Misuse of evolution

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[b]The original meaning of evolution with the old Greeks was progressive, so evolution was apparently at first intended to be noted as progressive complexity by Darwinists. [/QUOTE][/b]Languages change.

quote:

---

I get racist and genocidal thoughts all the time when I think about the past, present, and future of mankind in terms of "races of man encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct", as some kind of law of Nature (natural selection).

---

I don't.

quote:

---

There is no one person from which Social Darwinism stems, it is a general thing among Darwinists.

---

... or among anti-Darwinists [QUOTE][b]You can judge the selfish gene version of evolution theory wrong for instance, simply because it has the emotive word selfish in it. [B][/QUOTE]Logicians realize that human language is ripe with innuendo and so have constructed artificial languages with which to test arguments. Want I should post replies in some form of Boolean algebra?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
If you don't come up with racist and genocidal ideas on account of that, then what do you come up with?

---

I don't see races of man. We are all one species. It's hard to be racist when you only have one race.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
If I view cats or mice, or any other creature in terms of races encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct, then my view of those creatures tends to become racist, in my experience, to any extent that it is possible. I would tend to use language such as inferior and superior etc. Even a grass lawn can be made to look horrific in the context of Darwinist theory, by my experience.

---

Wow.... I thought my world was dark.

quote:

---

This is less so if I view creatures in terms of a general theory of reproduction, because the emphasis is shifted there from comparison of organisms (and competition) to looking at how organisms interact with the environment in reproducing.

---

Sounds like a way to trick yourself into not jumping to racists conclusions.

quote:

---

Notice that Darwinists generally view nature as cruel, where a superficial look on nature whole would find that for the most time it is sedate and peaceful, and for very little time is it apparently cruel.

---

Yes, peaceful like the Cold War; or like the trenches in World War 1.

quote:

---

So since there is no observation that legitimizes the emphasis on cruelty, the emphasis on cruelty has to come from prejudices (or faults) inherent to Darwinism itself.

---

I once worked for months remodeling an old barn. Everytime I swung a hammer these little mud nests would hit the floor. Eventually I cracked one open and realized that the spiders inside where still alive -- still had minimal response to prodding-- and were being eaten alive. I found hundreds of these nests.

quote:

---

Schrafinator, Quetzal, you, John etc. should simply demonstrate what you come up with on account of thinking about people in terms of races encroaching on one another until some finally become extinct.

---

Mostly I think of a bunch of greedy idiots willing to fight over a tiny plot of land despite the fact that the whole planet is screwed (as far as us humans are concerned) if we don't start playing nice. But that has nothing to do with race. See above.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:
I decided as a child that racism was silly, irrational and wrong, and that's how I have lived my life.

---

I'm with the schrafinator, Syamsu.I grew up in a small town in Texas. There were a few hispanic residents, quite a large african-descented population and a lot of white folk. The whole town was racist and segregated-- in practice but not law. I'd be willing to bet that 75% of the people in that town could not give you the most basic version of the ToE, much less admit to believing it. Yet, racism run rampant. The woman who raised me also was horribly racists, though she'd never admit it. And I know that she did not believe the ToE.I realized early on that racism was pretty much idiotic and the more I learned of the ToE (primarily via physical anthropology courses in college) the more I realized why racism is idiotic.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
What race is encroaching on your race Peter?

---

Do you think that Ghengis Khan was motivated by Darwinism? He did an awful lot of encroaching. What about the Roman Empire? Or the Huns?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
I'm saying you can misrepresent animals by putting emphasis on something like killing, and not putting the emphasis on reproduction for instance. Reproduction is more a defining characteristic of animals then is killing.

---

It isn't killing, it is survival. Animals eat other animals. No eating, no surviving, no reproducing. How are you going to formulate a theory that doesn't accept these facts?

quote:

---

By your logic you can also argue that Nazism doesn't give rise to genocidal or racist ideas, since there was racism and genocide some centuries before there was Nazism. Your logic is faulty.

---

Nazism is a term applied to a particular socialistic (so-called) party in Germany which was taken over by Adolf Hitler, under whose leadership the party promoted genocide and racism. This is politics and emotion, not science.

quote:

---

When you have a theory about races of man encroaching on each other

---

People fight. This is not the fault of the ToE.

quote:

---

and then you don't even know what race is encroaching on your race

---

As far as I can tell, there are no 'races' encroaching on me either.

quote:

---

then you are just not using the theory.

---

How does this follow? What does 'using the theory' mean anyway?

quote:

---

It's obvious you are extremely fearful of using this theory to describe your own situation since you never do it, and you have good reason to. You would have to respond using the theory to your own situation to deny you are fearful of it's use.

---

People fight. People blow things up and shoot each other. There are people with nuclear weapon and engineered viruses and nerve gas. And I am supposed to be afraid of a theory?------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

​

[This message has been edited by John, 07-22-2002]

I'm sorry.... 'post 666'I missed that and it sounds fun.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
Ghengis Khan was genocidal bue he was not motivated by Darwinism, therefore Darwinism is not genocidal.

​

Genghis Khan was genocidal but he was not motivated by Nazism, therefore Nazism is not genocidal.

​

As shown, the logic is faulty.

​

Mohammad Nor Sysmsu

---

This is formulated incorrectly.You are trying to make a causal relationship between Darwinism and genocide. That would be formulated:If genocide, then Darwinism.via a rule of inference known as modus tollens if you deny the latter:not darwinismYou should get:Not genocidal.Which contradicts history. Ghengis Khan was genocidal and not Darwinists.If you formulate it the other way:If Darwinism, then genocidal.not genocidalThen not Darwinism.Which is contradicted by all of us not-genocidal people who happen to believe Darwin got things more or less right.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]It is a clear formulation of your false logic. You implicitly deny Nazism is genocidal, because Ghengis Kahn was not motivated by Nazism.[/quote][/b]This is YOUR argument, not mine. This is YOUR argument--- the one that we have been telling you is invalid.

quote:

---

Now you bring in other argument that covers your mistake

---

It is the same argument.

quote:

---

but this is false also, because conspicuously ALL of you do not apply Darwin's Darwinism

---

We do not apply it as per your biases. Besides which, Darwin is NOT the final word on evolutionary theory. The idea has evolved over the past hundred years. Why focus on a century old theorist anyway? I am sticking my neck out a little here but I'd bet that NO SCIENTIST today applies strict Darwinian theory.

quote:

---

as in races of man encroach on one another until some finally become extinct, to your own situation, you deny it's use.

---

What you are not getting is that evolution does not imply this. Look, take a thousand people and put them on a small island. Those people best adapted to deal with the conditions on the island--- say, high temperature, high humidity, restricted diet-- will survive and reproduce. Over time the poulation will change. That doesn't mean that the people on the island are slaughtering one another. Your ideas are just way too simplistic.

quote:

---

The one person that did apply it, me, did have genocidal and racist thoughts on account of it.

---

Sucks to be the ONLY PERSON CAPABLE OF THINKING CORRECTLY doesn't it?

quote:

---

I think you should acknowlege your mistakes.

---

I gave you hard logic. You've ignored it.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Syamsu:
[B]I exchanged Nazism for Darwinism in your argument. This shouldn't have been a problem if your logic actually worked, which it doesn't. [/quote][/b]But you are not using my argument, a point you seem incable of understanding....------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com