Social Darwinism at it's finest. The twisted extremist form of evolution supporters

Social Darwinism is an ideology, and a horrible one. it has nothing to do with science or "evolution supporters". Evolution explains how we got here, not how we should behave. In fact most evolutionary biologist (Richard Dawkins said it time and again) are against "survival of the fittest" as a social model.

Edited 4/18/2015 01:43:28

If evolution exists (it does) then man is inevitably going to evolve into different forms suitable for different regions. Some regions promote healthier evolutionary processes. Those who escaped the African and Asian jungles were treated with the highly ideal climate of Northern Europe, where they could challenge themselves with farming and metallurgy, far away from disease and the primitive humans who weren't intelligent to leave the tropics. These humans compiled ancient information with their own findings to create ideal machines (the industrial revolution).

This so called "Social Darwinism" is a natural conclusion of anyone studying evolution that isn't too naive enough to believe in "equality" "anti-racism" and other bullshit liberal ideas. Political correctness is an enemy of science.

Edited 4/18/2015 01:52:49

Nobody actually disproved my claim? I thought a Rubix Cube "proving" evolution was flawed somehow.

Did you watch the full debate? and if so, do yu still think creationism is a viable model in today's modern,scientific era?

I kind of watched the full debate, maybe skipped a couple minutes at the start where the guys presented their stuff freely. Apart from that I saw nothing unexpected in the video, just two well trained speekers presenting their stuff (while the creation guy was better prepared imo). Before I watched the video I believed that evolution was rubbish and afterwards I believed the same. Since I'm not interested in biological or physical stuff I didn't find the arguments that interesting, just noticed that one guy said stuff and then the other guy tried to falsify / relativate it and then vice versa.

and you say "unbeliever vs christian", wich is absolutely wrong. it is an argument between a guy explaining what science says versus a creationist (you can be a christian and against creationism, in fact most christians are)

This Ken Ham guy agreed with you there in the video that you can be a Christian and believe in evolution since this point isn't part of the gospel. Apart from that I listened more closely when this science guy tried to attack his opponent on a biblical basis, I believe he said stuff like "You are taking the creation report literally but not point xyz from the mosaic law, so you kind of decide randomly what you want to take literally". The problem is that as always when confessing non Christians argue about the bible stuff really doesen't get very complicated. Since Ken Ham probably follows a dispensational understanding of the bible he should have no problems with arguments like that. But back to your point, I said it was a debate between an unbeliever and a Christian simply because this science guy confessed to not be a Christian and because this Ken Ham guy is a Christian. In fact I do agree with Ken Ham on the point that you can believe in evolution and be a Christian believer, however this is a abomination.

Before I watched the video I believed that evolution was rubbish and afterwards I believed the same

can you name ONE thing, just one thing that you think is rubbish in what Bill Nye said? And can you tell me why you think it is rubbish without using god or the bible as an argument?

Since I'm not interested in biological or physical stuff I didn't find the arguments that interesting

I think this says it all. Biology and physics are the key to explain the universe, but you prefer to close your eyes to it and confort you in your religious beliefs.
At the end of the day, you just chose to block scientific knowledge out of you psyche, and denie everything that isn't the bible story, without critical thinking.
I really don't understand how you can hear all those evidences against the bible myths and still blindly believe in it while being honest with yourself. Even christians thinks it is crazy. Even Pat Robertson think its crazy!

How do you explain people living 900 years in the Bible?
How do you explain that we recieve light coming from stars farther away than 10000 light years when the universe is less than 10000 years old?
How do you explain why kangaroos only live in australia, and that no kangaroo fossil have ever been found anywhere else. (remember, noah's ark landed somewhere in the middle east)
I could go on and on, you get my point.

The thing is, you can't explain it because it is bullshit. You shit on 2000 years of accumulated knowledge, in the name of blind faith. The only argument against evolution is "because god said it"

You have a simple and convenient model to explain things. Wich of course doesn't really exlain anything in a scientific way but it is a nice fictional model that everyone can understand and that fits the religious doctrine.
I don't have a problem with that as long as these crazy beliefs aren't taught to children.

edit: the only thing i agree with is that Ken Ham was better prepared for this debate, since Ken Ham is used to public debate whereas this is not Bill Nye's area of predilection.

Edited 4/18/2015 03:15:03

Kem Ham and his "historical science vs observational science"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LW06dav7KA

^Yeah bill nye isn't really a debate guy. Just a TED talk guy.

Your kangaroo argument is explained by science : tectonic activity and ice age activity.

You have to consist that we didn't use the gregorian calendar in those times. Not to mention, there's always things lost in translation.

Well, i don't think we know the Centre point of the universe yet, and it's possible that we are near the Centre. Unless I'm mistaken? So that explains that we can receive lights from distant stars. I'm also not sure if God made universe first or earth, but that's another thing.

2000 years of knowledge? Wrong. A century or 2 of knowledge. 1800 years of theories.

Note : You have "blind faith" in evolution". It's correct "because scientists said it".
Would you look at the parallels?

I have an issue with evolution being taught to children when we should never discuss the matter beyond Natural Selection ( natural selection is a thing i believe in very much, since it has been proven very well). If we start teaching children this dogma, you're asking for an ideological slump of single minded drones.

Evolution is a nice fictional model that is simple and convenient that fits right in with atheist doctrine.

Now, is there evidence for Evolution? Yes. Should it even be considered in a world where we have bigger problems? No. Want medicine? Save rainforest. Want to understand where we come from? Try a hospital. The problem with this whole debate is that it is useless. Nobody's mind is changed. Nasty words are thrown and both sides are on a different page. It's also more of a religious debate than about where we cover from. Let's have a debate with a Christian evolutionist and atheist creationist.

This entire thread is de facto useless. "Proof of Evolution ".

I'll tell you what we're all going to evolve into. Splats on the road.

If evolution is real why can't my Phone evolve into a tablet?

Phones and tables aren't living. Nothing that's living can evolve, only created and upgraded.

Do you really think what I said was anything more than a joke?

Your kangaroo argument is explained by science : tectonic activity and ice age activity.

Please, don't just throw something like that in my face. Explain to me exactly how tectonic activity and ice age explains that there is a lot of species (kangaroo is one example) that can only be found in a specific area. According to the bible, all animals landed with noah's ark on a mountain in the middle east. Did the kangaroo made a big jump from the middle east to australia?

You have to consist that we didn't use the gregorian calendar in those times. Not to mention, there's always things lost in translation.

i don't see your point

Well, i don't think we know the Centre point of the universe yet, and it's possible that we are near the Centre. Unless I'm mistaken? So that explains that we can receive lights from distant stars. I'm also not sure if God made universe first or earth, but that's another thing.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" there is no mention of the universe since at the time he bible was written, we didn't understand a lot about it. You can only assume that "the heavens" means the universe.

There is no center of the universe as far as science goes. The thing is, we receive light from stars (the very fact that we see the stars means their light reaches our eyes). We receive light from stars located so far away from earth that the light would have had to travel during a lot more than 10000 years to reach us.

2000 years of knowledge? Wrong. A century or 2 of knowledge. 1800 years of theories.

I don't understand what you mean. care to explain?

Note : You have "blind faith" in evolution". It's correct "because scientists said it".
Would you look at the parallels?

no it's not "because scientists said it". The evidences are overwhelming. Just look it up for yourself, we live in a technological era where knowledge is made accessible very easily. And the scientists job is to follow the evidences wherever it leads. In science, every evidence if verifiable and in fact verified, tested. Please watch one or two videos about the evidences for evolution(links in first page).

I have an issue with evolution being taught to children when we should never discuss the matter beyond Natural Selection ( natural selection is a thing i believe in very much, since it has been proven very well). If we start teaching children this dogma, you're asking for an ideological slump of single minded drones.

Natural selection is the biggest part of evolution. The rest are random mutations and genetic drift, wich can be observed in a lab. Natural Selection is the only thing in the theory of evolution that is difficult to observe due to the wide timeframe it operates. (but if can be observed on some levels nonetheless).

Evolution is a nice fictional model that is simple and convenient that fits right in with atheist doctrine.

simple and convenient?? really? you really don't know much about it do you?
atheist doctrine? what is that? please give your sources.

Now, is there evidence for Evolution? Yes. Should it even be considered in a world where we have bigger problems? No.

lol?

The problem with this whole debate is that it is useless.

I agree, since there is no debate. there is just evidence on the on side, and denial on the other side. This is really one of many disagreement of science vs religion (and historically, science is right everytime)

This entire thread is de facto useless. "Proof of Evolution ".

I also agree, "proof" is a bad choice for a word. "evidence beyond reasonnable doubt" is the scientific term for any scientific theory. Apparently tho, it is not useless, since a lot of people still don't have a clue about what science says.

edit: i'll stop this useless argument now. If you want to educate yourself about evolution, and then post here the specific doubts you have about it with an educated opinion. I'll be happy to answer

Edited 4/18/2015 11:12:23

What is the Evidence for Evolution? (11min)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg&index=19&list=WL

Evolution 101
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

I think this says it all. Biology and physics are the key to explain the universe, but you prefer to close your eyes to it and confort you in your religious beliefs.
No, I just admit that I have only my little school knowledge on this stuff. As I said, this is why internet debates are so shit, not because guys have little knowledge but everyone there has the ultimate knowledge on each subject.

How do you explain that we recieve light coming from stars farther away than 10000 light years when the universe is less than 10000 years old?
I don't know and it doesen't bother me. Maybe God has sent the light there. The earth may not be the physical center of the universe but it sure is the center in Gods thoughts. Maybe also stuff is very old. The fall of Satan fits very well between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

How do you explain people living 900 years in the Bible?
Since I believe that everything in the bible has come to through and the current age of the Christian Church hasn't simply made the promises given to Israel obsolete I also believe that the world has yet to see an even better time, when the Messias comes again to establish his kingdom:

Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reacha a hundred will be considered accursed. (Isaiah 65:20)

Edited 4/18/2015 12:20:58

ok Norman, i tink we can leave it at that. Why it doesn't bother you that science disprove the bible, i can't understand. If i were basing my entire life, values, and purpose on a book, i would make damn sure, in every possible way i can, that this book tell the truth. And if i was believing in a benevolent god, i would have a hard time believing that this same god would not want us to use our intellect and reason that he gave us. If i was believing in a benevolent god, i would have a hard time considering how misleading he is concerning the explanation of our world. Why would he put so much evidence for us to see and understand our universe, and at the same time telling us that all of it is bullshit? Don't trust reason, trust the word of god. If think that would bother me. But that's just me
I think that doubt is very healthy. Don't take things for granted. To quote Niel deGrasse Tyson:

Test ideas by experiment and observation
Build on those ideas that pass the test, reject the ones that fails
Follow the evidence wherever it leads
And question everything
Accept these terms, and the cosmos is yours
(Cosmos:A spacetime Odyssey E01)

Please, don't just throw something like that in my face. Explain to me exactly how tectonic activity and ice age explains that there is a lot of species (kangaroo is one example) that can only be found in a specific area.

I believe his point was that all species started on Pangaea, and then tectonic drift separated the landmass, resulting in having many species trapped in a certain part of the world.

no it's not "because scientists said it". The evidences are overwhelming.

Overwhelming to you maybe. A lot of it is still based on theory and things that happened so far back we can't possibly confirm it, but many will accept it because it's what modern science believes. (There's a good number who'd unwittingly drink poison if modern science said so..)

I agree, since there is no debate. there is just evidence on the on side, and denial on the other side. This is really one of many disagreement of science vs religion (and historically, science is right everytime)

Now this comment seems really arrogant. "My evidence is better than yours"

To be honest though, I really don't care if you or others believe in evolution. That alone doesn't bother me. What bothers me is when people defend evolution with a religious fervor and try to shove it down everyone else's throats. (Genghis was trying to draw this comparison earlier, the way that some defend evolution is quite similar to the way certain religious people spread their beliefs....)

Evolutionists shouldn't really care if others don't believe them, because they don't believe there will be consequences.

Evolution denial is an evolutionary trait in that of itself. Europeans (more evolved humans) were the first to accept the theory of evolution because their more advanced minds could grasp the theory.

Why does modern Christianity largely accept (with a few exceptions) evolution but Islam denies it? It doesn't have anything to do with either religion. Both religions would oppose evolution if they adhered to their scripts. Simply, Semites and Africans have always been backwards and less enlightened than Europeans.

Edited 4/18/2015 13:59:38

Please, don't just throw something like that in my face. Explain to me exactly how tectonic activity and ice age explains that there is a lot of species (kangaroo is one example) that can only be found in a specific area.

I believe his point was that all species started on Pangaea, and then tectonic drift separated the landmass, resulting in having many species trapped in a certain part of the world.

so the flood happened when earth was still pangaea? When i think crazy has reached its limits, i stand corrected everytime...

no it's not "because scientists said it". The evidences are overwhelming.

Overwhelming to you maybe.

and to every rational person on the planet. Tell me what evidence exactly would you require to stop denie it?

I agree, since there is no debate. there is just evidence on the on side, and denial on the other side. This is really one of many disagreement of science vs religion (and historically, science is right everytime)
Now this comment seems really arrogant.

arrogant? It is just the way it is. Historical facts.I find no pride in it, i didn't discover anything. Everytime religion gives a faith based explanation to our universe, it turned out to be wrong. (or have you forgotten how the earth is flat?)

"My evidence is better than yours"

Not my evidence. It is everyone evidence.
And can you give me just one tiny bit of evidence either to contradict evolution, or to support any other model?

What bothers me is when people defend evolution with a religious fervor and try to shove it down everyone else's throats. (Genghis was trying to draw this comparison earlier, the way that some defend evolution is quite similar to the way certain religious people spread their beliefs....)

I am not "defending" evolution, i am merely trying to provide all the information that one might need to have an educated opinion. Evolution doesn't need to be defended, evolution just happens. One can understand it or not understand it. All i have done is provided numerous link explaining why evolution is a fact (in a scientific way, meaning that there is so much evidence supporting it that it wuld be unreasonnable to not consider it a fact, at least until we know more). If you throw a ball in the air, you can never be sure it will come down. Yet the theory of gravity is supported by so much evidence than it would be unreasonable to assume the contrary. Just like evolution.

The links provides a tiny portion of the scientific evidences supporting evolution.
Yet no-one cared to argued against the evidences. If you think there is something wrong with the theory, why don't you tell us what bother you exactly? You attack evolution as an idea, but you don't care to actually look at what the theory says in order to try and disprove it.

edit: and by the way, even if you do prove evolution wrong, be aware that it doesn't prove any other model right

Edited 4/18/2015 14:47:41

@flat earth
We knew the earth was round since gilgamesh's times, ~3000 BC, the Greeks knew this profoundly as well (making very accurate predictions on its size). The bible also agreed with round earth.

Also, evolution IS just atheist dogma. There's no reason why God couldn't have simply started all the processes we recognize today. It's preposterous to believe every thing is meaningless, only existing in a short term, hoping one day to simply be stumbled upon.

Also, this isn't a debate not because one side has evidence and the other side denies, it's because you're having 2 different debates.