|
Creation vs Evolution (pg. 30)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Urbanmessiah
You Evolutionists are all a bunch of Social Darwinist racists. Who think that blacks arn't evovled because they look like monkeys. Maybe your views were accepted in Classical time but welcome to modern time and your rascist views are no longer accepted. |
By this statement are you implying that there is a direct correlation between evolutionary research and that twisted idea of Social Darwinism? If so, please support your assertion.
And if you attempt to somehow drag Hitler into this, keep in mind that Hitler referenced himself as a Christian too. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
I guess the "challenge" wasn't much of a challenge :( |
Not that I'm a huge Bible advocate or anything, but you have to keep it in context that the Bible was translated to and from many different languages, many times over.
Considering the fact that the Aramaic alphabet alone is composed of only 22 letters (and is written from right to left), I'm sure that would be reason in itself to expect loose translations.
Akkadian, Aramaic, Aramic, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, Greek [New Testament], etc. - that's some serious translating. So how could there NOT be discrepancies given the limited knowledge base that it's translaters were working with at that time?
To me, the most interesting piece of the puzzle is that Archangel Gabriel was supposedly the one who revealed the word of God to Muhammad - while it was also Gabriel who previously inspired Moses to write the Old Testament. He was also purportedly the messenger who revealed the coming of Jesus to Mary, among many other things. |
|
|
| Urbanmessiah |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
By this statement are you implying that there is a direct correlation between evolutionary research and that twisted idea of Social Darwinism? If so, please support your assertion.
And if you attempt to somehow drag Hitler into this, keep in mind that Hitler referenced himself as a Christian too. |
Evolution and Social Darwinism are exactly the same! How are they different?
Hitler wasn't christian the jews were slaughtered for racial reasons, they wern't part of the Germanic race. Nazi's never promoted christianity ever. Hitler and the nazi's loved Neitchze and evolution they had huge charts putting all the different races in different evolutionary categories, from most evolved to least. |
|
|
| Trancer-X |
| quote: | Originally posted by Urbanmessiah
Evolution and Social Darwinism are exactly the same! How are they different?
Hitler wasn't christian the jews were slaughtered for racial reasons, they wern't part of the Germanic race. Nazi's never promoted christianity ever. Hitler and the nazi's loved Neitchze and evolution they had huge charts putting all the different races in different evolutionary categories, from most evolved to least. |
Hitler was an occultist, so in that same light his most treasured possessions were Christian artifacts (relics) such as the Spear of Longinus.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...6099943-0989732 |
|
|
| Urbanmessiah |
| I'm sorry I have no idea what you just said,Christian artifacts-nazi paganist links? Occult wtf does that mean. |
|
|
| .montecarlo. |
| quote: | Originally posted by Urbanmessiah
Evolution and Social Darwinism are exactly the same! How are they different?
|
| quote: |
Another such view is "Social Darwinism", which holds that social policy should allow the weak and unfit to fail and die, and that this is not only good policy but morally right. The only real connection between Darwinism and Social Darwinism is the name. The real source of Social Darwinism is Herbert Spencer and the tradition going back to Hobbes via Malthus, not Darwin's own writings, though Darwin gained some inspiration on the effects of population growth from Malthus.
The claims made by Social Darwinists and their heirs suffer from the ethical fallacy known as "the naturalistic fallacy" (no connection to naturalism in explanations and the study of knowledge mentioned above). This is the inference from what may be the case to the conclusion that it is therefore right. However, while it is certainly true that, for example, some families are prone to suffer diabetes, as mine is, there is no licence to conclude that they should not be treated, any more than the fact that a child has a broken arm from a bicycle accident implies that the child should have a broken arm. David Hume long ago showed that "is" does not imply "ought".
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/social.html
|
| quote: | Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evo...definition.html
|
|
|
|
| Urbanmessiah |
Evolution are weak genes being kicked out of the body by stronger genes, through hard work, so the person evolves gaining stronger genes. Humans adapt to harsher conditions thus evolving.
Social darwinism, people of weak genes allowed dying so those of stronger genes can survive and reproduce, unlike modern times when medical technology allows people of weak genes (unevolved) to reach reproduction age. Thus "human accomplishment in the present world is on the decline" Charles Murray.
Same things. Otherwords if you believe in Communism and evolution then you are contradicting yourself.
Please forgive my terminology, I don't have much interest in this subject unlike some wackos out there. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Urbanmessiah
I don't have much interest in this subject unlike some wackos out there. |
That's really blatantly obvious from reading your posts. If you want to speak your mind about evolution, read a biology book first. Otherwise you're just embarassing yourself by showing us your extreme lack of knowledge. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Trancer-X
Not that I'm a huge Bible advocate or anything, but you have to keep it in context that the Bible was translated to and from many different languages, many times over.
Considering the fact that the Aramaic alphabet alone is composed of only 22 letters (and is written from right to left), I'm sure that would be reason in itself to expect loose translations.
Akkadian, Aramaic, Aramic, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin, Greek [New Testament], etc. - that's some serious translating. So how could there NOT be discrepancies given the limited knowledge base that it's translaters were working with at that time?
To me, the most interesting piece of the puzzle is that Archangel Gabriel was supposedly the one who revealed the word of God to Muhammad - while it was also Gabriel who previously inspired Moses to write the Old Testament. He was also purportedly the messenger who revealed the coming of Jesus to Mary, among many other things. |
Well Torontotrance's "challenge" wasn't that the bible still retained some legitimacy though passed down through thousands of years, compiled by difference sources, etc., etc., etc., his challenge was to prove that the bible had no contradictions, was literally true in every respect, and was the direct word of God therefore nothing about it could be disputed. ;)
| quote: | Originally posted by Urbanmessiah
Evolution are weak genes being kicked out of the body by stronger genes, through hard work, so the person evolves gaining stronger genes. Humans adapt to harsher conditions thus evolving.
Social darwinism, people of weak genes allowed dying so those of stronger genes can survive and reproduce, unlike modern times when medical technology allows people of weak genes (unevolved) to reach reproduction age. Thus "human accomplishment in the present world is on the decline" Charles Murray.
Same things. Otherwords if you believe in Communism and evolution then you are contradicting yourself.
Please forgive my terminology, I don't have much interest in this subject unlike some wackos out there. |
Wow … just wow. |
|
|
|
|
