Have Atheists Hijacked Darwin's Evolution??

reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Now, just as a reminder, the topic of discussion is 'Have Atheists Hijacked Evolution', let's see if we can stay on topic. If not, there are a ton of threads where you can argue about the validity of evolution, try going there.

Cheers

I was expecting some derailment coz with topics like this its hard to avoid.


To Bigwhammy.
I've agreed with a few of your points,but as Jaz said,this thread is not about Abiogenesis.And as ImaginaryReality1984 said,abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution.



So lets all try and stay onboard folks,we'll reach our destination much quicker if we do.lol.

reply to post by jakyll


'Selective quoting'????
My last part was from Darwin himself!???

While many say Darwin was only reflecting the white supremacy of his culture, abolitionists and many preachers displayed a greater understanding of God's Love for ALL peoples, while at the same time SHUNNING the cultural demands.

How do you rationalize this?

reply to post by Clearskies


And lots of scientists, and atheists, were also abolitionists. Only they were doing it because it is the right thing to do, not because the Jewish Sky Zombie Wizard told them to or burn in hell...

your point?

reply to post by Clearskies


I meant selective quoting from the whole wikipedia article.

While many say Darwin was only reflecting the white supremacy of his culture, abolitionists and many preachers displayed a greater understanding of God's Love for ALL peoples, while at the same time SHUNNING the cultural demands.

Such people were not the norm in Darwin's day (or in the society circles he moved in),thats why it was such a struggle to get people to change their ways and their attitudes.

If you want proof of this go read a cpl 100 novels of the time and you'll have a broad understanding.These books contain racial comments that wouldn't be tolerated in todays world.

It is notable that Darwin's son, Leonard directed the First International Congress of Eugenics
First congress of Eugenics

The conference testifies to the fact that the science of genetics was still intricately interwoven with eugenics and that the cutting edge of the science of genetics was also the cutting edge for the scientific justification of racism. Ludmerer's notion that leading geneticists abandoned the eugenics movement "after World War I, as the eugenics movement acquired more and more of a racist tone"6 is clearly false. One hundred eight papers were presented on topics ranging from plant and animal genetics to anthropology and political science. Intermixed with papers presented by the world's leading authorities on genetics were polemics against race mixing and the dangers of inferior races.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by Clearskies]

See below. .............
thanks.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by jakyll
reply to post by Clearskies

 

I meant selective quoting from the whole wikipedia article.

What did I leave out?



The whole 'everybody was doing it', clause is moot!
The fact is that 'higher-ups' don't want you and I to breed.


Why do you think the closer you get to the all-seeing eye on the dollar bill, the less 'blocks'(people) are allowed?

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by Clearskies

 

And lots of scientists, and atheists, were also abolitionists.
your point?

Good for them.
My point is.............. THAT DARWIN WAS RACIST. THAT EUGENICS was/is racist and evolutionary science, genocide and atheism go hand-in-hand. It's not rocket science!
I've said this throughout.

reply to post by Clearskies


I'm sorry but this is getting out of hand, eugenics is not evolution and here is why.

Evolution via natural selection is the basis of evolution. If someone, whether it be you or i start saying who can and cannot bread, then we have removed the natural element. Survival of the fittest is completely abused by those who believe in eugenics. The fittest in Darwinian terms is the organism most suited to the enviroment, not the fittest it regards to a human quality we decide to increase the strength of by breeding.

So you can keep quoting and sniping all you wish but you are just completely misrepresenting the theory. Even if Darwin himself turned to eugenics, he would only be betraying his own theory.

So lets move on fromt hat shall we and get back to the meat of the thread. Atheists are being forced into the position of defending evolution for many reasons. Any atheist who uses evolution to say there is no god is just causing trouble. Whilst Richard Dawkins has done ths sometimes, he also gives many other arguements for his disbelief in god.

I think Dawkins has just been forced into a corner. He's a very well known atheist, at the same time he's a massive supporter of evolution. By arguing these things in tandum he has made it seem like all atheists use evolution as their basis to not believe in a god. However you can believe in evolution and still believe in god so this idea that creationists are putting fourth is unfair.

Atheists havn't hijacked evolution, creationists have hijacked atheism

Originally posted by Clearskies
good for them.
My point is.............. THAT DARWIN WAS RACIST. THAT EUGENICS was/is racist and evolutionary science, genocide and atheism go hand-in-hand. It's not rocket science!
I've said this throughout.

Darwin was racist? So were half the people of the time, it doesn't make it right but it sheds light on that idea and shows it to be a poor shadow of an arguement. Eugenics is a pathetic branch of science in my opinion as i argued above.

Evolutionary science, genecide and atheism go hand in hand? Well that's an incredible statement, do you really want to get into that and completely side track this thread? If you want to start a new thread on it then please do and i'll comment there, because here it would be completely off topic.

Either way do you maybe want to keep this on topic, the idea that atheism has hijacked evolutionary theory rather than just keep banging on attacking the proponents of the theory to try to sully it?

off topic, blah.

The main thing is that Darwin's evolution was taken by the human animals to get rid of their opponents.
Much like groups of apes fighting over territory.

reply to post by Clearskies

It is notable that Darwin's son, Leonard directed the First International Congress of Eugenics

Who his relatives were and what they did are of little importance.They were not Charles Darwin!

You are now grasping at straws to try and justify your beliefs.

And the Eugenics tree image mentions 25 other areas that have influenced the theory,many more directly than the 'hint' given by Darwin.

Also,from your wikipedia link,

The basic ideals of eugenics can be found from the beginnings of humanity.

Was Darwin around way back then?

reply to post by jakyll


That's actually a very good point because before Darwin was even born people were breeding the strongest slaves to try and make them stronger. Again though this is sort of off topic as it's more about bashing and defending the theory rather than talking about how it's supposedly been hijacked by atheists.

Unless someone wants to change the title of this thread to "Have Eugenicists Hijacked Darwins Evolution".

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

I think Dawkins has just been forced into a corner. He's a very well known atheist, at the same time he's a massive supporter of evolution. By arguing these things in tandum he has made it seem like all atheists use evolution as their basis to not believe in a god. However you can believe in evolution and still believe in god so this idea that creationists are putting fourth is unfair.

That guy gets on my nerves so much.He's rehashed age old arguments and people think he's a genius! Bah!

But he's not the only one to do that.If you read Darwin's biography and his letters,he mentions atheists who wrote to him asking for his support in the argument against atheism/evolution-creation/faith debate.

Thats actually a very good point....

Cheers

I think one of the most famous societies who did such a thing were the Spartans.Male and female had to be strong.

Unless someone wants to change the title of this thread to "Have Eugenicists Hijacked Darwins Evolution".

You should start a thread.I'm sure it'd be a lively debate.







[edit on 6-10-2008 by jakyll]

Originally posted by jakyll

That guy gets on my nerves so much.He's rehashed age old arguments and people think he's a genius! Bah!

I'm not overly fond of him to be honest, however at least he's publicised the debate and that's always a good thing.

reply to post by Clearskies

The whole 'everybody was doing it', clause is moot!

No.Its extremely relevant.
People follow the herd and in those days the herd was racist to anyone who wasn't white.

Actually in a discussion of evolutions connection to atheism, the subject of naturalism is what is really being discussed. It is the common link between the two. The death blow to naturalism as a viable philosophy is abiogenesis. That is why naturalists are so quick to try and disconnect it from the conversation of evolution. Macro-evolution from a common ancestor is dead in the water without a common ancestor to start with. And naturalism is dead without a purely natural explanation for the first life.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

You've dismissed abiogenesis without saying why, calling it absurd without giving reason. You are quite correct, without abiogenesis there would be no other explanation, but we do have abiogenesis.

Obviously because it has never been observed to occur and there is no evidence it ever did occur. There is also no known mechanism by which it could occur. It is based on on wishful thinking and wild speculations by naturalists. Sure you might cite a few experiments that produce amino acids in a laboratory dubiously "simulating" early earth conditions.

But an amino acid is along way from a protein and a protein is an even longer way from an enzyme inside a cell. And then there are the many highly complex nano-machines which carry out highly specified functions. Not to mention the externally imposed language convention and written data inside DNA which is contained in all living cells.

Sir Fred Hoyle calculated the probability of just the enzymes in a cell...

Hoyle calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10^40,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10^80), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup would grant little chance to evolutionary processes.

en.wikipedia.org...

To call abiogenesis an absurdity is being polite. For you to assert " You are quite correct, without abiogenesis there would be no other explanation, but we do have abiogenesis." is intellectually dishonest because you don't have any viable explanation at all.




[edit on 10/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]

I have to admit the I read The God Delusion and I have to admit that Dawkins does give a good arguement against the literal views of Abrahamic Religions, but he stated in the begining that he was leaving out the Eastern Philosophies as he claimed them as 'good philosophies to live by' or something to that extent. In reality, his arguements do nothing to disprove those philosophies, and neither does science. The fact is that most of us, including myself, believe in a Higher Power and accept modern science. We, however, have the distinct privledge of being attacked by both the atheists and the creationists. One for believing and the other for not believing enough, so we find ourselves having to debate the issue from both sides.

ED to add:

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I find abiogenesis to be very well thought out and quite probable, given the millions of years it took. Given the timescale that this occured, it seems reasonable that it would be impossible to recreate in the laboratory, unless the experiment was also given millions of years.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by JaxonRoberts]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Again off topic and i wanted to keep it on topic frm my last post but okey dokey.

Are you aware the probability of the crystal structure of a piece of quartz? Calculating the probability that you showed above is like mathmatically working out the odds of the crystalline structure of some stones! It's a completely pointless exercise. I mean trying to calculate how each molecule somehow got perfectly placed in it's exact location in a crystal is unbelievably, mathmatically improbable. Yet we have those crystals.

Abiogenesis uses laws of chemistry, these are predictable laws that fit models which can predict and show outcomes. There have been numerous experiments replicating the "primordial soup" and it's been shown molecules can form on their own to become rather complex.

However lets be very clear shall we, evoltuion is not abiogenesis, the two theories are seperate. Whilst you might like to try and combine them to invalidate both theories at once, you are just performing a fraud. So let me state it clearly.

Abiogenesis is how life began.

Evolution is how life adapts to it's enviroment after life already exists.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Obviously because it has never been observed to occur and there is no evidence it ever did occur. There is also no known mechanism by which it could occur. It is based on on wishful thinking and wild speculations by naturalists. Sure you might cite a few experiments that produce amino acids in a laboratory dubiously "simulating" early earth conditions.

Amino acids are the building blocks of proteins,which carry out many functions in organismic life.Some proteins act as catalysts,others serve for storage and transport,while still others are antibodies for our immune system.There are also numerous other functions that different proteins execute.The point is,amino acids are absolutely essential to cellular life.