Comment

Comment by Joan Denoo on April 8, 2012 at 11:00pm

Oh dear! Someone believes Darwinism supports * logic for a hierarchy of life forms, * cast system, * euthanasia of lesser beings, and * different treatment of different races?

I wonder what books the person reads, or people to whom he/she listens, or crowd with whom he/she runs, but Darwinism means no such thing according to my understanding.

First of all, I have to say Darwin was not a philosopher; he was an observer, experimenter, and chronicler of his surroundings. He set aside philosophical imaginings and allowed the evidence to lead him to hypotheses, which he tested and continue to observe by looking and listening.

Darwin did not distinguish a hierarchy between animate and inanimate objects; he described what he observed. Patterns emerged from his observations; patterns of time and space.

Physical evidence revealed species variability and change occurs according the environment.

He recognized gradualism; change over time, with slow, gradual change of species. He looked for causes of changes, as his study of finches so clearly reveals.

Darwin recognized access to resources, diseases, and predation created struggles for survival of species. Some variations provided efficient and effective access to resources, or resistance to diseases, or greater success at escaping predators than others.

Some individuals tended to survive and leave more offspring. Offspring tended to inherit variations of their parents. Successful variations tended to be passed on more frequently than others: it is called “Natural Selection”.

Changes in gene pools and environments created changes over time. These iterations of changing genes and environments enabled divergence to new and different populations. There is no sign of hierarchy, only changes of patterns to enable survival.

Some interpret these processes and patterns to imply “Social Darwinism”, a superiority of one over another. This understanding is immature and does not stand up to meaning of change. A baby is not inferior to an adolescent, is not inferior to an adult, is not inferior to an elder; they exist as different stages and one follows the other in natural processes.

Modern humans evolved from earlier genus of humanoids that evolved from forest apes. We are all human apes, not better than, not more valuable than, not more important than, but different than other homo sapiens.

Humans are part of a much grander whole that goes from the tiny atom to the farthest universe. To see us as superior is an inadequate understanding of existence. To see us as participating in this full-of-wonder universe with no rights of dominion over anything or anyone else is a humbling experience, but one that has profound consequence.

 

Creationists recognize the equality of all humans.

If creationists recognize the equality of all humans, why do they intrude on us by coming uninvited to our doors and push materials and their beliefs onto us? Why do they send missionaries to other countries to make them into more creationists? Are they not capable of tending to their own affairs without intrusion.

Why do creationists go to battle, killing, maiming, and destroying whole cultures in order to make more creationists? If creationism is so wonderful why don’t people flock there of their own accord? Intrusion and imposition is just one level of bullying. If creationism were worth its salt, it would need not use such tactics. 

Comment by Richard ∑wald on April 8, 2012 at 10:37pm

"some of us could possibly be more evolved than others."

Wow, and I thought:

"…then why are there still monkeys?" was bad.

There's a bar I never though would need lowering.

…carry on.

Comment by David Philip Norris on April 8, 2012 at 10:22pm

Denise... LOL! "Superior attitude"!? REALLY? That's the saucepan calling the kettle bach, don't you think? Not really sure what your beef is with me or anyone else who disagrees with you, but your hostile attitude and approach has succeeded in driving at least one person out of the group. Congratulations. Have fun with your majority of one.

Comment by David Philip Norris on April 8, 2012 at 10:00pm

Back off, Denise, or I will be reporting you as well.

Comment by Greg LeGore on April 8, 2012 at 9:55pm

Chris, please stop posting topics unrelated to atheism or each thread, and please stop the personal attacks similar to the one against Joseph.  If you do not, I will request that the administrator suspend or delete your account and posts.

Comment by David Philip Norris on April 8, 2012 at 9:54pm

This has turned into a really hostile forum. I'm done.

Comment by Greg LeGore on April 8, 2012 at 9:35pm

How do the Economics discussions relate to atheism?

Also, the ad hominem statement against Joseph is both inappropriate and counterproductive. Please stop doing that or stop commenting on this site.

Comment by Joseph P on April 8, 2012 at 8:30pm

What we are experiencing now is just an experiment.  When do we decide that this experiment has failed and try something new?

If this is an experiment, then what are your controls?  I don't see them.

 

We are talking about evolution which would imply that some of us could possibly be more evolved than others.

And that's a blatantly stupid statement demonstrating your lack of understanding of Evolution, as well as being an ad hominem attack.  Can we stick to a rational argument?

Comment by Joseph P on April 8, 2012 at 8:23pm

To address your last two paragraphs, though ...

I don't know.  Considering that the Christian god (or any other analog) has so far failed to demonstrate his existence with anything approaching evidence, he's got so much to make up for.  Theories are formed by the accumulation of a preponderance of evidence.

Considering that the preponderance of the evidence that has so far been accumulated points to the non-existence of the Christian deity, he's not starting from zero ... but from a negative position.

 

He's freaking omniscient.  He's omnipotent.  Let him figure out what he has to do to prove dominance over the Earth.

Comment by Joseph P on April 8, 2012 at 8:12pm

Ah, I see.  So, now you're going to attack me personally, rather than address things I've said.  Classy.

 

I've done plenty of things, but they have nothing to do with this discussion or the subject of this group.  Let's stick to the subject.  If you've got something to say in response to my points, then say it.  Otherwise, I have no interest in arguing with you anymore.

Your last two paragraphs, layered on top of your Hitler bullshit earlier, are making you look like a stealth-theist.  You know this site is for atheists only, right?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 28
• 29
• 30
• 31
• 32
• …
• 145
• Next ›
• Page