Hill Climb Racing 2 Industrial Deals Beauty Best Books of the Month STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Learn more about Amazon Music Unlimited PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Grocery Handmade Tote Bags Home Gift Guide Off to College Home Gift Guide Book a house cleaner for 2 or more hours on Amazon BradsStatus BradsStatus BradsStatus  Introducing Echo Show Introducing All-New Fire HD 10 with Alexa hands-free $149.99 Kindle Oasis, unlike any Kindle you've ever held Shop Now ToyHW17_gno
Customer Discussions > Science forum

The fallacy of Darwinism and the evil associated


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 1000 posts in this discussion
Initial post: May 17, 2012, 5:14:17 AM PDT
kodos says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on May 17, 2012, 5:29:52 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012, 5:53:05 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
You're right. The notion that such a thing as "darwinism" exists, with the features you describe, is indeed a fallacy. A very serious one.

Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, DOES exist. And opposition to it stems from religious bigotry and/or ignorance, neither of which have a place in science.

Posted on May 17, 2012, 5:51:07 AM PDT
mark says:
All in favor of expunging "Darwinism", "Darwinists", etc, etc, from all human enterprise, say.....something.

Preferably something demonstrably correct.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 5:53:57 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012, 5:54:12 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
"Darwinism" is a popular term among believers who want to pretend that biological science is just another belief system.

Posted on May 17, 2012, 6:07:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 17, 2012, 1:07:17 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 6:14:48 AM PDT
mark says:
That, and twisting a perfectly good name into a blame game for good science.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 6:15:32 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Still running and hiding from the question, Haynes. You've got nothing--like all creationists--and you're too scared to admit it.

Here it is again, in case you've forgotten:

"So basically, every sighting of a UFO, dragon, ghost, superman, sharks with lasers, or any other outrageous claim made by someone actually did happen because, after all, they observed it happening, right?"

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 6:25:03 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012, 6:28:17 AM PDT
kodos - " that's the only purpose in Darwinian fantasy horrorland: surviving"

Darwin himself found nature abhorrent, as have many other biologists. Science is descriptive, not normative. It's how scienctists find nature, not how scientists want nature to be.

"Does it sound familiar? There was a man who drove the world into caos, who previously had written a book"

Hitler's ideas ran completely counter to Darwin's. Evolution works via variation--Hitler's goal for racial purity would have actually weakened the Aryan race. Sure, Hitler claimed a scientific basis for his actions, but then again he also claimed a Christian basis. But his goals of racial purity would be the absolute wrong thing to aim for if you actually believed in evolutionary theory. On top of that, Hitler actually banned Darwin's books. He was a creationist, after all, and didn't like the idea that Aryans and the 'lower races' were related.

" a selection of any kind requires a selector"

If one gazelle gets eaten and the other gets away, that is very effective selection. If one bear dies of disease but another has resistance, that also is very effective selection.

" the football players that form a National team are selected by the team's coach. "

Selection is an artifact of any situation where not every member of the population gets to reproduce. It can be from a conscious agent, but does not have to be. With competition for limited resources, not every individual will leave offspring. That's a given, ergo selection is a given. Reality is reality, even if your "common sense" can't accept it.

"which would be Mother Nature, and wouldn't that just be other name fo "God"?"

So instead of saying that x people die every year of Malaria, we should just say that God killed them?

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 6:32:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012, 6:34:48 AM PDT
Customer says:
this sounds like Hitler's Christianity impelled him, I don't know, but we know about his childhood and the death of his mother,

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest
not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the
passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and
seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and
adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

--Adolf Hitler, My New Order

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 6:40:18 AM PDT
mark says:
Don't be silly.

His image or not, ever since that Adam guy...or his ol' lady, I dunno... snarfed it for all humankind, Super-Dude figures if a human is dumb enough to put himself in a position to catch malaria, he has no right to live anyway.

Or.....how to rationalize any possible scenario, in order not to upset the theistic applecart.

Peace.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 6:51:45 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Aug 20, 2012, 11:45:46 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 8:41:18 AM PDT
Arthur Dent says:
"unscientifical"?! Where do you get this stuff?

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 9:55:04 AM PDT
Rev Otter says:
<<Apart of the lack of empirical evidence.>>

this first sentence is 100% provably, demonstrably, and laughably wrong. i saw no reason to continue reading. :)

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 10:00:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012, 10:04:18 AM PDT
Rev Otter says:
correct. Hitler was a Darwin-rejecting creationist.

http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-religious-creationist-and-opposed-to-darwinism/

"While the mutability of species, with new species evolving out of distant ancestors, is the central theme of Darwinism, the Nazis found that idea anathema, and placed a heavy emphasis on racial purity and the distinctiveness and separateness of different species. Further, the Nazis found abhorrent the materialist notion that man might be just like other animals, and, from their religious and moralistic perspective, they insisted that man had a spiritual soul."

Nazis explicitly rejected Darwinian evolution. *explicitly*. as in, banned books about it and outlawed teaching it.

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 10:32:01 AM PDT
Mark, et al.
"All in favor of expunging "Darwinism""

I'm also in favor of expunging the non-word "unscientifical." (See OP.)

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 11:05:32 AM PDT
Customer says:
where did Hitler think we came from?

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 11:19:36 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 17, 2012, 11:20:40 AM PDT
Rev Otter says:
like many creationists, he believed in creation by a creator; and, more importantly, denied any common ancestry with other primates.

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties.
-- Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.
-- Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier

Posted on May 17, 2012, 11:22:11 AM PDT
Rev Otter says:
if anyone's interested, here's the *exact same fallacy* being debunked on the Religion forum.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/religion/ref=cm_cd_tfp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1M9TK6UGAX6EO&cdThread=Tx37RORZLFJQOOR

In reply to an earlier post on May 17, 2012, 10:54:10 PM PDT
conservalibertarian -

Regarding "Darwinism," I see the term frequently used in pro-evolution books. It's not just creationists who use it. I also see "evolutionists" used in pro-evolution settings. I don't consider it a big deal. Just my opinion.

Posted on May 19, 2012, 3:42:53 PM PDT
Bob says:
Biologists usually call evolution "evolution", not "darwinism". In America when somebody writes about "darwinism" virtually always that person is a science-denying uneducated moron.

darwinkilledgod dot blogspot dot com

In reply to an earlier post on May 19, 2012, 8:30:00 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 19, 2012, 8:35:44 PM PDT
Gurney says:
Pure, rock-solid creationism. From a science-denying uneducated moron, a Dominionist who thought der Volk were God's special people.

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012, 2:15:27 AM PDT
Christopher: So there's no credible scientific alternative to Creationism.

But Christopher, that would be all very well if creationism itself were a credible alternative to anything. Do you get my point?

May I quote one of your better comedians: In the beginning there was nothing and God said: Let there be light.
There was still nothing but it was a whole lot brighter.

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012, 3:24:30 AM PDT
Darwinism embraced the theory of evolutionary processes by means of natural - (not artificial - like dog breeding) - selection. The "selection" apparatus was the environment - from inception to reproduction - a nearly robotic process devoid of any attributions to the supernatural. What Darwin didn't know in his time, was the exact mechanism - and how it worked in creating high fidelity offspring - that also had biological variances. Later we found the mechanism - genetics and mutation - that gave Darwin the testable underpinning of his theory. We have further discovered that not only is natural selection the only catalyst, especially since the invention of "culture" - where not only the fittest survive. Too often the hyper religious, science-deniers, will incorrectly used Darwin's name as a theoretical school of thought - purposely done in the same manner that Orwell used the arch-traitor "Goldstein" as the ultimate enemy of the totalitarian world of "1984". People without valid arguments will always resort to labeling and name-calling.

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012, 1:10:30 PM PDT
Banished says:
Wow, you really are remarkably clueless, even for a god-besotted, creationist rant monster.

"But if you think about it a natural selection is in reality a selection made by Nature, so indeed there would be selector, which would be Mother Nature, and wouldn't that just be other name fo "God"? So, after all, a natural selection could be a selection made by God? "

The term "natural selection" is a reference to a selection that takes place naturally. It is not a reference to a mythical "Mother Nature." That's as silly as "God."

In reply to an earlier post on May 20, 2012, 1:12:30 PM PDT
Banished says:
"Darwinism"

There is no such thing, kodos, any more that the Theory of Gravity can be correctly called "Newtonism." Evolution was happening and KNOWN to be happening loooong before Darwin discovered its principal mechanism.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 164 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Do homebuilders give buyers a false sense of security? 15 10 hours ago
Cassini Huygens mission ends tomorrow 2 12 hours ago
Archaeology Plus Other Fohrbidden Sciences. 3075 15 hours ago
Teacher Attacks Theory of Evolution 106 1 day ago
The Science Behind Fetal Pain-related Abortion Legislation 1341 3 days ago
This won't scare many away from going for it. Pro football. 18 7 days ago
NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout 5 8 days ago
Chemistry question 34 12 days ago
Good to use, but would you be allowed to? Reflective Roof Coatings. 11 12 days ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 9999 27 days ago
Space 6 29 days ago
Transposons - A new finding that we are made up of an accumulation of dead viruses, and that each of us is unique and can never be cloned exactly 17 Aug 21, 2017
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  112
Total posts:  4096
Initial post:  May 17, 2012
Latest post:  Sep 30, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers