Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Social Darwinism and World War I
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostWith the above you are definitely giving Rogue06 a bona
fide run for the Straw Man of the Decade Award.
http://www.school-for-champions.com/science/gravity_artillery_projectile.htm]”[/url]
If I've made a mistake here then it was in assuming that you're able
to connect a few dots. You know, connect what has happened,
what has been said and do it all with HONESTY. My guess is that
it's that last part that is tripping you up.
Gawk at this - it was in a presentation of mine from several years ago.
Think you can 'connect the dots' here without hand-holding?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1887[/ATTACH]
You know, I'd almost forgotten about the above. Although I can pretty much guess the reaction amongst the Evo-Faithful here, it'll still be interesting (and amusing, no doubt), to read some of the comments.
Jorge
Search for and count the word “Newton”, Jorge. But do it with your eyes open.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rwatts View PostThe Science of Ballistics: Mathematics Serving the Dark Side
Search for and count the word “Newton”, Jorge. But do it with your eyes open.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostI went back and reread the OP.
I don't disagree that people have abused the ToE to justify a species of morality or ethics.
One mistake you made was to write "scientific"--it should be "pseudo-scientific" instead.
Another mistake by you: I think some readers of this thread are evolutionists, yet they are NOT Darwinist in the sense of Darwinism.
Now, if you're one of those 'historical revisionists' and/or one of those that lives in denial even in the face of overwhelming evidence then accept my apologies and be on your way.
If, on the other hand, you are an honest man then reflect on this and see how many things that are going on today are explained by this nefarious reality.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View Post[ATTACH=CONFIG]1890[/ATTACH]
You know, I'd almost forgotten about the above. Although I can pretty much guess the reaction amongst the Evo-Faithful here, it'll still be interesting (and amusing, no doubt), to read some of the comments.
Jorge
Note the deafening silence from the Evo-Faithful since I posted this.
Why? Simple - even their imagination fails them for evidence as damning as this.
JorgeAttached FilesLast edited by Jorge; 08-30-2014, 09:58 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostWith the above you are definitely giving Rogue06 a bona
fide run for the Straw Man of the Decade Award.
If I've made a mistake here then it was in assuming that you're able
to connect a few dots. You know, connect what has happened,
what has been said and do it all with HONESTY. My guess is that
it's that last part that is tripping you up.
Gawk at this - it was in a presentation of mine from several years ago.
Think you can 'connect the dots' here without hand-holding?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]1887[/ATTACH]
You know, I'd almost forgotten about the above. Although I can pretty much guess the reaction amongst the Evo-Faithful here, it'll still be interesting (and amusing, no doubt), to read some of the comments.
Jorge
In referencing his half-cousin Francis Galton (who coined the term "eugenics" shortly after Darwin's death) and his views in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," Darwin wrote that:
This makes clear that Darwin was unequivocally not a supporter of things like coerced sterilization and his belief that rapid multiplication is good for evolution (in fact, he didn't even like the idea of birth control) and "our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means" is the exact opposite of what the eugenics movement advocated. He wanted "open competition for all men."
Further Darwin also wrote in the "The Descent of Man" that:
IOW, if anything Darwin saw eugenical thinking as being an overwhelming evil. He held that our "the instinct of sympathy" for the weak represented "the noblest part of our nature." The fact is that due to their disagreements over this and other things (including some of Darwin's ideas concerning evolution) he and Galton drifted apart.
Now, to add an additional point, when Darwin wrote to Galton after the latter published his "Hereditary Genius" he said that,
Hopefully you notice that Darwin explicitly listed himself an opponent of Galton’s ideas.
Furthermore, in your attempt to link Darwin's Theory of Evolution to eugenics you are overlooking the deep roots that it had in the Christian community (where it was supported by both many liberal and conservative church leaders). Recently the United Methodist Church issued an apology for their support of eugenics.
Take a look at Christine Rosen's "Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement" for more details about the connection. Ironically, a group you have declared to not be True Christians™, the Catholic Church, was at the forefront of the anti-eugenics movement both here in the U.S. and abroad although some of their clergy still supported eugenics.
Finally, it should not be overlooked that a couple of the self-styled "Team of Ten" who founded the modern YEC movement remained enthusiastic and vocal advocates for eugenics and the selective breeding of humans decades after the end of WWII when the civilized world, repulsed by the practice, had utterly rejected and repudiated it.Last edited by rogue06; 08-30-2014, 10:03 AM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostSince you brought up eugenics (here as well as earlier), perhaps we should look at what Charles Darwin himself thought of such thinking. The simple fact is that he made it clear in no uncertain terms that he rejected Galton's eugenical ideas outright.
In referencing his half-cousin Francis Galton (who coined the term "eugenics" shortly after Darwin's death) and his views in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," Darwin wrote that:
This makes clear that Darwin was unequivocally not a supporter of things like coerced sterilization and his belief that rapid multiplication is good for evolution (in fact, he didn't even like the idea of birth control) and "our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means" is the exact opposite of what the eugenics movement advocated. He wanted "open competition for all men."
Further Darwin also wrote in the "The Descent of Man" that:
IOW, if anything Darwin saw eugenical thinking as being an overwhelming evil. He held that our "the instinct of sympathy" for the weak represented "the noblest part of our nature." The fact is that due to their disagreements over this and other things (including some of Darwin's ideas concerning evolution) he and Galton drifted apart.
Now, to add an additional point, when Darwin wrote to Galton after the latter published his "Hereditary Genius" he said that,
Hopefully you notice that Darwin explicitly listed himself an opponent of Galton’s ideas.
Furthermore, in your attempt to link Darwin's Theory of Evolution to eugenics you are overlooking the deep roots that it had in the Christian community (where it was supported by both many liberal and conservative church leaders). Recently the United Methodist Church issued an apology for their support of eugenics.
Take a look at Christine Rosen's "Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement" for more details about the connection. Ironically, a group you have declared to not be True Christians™, the Catholic Church, was at the forefront of the anti-eugenics movement both here in the U.S. and abroad although some of their clergy still supported eugenics.
Finally, it should not be overlooked that a couple of the self-styled "Team of Ten" who founded the modern YEC movement remained enthusiastic and vocal advocates for eugenics and the selective breeding of humans decades after the end of WWII when the civilized world, repulsed by the practice, had utterly rejected and repudiated it.
BTW, I'd pay a pretty penny to see Darwin in the middle of a militant NOW meeting. Bwahahaha
Be more thorough and less self-serving when you research stuff about your hero.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostThanks, Rogue!
If this is not the knock-out punch to Jorgian YEC misrepresentation of the truth, I don't know what is.
K54
can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostIf you're as smart as you believe yourself to be, you certainly don't want to be quoting Darwin on issues related to Eugenics. In many places Darwin was quite explicit about his firm, deep-rooted beliefs that there were superior races and even superior sub-groups within races. For instance, he openly expressed his belief of the superiority of males over females.
BTW, I'd pay a pretty penny to see Darwin in the middle of a militant NOW meeting. Bwahahaha
Be more thorough and less self-serving when you research stuff about your hero.
Jorge
Do we have to light a match for you to see the Sun??
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorge View PostIt would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs.
Jorge
K54
monty-python-limbless-black-knight2.jpg
Comment
-
Darwin often referred to the "so-called races" and said there were larger differences within each race than between each race. He tended to mock those who kept dividing mankind into different races.
Try again.Last edited by rogue06; 08-30-2014, 11:24 AM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostThanks, Rogue!
If this is not the knock-out punch to Jorgian YEC misrepresentation of the truth, I don't know what is.
K54
can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs.
"“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.
Jorge
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jorget would be a "knock-out punch" if I were in error but since I'm not then you
can just continue whistling Dixie as you watch your Three Stooges re-runs.
JorgeOriginally posted by klaus54 View PostRogue just did and demolished your puerile and intellectually dishonest argument.
Do we have to light a match for you to see the Sun??
K54
Anyway, you with ossified brain -- the putative misapplication of a scientific theory does not obviate the science.
Abusus usum non tollit.
How many matches do we need to light for ya?
K54
P.S.Originally posted by Jorge quoting Chuck"“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.
Actually one could argue that this putative attempt at "extermination" has created an even more savage group of "races" -- and a LOT more populous.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostDarwin often referred to the "so-called races" and said there were larger differences within each race than between each race. He tended to mock those who kept dividing mankind into different races.
Try again.
From my presentation dating back to 2009:
"Some naturalists have lately employed the term "sub-species" to designate forms which possess many of the characteristics of true species, but which hardly deserve so high a rank. Now if we reflect on the weighty arguments above given, for raising the races of man to the dignity of species, and the insuperable difficulties on the other side in defining them, it seems that the term "sub-species" might here be used with propriety. But from long habit the term "race" will perhaps always be employed."
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter Seven: On the Races of Man: Sub-species.
"... since he [man] attained to the rank of manhood, he has diverged into distinct races, or as they may be more appropriately called, sub-species." Ibid.
Darwin believed that the different human races reflect divergence, not commonality, and so he wrote:
"Some of these, for instance the Negro and European, are so distinct that, if specimens had been brought to a naturalist without any further information, they would undoubtedly have been considered by him as good and true species”. Ibid.
“So again, it is almost a matter of indifference whether the so-called races of man are thus designated, or are ranked as species or sub-species; but the latter term appears the more appropriate.” Ibid.
Henceforth keep in mind that, for Darwin, ‘lower race’ was equivalent to a ‘sub-species’.
“Man is more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius."
Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 19.
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than woman can attain – whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. We may also infer … that if men are capable of decided eminence over women in many subjects, the average standard of mental power in man must be above that of woman.” Ibid
“It is generally admitted that with women the powers of intuition, of rapid perception, and perhaps of imitation, are more strongly marked than in man; but some, at least, of these faculties are characteristic of the lower races and therefore of a past and lower state of civilization.” Ibid
Now, if you want more education then sign up for the course like everyone else.
In short: a wise man would not wish to be associated with Darwin - he was a P - I - G !!!
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.” Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, 1871.
Jorge
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
46 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment