of authority. The reason is because we have moral values and seek to better ourselves accordingly. If you can't see that, then you really do call sociopathy into question.

One area of research that may interest you given your questions above is that on "mirror neurons". Do a google on it and read a few articles. Its pretty cool stuff.

We were mocking the OP because it has nothing to do with Charles Darwin and is charged with a lot of hateful straw men. That tends to evoke a reaction from people. It would be like somebody starting a thread on how "Islam is terrorist" etc.

[Verdetequiero]

I was making fun of the OP because theists always try to tie "Social Darwinism" back to Darwin as if he covertly created it or evolution is somehow responsible for it. Evolution is wholly apart from "social Darwinism" and the dovetail into Zionists that sealed the deal.

As far as people being morally responsible with a God, LavaDog is somewhat correct in that without some kind of arbitrary law giver it is hard to establish a "objective morality" to hold everyone accountable to which dove tales into moral nihilism, but a law giver God comes with its own problems in that as far as we know all the organized religion's Gods have told their followers to do things that people find morally objectionable. Some individuals claim that God told them to do other morally reprehensible acts without being in an organized religion. There is also the Euthyphro dilemma which religionists haven't come up with a satisfactory answer yet.

Let me ask you a question LavaDog. Lets say that tomorrow some how Islam is proven wrong conclusively some plagerized parts of the Quran are found or Muhammad's diary was found with descriptions of how he was deceiving or something conclusive and it was proven without a doubt that Islam was a fake. What do you think would happen?

[Pygoscelis]

without some kind of arbitrary law giver it is hard to establish a "objective morality"

It is no easier to establish "objective morality" with a law giver. You just have their subjective morality imposed on others. Tyrants can lay out lots of rules and regulations they want followed on pain of death. That doesn't make anything any more objectively moral.

[LavaDog]

The reason is because we have moral values and seek to better ourselves accordingly.

If humans are not divine creations or whatever, then you would have to agree we are just another species of animals. In nature weak or sick animals are not looked at with sympathy or pity. Predators don't see a calf and decide it will take pity on it. It sees it as easy prey and kills it for its food. The weak in that case was there to serve the will and needs of the strong. Why should we be different? What absolutism are we going to use as moral compass if not some form of organized thought . Maybe Dr. mengele did not agree with you on your moral values but most of the medical data we got after the war was from him. He got results and bettered medical science, why should we consider him evil? The label sociopath means nothing if we don't have set morals to base it on. It would be like someone on here calling you a kaffir or whatever I don't think you would really care.

[Pygoscelis]

Imagining humans to be "divine creations" doesn't in any way solve that problem (if it really was a problem, which it is not).

You have yet to respond to the observation of your confusing obedience with morality. Would you do something like kill your child or do genocide on your neighbours or fly a plane into a building if you truly believed Allah wished it?

[LavaDog]

I was making fun of the OP because theists always try to tie "Social Darwinism" back to Darwin as if he covertly created it or evolution is somehow responsible for it.

Nobody likes to remember that darwin was a racist that said quite plainly that blacks were inferior to whites. Observing blacks and deciding that they were inferior did help him complete his theory.

Let me ask you a question LavaDog. Lets say that tomorrow some how Islam is proven wrong conclusively some plagerized parts of the Quran are found or Muhammad's diary was found with descriptions of how he was deceiving or something conclusive and it was proven without a doubt that Islam was a fake. What do you think would happen?

Good question. I guess eventually people would put all faith in science and wait for the singularity or something. But an immediate effect would be people devleoping complete nihilism. Which would bring me back to my point that without an eye in the sky keeping tabs on us why should anybody care about anything? Riot, loot, pillage, rape, kill, why not?

[LavaDog]

You have yet to respond to the observation of your confusing obedience with morality. Would you do something like kill your child or do genocide on your neighbours or fly a plane into a building if you truly believed Allah wished it?

Yes. I understand from the outside that seems completely batsh!t insane but honestly Im used to following orders that don't make any sense and the only reason you get is it will help in the long run. I still see no reasion for following societys morality. If you tell me do not kill because its not nice I don't feel any need to listen. If you said do not kill because if you do I will kill you as punishment then it would affect me so I would obey. To me thats all there is, obedience or anarchy.

[Gator]

Yes. I understand from the outside that seems completely batsh!t insane but honestly Im used to following orders that don't make any sense and the only reason you get is it will help in the long run. I still see no reasion for following societys morality. If you tell me do not kill because its not nice I don't feel any need to listen. If you said do not kill because if you do I will kill you as punishment then it would affect me so I would obey. To me thats all there is, obedience or anarchy.

As an atheist, I believe that there is no supernatural being looking over us. So where does "morality" come from?

For me, I believe we get it from two places, basically our genes and our intellect. First the genes. Genes that survive are the ones who have the best strategy for continuation. For most animals (like us) cooperation is a terrific strategy. What can genes "do" to support cooperative behavior? Well, certain genetic codes that could promote the creature to feel good about cooperating (not killing, stealing, etc.) would promote this. Also it could provide an instinct to do so. Creatures that do not cooperate would be at a disadvantage when up against a cooperative competitor. There are many examples in nature of empathy, self sacrifice, sharing and other behaviors that would I would call, if not morality, the foundations there of.

So some of the more brainer creatures, intelect would also be a foundation. It is a better strategy to cooperate and follow laws in general. It allows you to out compete non-cooperative creatures/societies. We are one of the weakest creatures on earth, but through our cooperation, we have done pretty well (depending on your point of view).

That's what I think anyway.

Thanks.

PS - There's a book called "SuperCooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed". I haven't read it, but have read a lot of the research by the author and other related researchers. Might be interesting to check it out.

[Pygoscelis]

Yes. I understand from the outside that seems completely batsh!t insane but honestly Im used to following orders that don't make any sense and the only reason you get is it will help in the long run. I still see no reasion for following societys morality. If you tell me do not kill because its not nice I don't feel any need to listen. If you said do not kill because if you do I will kill you as punishment then it would affect me so I would obey. To me thats all there is, obedience or anarchy.

The above is very disturbing to me, and I hope you never lose your faith.

[truthseeker63]

This is a very good subject.

[Trumble]

I think it has now been suitably settled that the OP is complete drivel (sorry, Ubeyde, but it really is), but I'd like to comment on a couple of points. Firstly,

Hitler believed that his nation of Germans was the most technologically and sociologically advanced race on the planet. And, therefore, should be the Ruling Race

While true, to some extent, the source of this belief actually had little to do with 'social Darwinism'. It was far more the result of historical events in the nineteenth century, and with influential philosophies (pre-dating Darwin) significantly influenced by that history; that of Hegel in particular. In brief, there was a widespead belief in Germany that the German people and nation were going through a continuing process of realizing their individual and national potential and identity after a long period of disunity and outside domination (not least by Napoleon I). Victory in the Franco-Prussian war vastly boosted both material resources available to Germany, as well as feelings of national pride and power and belief that what was now the German Empire was about to become genuine 'world' power, able to compete with Britain in particular. Hitler's views originated far more from a mix of that perception of Germany, and the consequent shock and denial that came from defeat in WW1, than anything to do with 'social Darwinism'. Of course, he also considered other 'races' inferior, but such racism - both towards Jews and Eastern Europeans, and beliefs in racial superiority existed long before Darwin and far beyond Germany.

Now you may ask why war has evolved so? If you look back at the history of War you will see how it has advanced. Before the last few hundred or so years, when war was fought, it was fought out between the armies of two conflicting nations, however, as of the First World War, the harming of innocents on both nations has become commonplace. Instead of fighting the wars on the battlefield- war now involves innocents and those who want nothing to do with fighting, e.g. the disabled, elderly, women, children, etc.

Your thesis is complete nonsense. Why don't you actually "look back at the history of war"?! Caesar, Alexander, Ghengis Khan and a thousand others all made war on civilians. In ancient times it was almost expected that military age males of a conquered city would be killed, and everyone else sold as slaves. The real driver was from increases in technology, and rapid increases in that that took off long before Darwin. The three most significant events were i) the widespread use of gunpowder, ii) the Industrial Revolution and iii) the development of nuclear weapons. All three had far reaching effects on civilians as well as soldiers.

Far from 'as of the First World War', the pattern of 'modern warfare' was already well established by the end of the American Civil War. Sherman's torching of Atlanta, for example, was a deliberate attempt to wage war by terrorizing a civilian population in order to harm national morale (EXACTLY the same reasoning behind the London Blitz, and the later Allied bombing of cities in both Germany and Japan). None had anything to do with 'social Darwinism' and whatever Sherman may have thought of the Confederates, it certainly had nothing to do with them being 'less technologically and sociologically advanced'. WW1 itself was little different from the Napoleonic wars in terms of it's direct effect on civilians. By the time of WW2, aerial bombing had been improved to the extent if formed an effective way to wage war whether armies were in direct contact or not, by attacking military facilities, industrial facilities (war now being industry driven) and civilian morale. And atomic weapons, of course, are completely indiscriminate as to who they happen to kill. Finally, as far as I am aware, the only attempt made to 'extinguish a population', as such, using chemical weapons - apart from the Nazi gas chambers, of course - was actually made by Saddam Hussein. Stalin preferred starvation and bullets. Neither Germany nor the Allies used gas attacks on civilians in WW1, and it was not used at all in the Western theatre in WW2. Both chemical and biological weapons were used to attack civilians on a couple of occasions by the Japanese, but that was as 'terror weapons' and - again - nothing to do with 'social Darwinism'.

[LavaDog]

The above is very disturbing to me, and I hope you never lose your faith.

lol I guess you can say religion is good for something now.

[LavaDog]

Neither Germany nor the Allies used gas attacks on civilians in WW1, and it was not used at all in the Western theatre in WW2. Both chemical and biological weapons were used to attack civilians on a couple of occasions by the Japanese, but that was as 'terror weapons' and - again - nothing to do with 'social Darwinism'.

Im not trying to nitpick but the army now admits they dropped napalm on german civilians for terror and intimidation after they decided gas would prove ineffective. The japanese had a biological weapon testing center called unit 731 in china that made auschwitz seem like hotel europa. They preformed vivisections on babies raped thounads and handed out anthrax laced candy to the chinese children. They did all of that because they were taught from birth they were superior to the chinese and they deserved no pity. The doctors did not even refer to the chinese as peole, they called them shipments of lumber.

[Pygoscelis]

I was hoping we could keep Hitler out of this, but since we're throwing him in, I point out that Hitler's ideology was more inspired by centuries of anti-semitism encouraged by the Christian church, and thus far more by religion than by evolution. Gott Mitt Uns indeed.

[Trumble]

Im not trying to nitpick but the army now admits they dropped napalm on german civilians for terror and intimidation after they decided gas would prove ineffective.

I'm happy to take your word for that but, regardless, the motive was not one of 'social Darwinism'.

The japanese had a biological weapon testing center called unit 731 in china that made auschwitz seem like hotel europa. They preformed vivisections on babies raped thounads and handed out anthrax laced candy to the chinese children. They did all of that because they were taught from birth they were superior to the chinese and they deserved no pity. The doctors did not even refer to the chinese as peole, they called them shipments of lumber.

It's somewhat cliched to describe the psychology of different cultures as 'enigmatic' but I do think that here. You are quite correct of course, and in addition to such particular crimes the Japanese killed an estimated 30 million civilians, 23 million of them Chinese, whom they were supposedly 'liberating' from British, Dutch and American colonialism. And yet even the most militant of Japanese would happily acknowledge and respect the vast influence of Chinese culture and tradition on their own over the previous 2,000 years.

[Ubeyde]

The reason behind this thread being somewhat vague in its approach is because I expected people to do research of their own. I.e. research into Zionism and what ultra-zionists do, their celebrations etc.

I lol'd at how you say civilians were effected by wars in previous times. May be some where, but not on such a huge huge scale like it is today. Just look at Gaza...

[Trumble]

Missed this before,

But with out a god or religion to follow then all that is left is natural selection.

As has already been said not only is natural selection not 'all that is left', it's probably pretty much irrelevant in this context since homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals! Of those suggested I think 'mutual self-interest' combined with sufficient intelligence to realize what that was is perfectly sufficient.

It seemed like the perfect version of natural law to me where the masses of the weak are there to be exploited by the strong just as nature intended.

Firstly, absolutely nothing has changed in that respect since the first appearance of belief in the Abrahamic God, through Jesus and Mohammed, to the present day. Peaceful and organized civilizations existed before then, and the strong have exploited the weak both before and since (the latter including the supposed believers). Secondly, in what way do you think nature 'intends' the strong to be exploited by the weak? Outside of our own species the only examples I can think of are perhaps 'dominant' males in social mammals like dogs, lions, or apes. And the situation there is little different from that with humans from a number of political perspectives. Marx for example, who was a notorious atheist, certainly believed that to be true of humans, but his reasons had nothing whatever to do with 'natural selection'.

[LavaDog]

As has already been said not only is natural selection not 'all that is left', it's probably pretty much irrelevant in this context since homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals! Of those suggested I think 'mutual self-interest' combined with sufficient intelligence to realize what that was is perfectly sufficient.

Well my point with that idea was if there is no god and we should be good for mutual self interest alone then there is no real reason. What if instead of following something like buddisim that says be good I decide to follow nietzsche and try to throw off all compassion and empathy for others.

[LavaDog]

I expected people to do research of their own. I.e. research into Zionism and what ultra-zionists do, their celebrations etc

I have noticed even on this site if you mention things about athiests or chritians everything is all good. However, the minute you meniton the words zion or jew whatever point you try to make is now just anti-semitism.

[Trumble]

Well my point with that idea was if there is no god and we should be good for mutual self interest alone then there is no real reason. What if instead of following something like buddisim that says be good I decide to follow nietzsche and try to throw off all compassion and empathy for others.

Nietzsche said nothing of the sort that I'm aware of, although I'd be happy to discuss any passages/references you provide. I have most of his books somewhere on the shelf. That's rather beside the point, though; you might equally well have used Ayn Rand as an example. I suppose many philosophers have or had 'followers', but surely the point is that you would only follow them if, after assessing their arguments and those of others, you believed them to be right. If, purely for sake of argument, we accepted Nietzsche did think as you say he did, how many followers would he have had? Enough to really bother the rest of humanity, or a few generally viewed as unpleasant 'nutters' and generally ignored.

There are always people who choose to break the rules, wherever they come from or are supposed to come from. That's why everything from the Qur'an to Mao's 'Little Red Book' acknowledge the need for a justice system. Even if somebody who 'threw off all compassion and empathy for others' refrained from criminal activity, it wouldn't take long until he/she ran out of friends and was ignored by family, and then how long would they choose to remain 'followers' of a philosophy so obviously detrimental to their own self-interest quite apart from any other reasons?

[LavaDog]

Nietzsche said nothing of the sort that I'm aware of,

Well the uberman thing was about this kinda. He mentions that emotions like empathy are holding people back from their true potential. But like everything else he wrote it was all over the place. Maybe Rand would have been a better example of justifying being callous towards others.

There are always people who choose to break the rules, wherever they come from or are supposed to come from. That's why everything from the Qur'an to Mao's 'Little Red Book' acknowledge the need for a justice system. Even if somebody who 'threw off all compassion and empathy for others' refrained from criminal activity, it wouldn't take long until he/she ran out of friends and was ignored by family, and then how long would they choose to remain 'followers' of a philosophy so obviously detrimental to their own self-interest quite apart from any other reasons?

Oh man, im running out of examples here but lets say someone has the mindset of GG allen so being hated means nothing to them they might actually even like being hated. They kill someone and they go to court or whatever. If The country they are in have a religion they accept as truth and the court system is based on that then the court can say yes your were wrong and we are right here is your punishment no wiggle rooom is involved. If the laws were based on justice system like Mao's book that is completely secular could he not argue they have to prove that their way of thinking is superior to his and then argue what standard they are using to measure.

[Pygoscelis]

Oh man, im running out of examples here but lets say someone has the mindset of GG allen so being hated means nothing to them they might actually even like being hated. They kill someone and they go to court or whatever. If The country they are in have a religion they accept as truth and the court system is based on that then the court can say yes your were wrong and we are right here is your punishment no wiggle rooom is involved. If the laws were based on justice system like Mao's book that is completely secular could he not argue they have to prove that their way of thinking is superior to his and then argue what standard they are using to measure.

I say again, the introduction of a God does not solve your "objective morality" quandry. It just mistakes obedience to power for morality. God's moral law is still his subjective view on morality (or more realistically, that of those claiming to speak for him). You already stated that you would perform atrocity if you believed Allah told you to.

[Ubeyde]

I have noticed even on this site if you mention things about athiests or chritians everything is all good. However, the minute you meniton the words zion or jew whatever point you try to make is now just anti-semitism.

You are joking right?? One of my oldest and best friends is Jewish. I have absolutely nothing against Jews or Judaism- most Israelis consider themselves to be Zionist and not Jewish.

If I was against Jews, that would mean that I would go against the Sunnah of Rasoola Sallahu Alayhi wasalam and Allah's commandments. People I do not like and Allah Ta'ala Himself does not like are those who corrupt this world. If you look throughout history there have been people exploiting other people and people using Wars such as the World Wars to exploit, corrupt and manipulate the masses. Don't believe me? Look at who actually funded Hitler, and who, financially benefitted from the Wars...

You think Jews weren't tortured in the wars?? In fact I have every sympathy for those who were.. Those Pious Rabbis amongst them are very very religious and noteworthy, I have no problem with them but as I mentioned earlier, it those who corrupt and manipulate is where problems arise..

Peace.

[LavaDog]

You are joking right??

Thats not what I ment. There are threads on here where people say christians are commiting war crimes in the middle east and there is little debate. However even the aid flotilla thread had arguments in it for Isreal. You said you wanted people to research for themselves about the ZIONISTS. This site is just like every where else. You have to be careful how you use the word zionist. If you mention it you are automatically considered anti-semitic. Kinda like how because I said this you thought I hated jews or something. So saying things about social darwinism and puttiing zionist in the topic would completly void your argument.

[Ubeyde]

I see your point, but I am on the Jews side here.. What was done to them in the World Wars deserves sympathy.

Whatever lies in wait for me in terms of torment or pleasure Allah has already written for me thousands of years before my birth. You think I am scared of mere creation?

[Pygoscelis]

A fair argument can be made that Israel was founded on western holocaust guilt, and Israel does exploit that way more than we should let them get away with. But on the other hand the anti-semitism is pretty obvious and rabid amongst some of their neighbours. Its is a feedback cycle.

[LavaDog]

I see your point, but I am on the Jews side here.. What was done to them in the World Wars deserves sympathy.

Yes it was bad but it was not a jewish holocaust. People seem to forget another five million died. I think we should feel just as bad for the homosexuals, plus the first people who were put into the camps were catholics.

[Lynx]

This is the never ending debate I have with athiests though. You say sociopaths can follow those beliefs but why? There are no repercussions so why would they bother? Without a god why would anybody care? But really the only reason I started this was because the only other posts on here were making fun of the thread starter and I thought that was unnecessary. So im pretty sure im not a sociopath.

it's possible for Bob to simply enjoy helping others or simply enjoy acting out his perceived moral duties. Those are rewards in themselves. For everyone else, we have prison !

[Ramadhan]

As has already been said not only is natural selection not 'all that is left', it's probably pretty much irrelevant in this context since homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals! Of those suggested I think 'mutual self-interest' combined with sufficient intelligence to realize what that was is perfectly sufficient.

Please show us here the evidence that homo sapiens wiped out the neanderthals.

[Ubeyde]

Please show us here the evidence that homo sapiens wiped out the neanderthals.

Exactly my view. Prove to me Evolution exists. You cannot because it doesn't.

[LavaDog]

it's possible for Bob to simply enjoy helping others or simply enjoy acting out his perceived moral duties. Those are rewards in themselves. For everyone else, we have prison !

Yes but right now we have prisons full of people who just don't care. They admit that they feel they were born to kill and will continue to do so. Perhaps one day Bob decides the meaning of life is no longer to help others but to take as many people down with him as he can. Would he not just be following his own path in life?

[Verdetequiero]

Exactly my view. Prove to me Evolution exists. You cannot because it doesn't.

What would it take to convince you would be a good starting point, but I don't think evolution is the idea of the thread.

[Zafran]

What would it take to convince you would be a good starting point, but I don't think evolution is the idea of the thread.

why dont you just prove evolution for him - It shouldnt be that hard.

[Pygoscelis]

why dont you just prove evolution for him - It shouldnt be that hard.

It isn't hard at all. All you need is a microscope, a petri dish, and some bacteria.

Or if you'd like to see it with bigger animals, then all you need is a few million years. You got the time? Let's begin :shade:

[Trumble]

Please show us here the evidence that homo sapiens wiped out the neanderthals.

Please conjour up the weeks it would take me to do the necessary research, and I'd be happy to do so! The most obvious evidence is simply that the world today contains something like 7 billion homo sapiens.. and zero homo neanderthalensis when the two species/sub-species most significant direct competitors were each other.

We can't be sure what happened, of course. It certainly seems very unlikely any sort of planned extermination took place, but most authorities seem to believe competition with homo sapiens was largely responsible for the extinction of the neanderthals; we were just the more successful species (or according to some, sub-species) when in direct competion for resources. Other factors could have been rapid fluctuations in climate, absortion into homo sapiens as a result of interbreeding, or even volcanic super-eruptions.

If you have evidence in favour of any other theories, please feel free to show us here.

[Lynx]

Yes but right now we have prisons full of people who just don't care. They admit that they feel they were born to kill and will continue to do so. Perhaps one day Bob decides the meaning of life is no longer to help others but to take as many people down with him as he can. Would he not just be following his own path in life?

Yeah that's exactly right.

[Ubeyde]

It isn't hard at all. All you need is a microscope, a petri dish, and some bacteria.

Or if you'd like to see it with bigger animals, then all you need is a few million years. You got the time? Let's begin :shade:

LOL interesting :)

[Trumble]

why dont you just prove evolution for him - It shouldnt be that hard.

Far from not being that hard, it's actually impossible. Just as it is with any other scientific theory. You can only disprove a scientific theory, not prove it. So you go ahead and 'prove' general relativity or quantum mechanics and we might think about 'proving' evolution.

All you can actually do is provide evidence in support of a scientific theory. And I'm afraid that, whether the creationist ostriches like it or not, evolution by natural selection is probably the best evidenced theory in the history of science. Any suggestion to the contrary is - frankly - a fairy story believed only by those with no understanding as to what science actually is.

To repeat the point, though, 'social Darwinism' is just a label, it has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.

[Zafran]

It isn't hard at all. All you need is a microscope, a petri dish, and some bacteria.

Or if you'd like to see it with bigger animals, then all you need is a few million years. You got the time? Let's begin :shade:

waiting..........

[Ramadhan]

It's nice to see you backtracking from such certainty as this:

homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals!

to this:

We can't be sure what happened, of course.

and unlike you, I dont pretend I know what happened. The neanderthals could have died out from diseases that only affected them, etc.

[Gator]

Exactly my view. Prove to me Evolution exists. You cannot because it doesn't.

Our side: a fossil record

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidenced speciation

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Changes in DNA

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: A record of life developing from the simple to the complex

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidence that evolutionary alogrithms can produced optimized structues

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Geographic distribution of life

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Examples of natural selection in action

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidence of hybridization

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Artificial selection reporduced in a lab.

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Well documented evolution of certain species or structures (like the horse).

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: The molecular record

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Retroviruses

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Vestigial structures

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Etc............................................... .................................................. .........................................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................

[Zafran]

Our side: a fossil record

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidenced speciation

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Changes in DNA

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: A record of life developing from the simple to the complex

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidence that evolutionary alogrithms can produced optimized structues

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Geographic distribution of life

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Examples of natural selection in action

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Evidence of hybridization

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Artificial selection reporduced in a lab.

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Well documented evolution of certain species or structures (like the horse).

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: The molecular record

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Retroviruses

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Our side: Vestigial structures

Your side: A book that says a magic man in the sky did it.

Etc............................................... .................................................. .........................................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................
.................................................. ...................

Nobody says that Magic man in the sky did it but after a million years we find out that God was behind it all - we win - Game over. Your side loses:D^o):embarrass:heated::nervous::shade::p

[Gator]

Nobody says that Magic man in the sky did it but after a million years we find out that God was behind it all - we win - Game over. Your side loses:D^o):embarrass:heated::nervous::shade::p

Oh, well then. Nevermind.:D

[CosmicPathos]

Far from not being that hard, it's actually impossible. Just as it is with any other scientific theory. You can only disprove a scientific theory, not prove it. So you go ahead and 'prove' general relativity or quantum mechanics and we might think about 'proving' evolution.

All you can actually do is provide evidence in support of a scientific theory. And I'm afraid that, whether the creationist ostriches like it or not, evolution by natural selection is probably the best evidenced theory in the history of science. Any suggestion to the contrary is - frankly - a fairy story believed only by those with no understanding as to what science actually is.

To repeat the point, though, 'social Darwinism' is just a label, it has nothing to do with evolution by natural selection.

wth?

Where are you pulling that from? There are other theories in science which have far more convincing evidence with no alternative explanations. Evolution has alternative explanation since changes in DNA (one example of what gator so boastfully posted) does not mean any relationship with the previous configuration.

[Trumble]

It's nice to see you backtracking from such certainty as this:

I don't think the context of my initial comment suggested any actual or intended attempt at academic rigour?

and unlike you, I dont pretend I know what happened. The neanderthals could have died out from diseases that only affected them, etc.

I was not 'pretending' anything. It was a one line reference to the prevailing theory, not an academic paper.

There are other theories in science which have far more convincing evidence with no alternative explanations.

Name one, or at least one of anything like the same significance.

Evolution has alternative explanation since changes in DNA ... does not mean any relationship with the previous configuration.

Er, what? Could you please explain what you mean by that? Or better still link to a scientific paper that explains and advocates it as an alternative to evolution by natural selection?

[Ramadhan]

I don't think the context of my initial comment suggested any actual or intended attempt at academic rigour?

it was certainly NOT an attempt at academic rigour.

I was not 'pretending' anything. It was a one line reference to the prevailing theory, not an academic paper.

Modern humans "wiping out" neanderthals is not even the prevailing theory. Any sufficiently educated people would know this.
And there is no such thing as "the prevailing theory how neanderthals died out" anyway. There are theories, but still remain that: theories, and none of these theories at the moment can be proven. Is neanderthals your pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monsters?

LOL.

[Pygoscelis]

and unlike you, I dont pretend I know what happened.

This line here is the most delicious irony of the month.

[Zafran]

This line here is the most delicious irony of the month.

dont eat it all at once you might choke.

[LavaDog]

They have many theories, homo sapians killing them off is just one of them.

[Trumble]

Modern humans "wiping out" neanderthals is not even the prevailing theory. Any sufficiently educated people would know this.
And there is no such thing as "the prevailing theory how neanderthals died out" anyway. There are theories, but still remain that: theories, and none of these theories at the moment can be proven.

I think you'll find that, when taken as broadly as my following post (when I used a few more words) suggested, it is. I have no idea what degree of education is deemed 'sufficient', although I suspect it does include knowing what the word 'prevailing' actually means. Perhaps you might refer to a dictionary? It probably also includes knowing what a scientific theory is, and whether or not it can be 'proven' but, worry not, I've already covered that in a previous post.

If I may, a word of advice? Take it or not as you choose. Should you wish to be honoured with the rank of full moderator without the 'trainee' bit, it just might be a good idea to avoid diverting totally innocent threads in the direction of complete off-topicness because you can't resist the urge to be a smartass? Just a thought. :)

This line here is the most delicious irony of the month.

Hmm.. I think I'd actually rank it second. First would be naidamar's suggestion the neanderthals were made extinct by a disease to which we were immune; it's just so deliciously Darwinian!

[CosmicPathos]

I don't think the context of my initial comment suggested any actual or intended attempt at academic rigour?



I was not 'pretending' anything. It was a one line reference to the prevailing theory, not an academic paper.




Name one, or at least one of anything like the same significance.



Er, what? Could you please explain what you mean by that? Or better still link to a scientific paper that explains and advocates it as an alternative to evolution by natural selection?

Name one? I've already told you that just because, for example, the Notch protein receptor in humans and drosophila is about 75% similar does not mean we are commonly related through a common ancestor somewhere in the past. Its just an explanation given by evolutionists, which they believe in. I do not need to believe in this interpretation of evidence that there is ancestral relationship. The protein amino acids are conserved, well because protein has similar functions yet in different environments (human body vs mouse body).

And no I cannot provide you scientific papers about this as:
1- they wont be published in the first place because you are going against the dogma of naturalists who are the editors on boards of these journals. How do I know this? Well my lab had trouble publishing a paper in one such journal, and it had nothing to do with evolution. It was rejected due to "political reasons" as my supervisor had different opinion about certain things in virology, and she ended up publishing with different people in a different journal.
2- there is no difference in explanatory power of the two interpretations of the evidence of DNA similarity and changes among many others (including vestigial organs, SNPs, RFLP, transposons, horizontal gene transfer, antibiotic resistance): that of evolutionists and that of non-evolutionists (like myself).

[Ramadhan]

I think you'll find that, when taken as broadly as my following post (when I used a few more words) suggested, it is. I have no idea what degree of education is deemed 'sufficient', although I suspect it does include knowing what the word 'prevailing' actually means. Perhaps you might refer to a dictionary? It probably also includes knowing what a scientific theory is, and whether or not it can be 'proven' but, worry not, I've already covered that in a previous post.

This is what prevailing means:
–adjective 1. predominant: prevailing winds.
2. generally current: the prevailing opinion.
3. having superior power or influence.
4. effectual.



And this is what you wrote:

It was a one line reference to the prevailing theory

so clearly you meant it was the predominant theory, because if the use of the definitive.

and again, you claimed "modern human wiped out neanderthals" as "scientific theory", and anyone with basic grasp of science would know that it is not a theory, but it is merely a hypothesis. And one of many hypothesa at that, including specific diseases, rapid climate change, etc. Apparently, you didnt know this, hence I said "anyone with sufficient education".
Anyone with enough education would know the difference between scientific hypothesis and scientific theory. Anyone with sufficient education would know that "human wiped out neanderthals" is not even the predominant "theory"

[Ramadhan]

I think you'll find that, when taken as broadly as my following post (when I used a few more words) suggested, it is. I have no idea what degree of education is deemed 'sufficient', although I suspect it does include knowing what the word 'prevailing' actually means. Perhaps you might refer to a dictionary? It probably also includes knowing what a scientific theory is, and whether or not it can be 'proven' but, worry not, I've already covered that in a previous post.

This is what prevailing means:
–adjective 1. predominant: prevailing winds.
2. generally current: the prevailing opinion.
3. having superior power or influence.
4. effectual.



And this is what you wrote:

It was a one line reference to the prevailing theory

so clearly you meant it was the predominant theory, because if the use of the definitive.

and again, you claimed "modern human wiped out neanderthals" as "scientific theory", and anyone with basic grasp of science would know that it is not a theory, but it is merely a hypothesis. And one of many hypothesa at that, including specific diseases, rapid climate change, etc. Apparently, you didnt know this, hence I said "anyone with sufficient education".
Anyone with enough education would know the difference between scientific hypothesis and scientific theory. Anyone with sufficient education would know that "human wiped out neanderthals" is not even the predominant "theory"

[Trumble]

so clearly you meant it was the predominant theory, because if the use of the definitive.

"generally current: the prevailing opinion"' is closest. As definitions of both 'prevailing' and 'predominant' suggest they can be regarded as virtual, if not actual synonyms, the difference is trivial.

again you claimed "modern human wiped out neanderthals" as "scientific theory", and anyone with basic grasp of science would know that it is not a theory, but it is merely a hypothesis. And one of many hypothesa at that, including specific diseases, rapid climate change, etc. Apparently, you didnt know this, hence I said "anyone with sufficient education".

As is your habit, you are using quotation marks around things I have not said. Paraphrase by all means, but please use quotation marks only when quoting verbatim.

Anyone with enough education would know the difference between scientific hypothesis and scientific theory.

I agree. It is therefore fortunate one of us does have enough education! Obviously hypotheses regarding events in pre-history cannot be tested in the same way that, say, hypotheses regarding physics or chemistry can. That does not mean that sufficient observations of fossils, artifacts, deduced population movements and so on are not sufficient for a hypothesis concerning pre-history to become prevalent, and accepted as having sufficient supporting evidence to be considered a theory, as is the case here. I'm afraid your 'basic grasp' of hasty research by Wikipedia is no substitute for that 'basic grasp of science'.

Anyone with sufficient education would know that "human wiped out neanderthals" is not even the predominant "theory"

I know I really shouldn't ask this of a moderator, even a trainee one, but why do you insist on making a fool of yourself? I can only refer you my previous advice and hope Woodrow and Co. advise something similar.

[Trumble]

Name one?

I actually invited you to name another scientific theory of comparable importance to evolution by natural selection that was better supported by empirical evidence.

I've already told you that just because, for example, the Notch protein receptor in humans and drosophila is about 75% similar does not mean we are commonly related through a common ancestor somewhere in the past. Its just an explanation given by evolutionists, which they believe in. I do not need to believe in this interpretation of evidence that there is ancestral relationship. The protein amino acids are conserved, well because protein has similar functions yet in different environments (human body vs mouse body).

I assume this is your supposed scientific 'alternative' to evolution by natural selection. You do, though, seem rather confused by the distinction between the theory of evolution by natural selection and explanations of its mechanism. As Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be (and was) accepted quite happily on the basis of observational evidence in complete ignorance of such things as DNA and Notch protein receptors (whatever the heck they are), I fail to see any alternative to that theory hidden in the above.

And no I cannot provide you scientific papers about this as:
1- they wont be published in the first place because you are going against the dogma of naturalists who are the editors on boards of these journals. How do I know this? Well my lab had trouble publishing a paper in one such journal, and it had nothing to do with evolution. It was rejected due to "political reasons" as my supervisor had different opinion about certain things in virology, and she ended up publishing with different people in a different journal.
2- there is no difference in explanatory power of the two interpretations of the evidence of DNA similarity and changes among many others (including vestigial organs, SNPs, RFLP, transposons, horizontal gene transfer, antibiotic resistance): that of evolutionists and that of non-evolutionists (like myself).

People are quite free to pay to publish themselves, which is easier than ever with the internet and if the reasearch presented is sound it will eventually be accepted. I would have thought that the obvious rewards (Nobel prize, multi-million selling best seller, chat show fees) would provide more than enough motivation to overcome such resistance in the case of a topic so important. May I respectfully suggest your lab's research, while worthy no doubt, was perhaps not quite so earth shattering?

I have pointed out above why DNA, SNPs, transposons, horizontal gene transfer and the rest are of no more relevance to Darwin than the graviton was to Newton (or to Einstein, come to that).

[Ramadhan]

"generally current: the prevailing opinion"' is closest. As definitions of both 'prevailing' and 'predominant' suggest they can be regarded as virtual, if not actual synonyms, the difference is trivial. As is your habit, you are using quotation marks around things I have not said. Paraphrase by all means, but please use quotation marks only when quoting verbatim.

It seems you have forgotten what you wrote. Let me refresh your memory, this is what you said (and this time I made sure it is verbatim):

I was not 'pretending' anything. It was a one line reference to the prevailing theory, not an academic paper.

As has already been said not only is natural selection not 'all that is left', it's probably pretty much irrelevant in this context since homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals! Of those suggested I think 'mutual self-interest' combined with sufficient intelligence to realize what that was is perfectly sufficient.

Anyone with grade school reading comprehension should be able to understand that by choosing to use the word "since", you present it as a fact. You should have known better than presenting a hypothesa from the field of anthropology/archeaology as fact (eg. the latest archeaological find from Israel could potentially disprove such established theory as the single origin theory).
However, after I asked you for evidence, you backtracked and said that it is only the prevailing theory.
and by choosing to use "the previling", you present it as if it is the predominant, generally current, superior (per dictionary), which I have pointed out that it is not as scientists themselves do not agree as to what caused the extinction of neanderthals, and there are many hypothesa offered (or as you call it "theories"), of which none is more prevailing than others as there is not enough data and evidence to show either.

And even if we use your definition of "the prevailing theory", "homo sapiens wiped out the Neanderthals" (please note here that this is the verbatim of what you said) is NOT the prevailing theory of how neanderthals went extinct, as there are MANY prevailing theories about extinction of neanderthals like I said, and most authorities (as you called it) would never even claim it ("homos sapiens wiped out neanderthals") in any way. My mistake is I did not provide you with sources because I thought you could have done that yourself and save you from embarrassment.
Here are some more current prevaling hypothesa offered by "authorities":

Neanderthals didn’t get dumped on prehistory’s ash heap — it got dumped on them. At least three volcanic eruptions about 40,000 years ago devastated Neandertals’ western Asian and European homelands, spurring a rapid demise of these humanlike hominids, says a team led by archaeologist Liubov Golovanova of the ANO Laboratory of Prehistory in St. Petersburg, Russia. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene...ogists_propose

Yet they were affected by environmental perturbation and went extinct. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12093345

Neanderthals Extinction Hypothesis Offered: The University of Granada study of Gorham's cave on Gibraltar shows the Neanderthal extinction could have been determined by environmental and climate changes, and not by competitiveness with modern humans. http://www.physorg.com/news97254266.html

A US study on Monday found that Neanderthals, prehistoric cousins of humans, ate grains and vegetables as well as meat, cooking them over fire in the same way homo sapiens did. The new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) challenges a prevailing theory that Neanderthals' over reliance on meat contributed to their extinction around 30,000 years ago http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-...e-veggies.html

Over the past two decades many explanations have been proposed for the extinction of the Neanderthals. Some believe that they never became extinct. Instead they either evolved into AMHS (Brace 1995; Wolpoff 1989, 1992; Wolpoff et al. 1994) or were absorbed by modern DNA through interbreeding (Smith 1994; Smith et al. 2005; Trinkaus 2007; Zilhão 2006a, b; Zilhão & Trinkaus 2003). However, those who follow the Out of Africa model of human origins (Stringer 1990; Stringer & Andrews 1988; Stringer & Gamble 1998) have posited a variety of extinction hypotheses.However, these theories largely ignored the effect that the climatic oscillations of OIS 3 may have had upon the Neanderthal and AMHS populations in Europe http://durham.academia.edu/Frederick...hal_Extinction

So, clearly, there are many hypotheses offered as to why neanderthals went extinct, including the findings about neanderthals developing TSE disease as a result of cannibalism.

I have also observed that you (along with other atheists here) often readily accept hypothesa with the flimsiest data and circumstantial evidence as facts, while on the other hand, flat out refusing even the idea that our universe is created, although proof (scientific, reasoning, logical) point out towards that.

I know I really shouldn't ask this of a moderator, even a trainee one, but why do you insist on making a fool of yourself? I can only refer you my previous advice and hope Woodrow and Co. advise something similar.

Does the truth hurt that badly for you?
:)

[Trumble]

Anyone with grade school reading comprehension should be able to understand that by choosing to use the word "since", you present it as a fact.

I'm afraid by this point I can only assume you are trying to wind me up, in order to get an chance to exercise your new powers!

Anyone with that grade school reading comprehension will realise, as I have already said, that that phrase was not intended to present a scientific hypotheses', scientific theory, scientific wishful thinking, or scientific anything else. It certainly wasn't intended to present an opportunity for an alleged moderator to take a thread on 'social darwinism' into a totally off-topic, totally irrelevant and seemingly endless discussion of why the neanderthals might have died out. Tell you what, if it makes you happy, let's just pretend I wrote "since the neanderthals died out while we survived" in the first post, shall we? The meaning of that post would be completely unchanged, and to make you happier still I'll offer that as a statement of fact rather than a theory or hypothesis as I think even you could agree that neanderthals are a little short on the ground these days. Maybe Wikipedia thinks differently, I dont know.

However, after I asked you for evidence, you backtracked and said that it is only the prevailing theory.....

blah, blah, blah...........

..... So, clearly, there are many hypotheses offered as to why neanderthals went extinct, including the findings about neanderthals developing TSE disease as a result of cannibalism.

In terms of substantial content you are just parroting what you posted lasted time. Nobody is doubting that there are many hypotheses as to what may have contributed to the extinction of the neanderthals; that does not prevent there being a prevailing hypothesis, and indeed theory, as to what the principal reason actually was. Exactly the same is true of the extinction of the dinosaurs, but let's just not go there OK? I am still taking anti-depressants.

I have also observed that you (along with other atheists here) often readily accept hypothesis with the flimsiest data and circumstantial evidence as facts, while on the other hand, flat out refusing even the idea that our universe is created, although proof (scientific, reasoning, logical) point out towards that.

Have you really? Maybe you could point out an example of where I have accepted a hypothesis with the flimsiest data and circumstantial evidence as a fact? The final phrase is of that paragraph is, of course, so laughable, I won't comment beyond to say that you need to look up 'proof' in your dictionary, too.

Does the truth hurt that badly for you?

That you persist in making a fool of yourself? Why should it?

[Pygoscelis]

How did this thread go form a lame and inflamatory characacture of evolution (and false link to "social darwinism" and satan worship) to a flame war over neanderthals?

I have also observed that you (along with other atheists here) often readily accept hypothesa with the flimsiest data and circumstantial evidence as facts

Such as what exactly? I have yet to hear any atheist, or any theist for that matter, express the kind of hardocre faith in any hypothethis as the muslims here have in their religious beliefs. There is just no comprison.

while on the other hand, flat out refusing even the idea that our universe is created

I haven't seen that either. Was Trumble stating that the universe can't have possibly been created? If not him, who was?

although proof (scientific, reasoning, logical) point out towards that.

What proof? All I've ever seen in this forum is repeated claims (and a lot of adhom and hostility)

[CosmicPathos]

I actually invited you to name another scientific theory of comparable importance to evolution by natural selection that was better supported by empirical evidence.




I assume this is your supposed scientific 'alternative' to evolution by natural selection. You do, though, seem rather confused by the distinction between the theory of evolution by natural selection and explanations of its mechanism. As Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection can be (and was) accepted quite happily on the basis of observational evidence in complete ignorance of such things as DNA and Notch protein receptors (whatever the heck they are), I fail to see any alternative to that theory hidden in the above.




People are quite free to pay to publish themselves, which is easier than ever with the internet and if the reasearch presented is sound it will eventually be accepted. I would have thought that the obvious rewards (Nobel prize, multi-million selling best seller, chat show fees) would provide more than enough motivation to overcome such resistance in the case of a topic so important. May I respectfully suggest your lab's research, while worthy no doubt, was perhaps not quite so earth shattering?

I have pointed out above why DNA, SNPs, transposons, horizontal gene transfer and the rest are of no more relevance to Darwin than the graviton was to Newton (or to Einstein, come to that).

What is the distinction between theory of evolution and the explanation of mechanism? if the theory cannot be explained, there is no need to believe its existence is necessary, first of all. Secondly, yes, there are things which exist but we cant explain their existence and it does not mean they do not exist but comparing those things with theory of evolution (which itself is an explanation given by man compared to the actual unexplainable physical things/phenomenon I am talking about) is laughable. Exactly, the Darwin's theory was accepted heavily in the absence of molecular evidence! What was it acceptance based on? On fossil record? On presence of homologous anatomical structures? On the basis of evidence from finches' beak sizes? All those have alternative explanation: Fossil record does not necessitate a progressive ancestral relationship even if modified fossils (giant spiders to small spiders later in time, or reptile-bird to just bird) are found dependent on the variable of time from antiquity to modernity. Finches' differential beak sizes mean different environments, it does not however mean that once, many million years ago, all finches were of same species or had similar beak sizes, which changed later over time due to evolutionary pressures (natural selection/mutation) on new islands that they inhabited.

You seem to be the one who is confused regarding the fact that theory of evolution can only be accepted if there is strong evidence to show that it is the ONLY explanation for existence of every living thing on Earth.

[Trumble]

What is the distinction between theory of evolution and the explanation of mechanism? if the theory cannot be explained, there is no need to believe its existence is necessary, first of all.

I would have thought that self-evident, you were the one going on about 'explanatory power'! We sent man to the moon on the basis of Newton's theory of gravity, and yet Newton didn't have the slightest idea of how gravity 'worked'. All he knew was that his equations had more predictive power (indeed, as far as he was able to measure 100% predictive power) than anything devised before. Are you seriously claiming Newton was just wasting his time?!

Secondly, yes, there are things which exist but we cant explain their existence and it does not mean they do not exist but comparing those things with theory of evolution (which itself is an explanation given by man compared to the actual unexplainable physical things/phenomenon I am talking about) is laughable.

Exactly, the Darwin's theory was accepted heavily in the absence of molecular evidence! What was it acceptance based on? On fossil record? On presence of homologous anatomical structures? On the basis of evidence from finches' beak sizes? All those have alternative explanation: Fossil record does not necessitate a progressive ancestral relationship even if modified fossils (giant spiders to small spiders later in time, or reptile-bird to just bird) are found dependent on the variable of time from antiquity to modernity. Finches' differential beak sizes mean different environments, it does not however mean that once, many million years ago, all finches were of same species or had similar beak sizes, which changed later over time due to evolutionary pressures (natural selection/mutation) on new islands that they inhabited.

Actually it's perfectly reasonable, it just happens to be inconvenient to those who refuse to accept the theory for non-scientific reasons. People in 2011 tend to forget that, rather than being jumped on in the way they tend to imply, Darwin's theory didn't 'exactly' go down too well at first. There was exactly the same 'men from monkeys' nonsense then as there was now - in much greater quantities. The theory was accepted when the weight of evidence in it's favour became so overwhelming that even the most resistant biologists could no longer reject it without compromising their intellectual integrity and credibility.

I have already explained why 'molecular evidence' was unnecessary. The list you provide is a very small sub-set of millions of examples, the vast majority of which can be explained by evolution by natural selection. Sure, each might have an alternative explanation, but unless they can be shown to have a common alternative explanation, or at least something approaching as common of evolution it's just grasping at creationist straws. Explanatory power, again.

You seem to be the one who is confused regarding the fact that theory of evolution can only be accepted if there is strong evidence to show that it is the ONLY explanation for existence of every living thing on Earth.

No, I'm not confused.

Firstly, that simply doesn't follow. It is perfectly coherent view (albeit it one without the slightest bit of scientific evidence) that mankind was created by God and everything else was the result of evolution by natural selection. That is also totally compatible with the idea that the mechanism of evolution by natural selection was designed by God; something I'm continuallly baffled creationists reject for the far less elegant solution of some sort of continual tinkering on God's part with a new species here, extinct one there, another new one here.. etc, etc.

Secondly, I am satisfied that there is such strong evidence. So is virtually everybody else who has no religion-dictated reason to think otherwise. Acceptance of the theory does not, however, as I keep having to repeat, prove evolution by natural selection is a fact any more than acceptance of Newton's laws made them fact. But anybody who currently believes there is any serious scientific competitor to evolution is just fooling themselves. The argument for creationism is done a huge disservice by pretending it has anything to do with with science. The fact that evolution may yet need the same sort of fine tuning as did Newton's gravity (and probably Einstein's as well) and is subject to a bit of sniping around the edges as a consequence provides no reason to take seriously an alternative for which there remains no scientific evidence whatsoever.

[Pygoscelis]

Firstly, that simply doesn't follow. It is perfectly coherent view (albeit it one without the slightest bit of scientific evidence) that mankind was created by God and everything else was the result of evolution by natural selection. That is also totally compatible with the idea that the mechanism of evolution by natural selection was designed by God; something I'm continuallly baffled creationists reject

Your typical creationist rejects this. But I would add that it is a pretty common view amongst Catholics and many other religious folks. Their predecessors spent tons of energy fighting evolution, but since it did so well against them, now they accept it and claim God did it. If you can't beat em' join em, and claim you've been in charge of em all along, it would seem :D

[Zafran]

Your typical creationist rejects this. But I would add that it is a pretty common view amongst Catholics and many other religious folks. Their predecessors spent tons of energy fighting evolution, but since it did so well against them, now they accept it and claim God did it. If you can't beat em' join em, and claim you've been in charge of em all along, it would seem :D

This is what I find funny - If evolution is indeed true you should be happy people are accepting it because its true not beacsue they lost the war and are now part of the evolution empire! no wonder creationist hate the idea of bowing to evolutionist.

[LavaDog]

Their predecessors spent tons of energy fighting evolution, but since it did so well against them, now they accept it and claim God did it.

[Pygoscelis]

LOL LAVADOG! Wel said well said ;D

This is what I find funny - If evolution is indeed true you should be happy people are accepting it because its true not beacsue they lost the war and are now part of the evolution empire! no wonder creationist hate the idea of bowing to evolutionist.

I'm not an evolutionist and I don't really care if people believe in evolution. I just enjoy the humour in the sudden switch from denial to championship in many of these believers.

[Scimitar]

Necro-Bumpings... and deservedly so,


Subboor Ahmad breaks down why Social Darwinism is :facepalm:


Subscribe for more: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpS...ZZzKXAORKfFodQ