Theistic Evolution

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

You have me confused with another.  Nobody disputes adaptation; that the stronger of a species tends to thrive and the weaker to die off, or that advantageous traits tend to prevail while more deleterious traits are extinguished.

And as you learned, new alleles appear by mutation, and these change the genome of the population, which is evolution.

1 hour ago, RV_Wizard said:

He got more into that which is currently preached by evolutionists in The Descent of Man.  This is where social Darwinism and eugenics are revealed.

Because you never read that book, and were programmed by others who told you that they did, you don't realize that Darwin called eugenic ideas "an overwhelming evil."

On the other hand, YE creationists like ICR co-founder William Tinkle was an enthusiastic eugenicist, who argued that "inferior" people should be prevented from having children.     He did argue that Hitler went too far, but they agreed in principle.   Darwinists like Reginald Punnett showed that Tinkle and Hitler were not only morally wrong, their entire idea of genetics was faulty; neither YE eugenics nor Hitler's "final solution" would do what they thought it would.

 

[The Barbarian]

Just now, Sparks said:

You lost this debate.  

If I had, you wouldn't have abandoned it.  

1 minute ago, Sparks said:

You can stop trying now. 

Declaring victory does you very little good, seeing as our discussion is still up for everyone to read.

C'mon.

 

[RV_Wizard]

8 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

new alleles appear by mutation, and these change the genome of the population

As you have learned, benevolent mutations are not, never have been, and can never be the driving force in increasing complexity, which MUST be readily demonstrable for the advancement of any species; much less all.

10 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Because you never read that book

You don't know what I've read or what I have not read.

11 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

were programmed by others

I think that's what happened to you rather than education.  You were molded into an automaton devoid of original thought; endlessly repeating tales of dubious origination in an attempt to promote your profundity.  

14 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Darwin called eugenic ideas "an overwhelming evil."

And yet he put them forward as beneficial to the advancement of the race and for the overall betterment of the species.  After all, what breeder would allow the inferior animal to reproduce?

15 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

William Tinkle was an enthusiastic eugenicist, who argued that "inferior" people should be prevented from having children. 

In other words, he repeated what Darwin espoused was beneficial to the advancement of the human race.  Why, then, is he not an idol if yours?

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

YE eugenics nor Hitler's "final solution" would do what they thought it would.

You really do spread manure faster and deeper than the best machine John Deere ever produced.  Y.E.C. deals with the fact that the world was created a few thousand years ago.  It has as much in common with eugenics as it does with athlete's foot. 

The very notion of Eugenics was first discussed in Plato's Republic, where he envisions a society where the wealthy and educated would couple and marry while the indigent and lowly would not.  A more famous eugenicist was Margret Sanger, the hero of infanticide loving liberals everywhere.  Sanger started “The Negro Project” in 1939 with the aim of expanding birth control services for Black communities in the south.  The goal, of course, was to decrease the black population by aborting them. 

However, if you can link creationists with eugenics (an affront to God, by the way), then we can lump you in with Hitler, Stalin, the Japanese government in the late 30's, the KKK and any other group who ever saw another person as inferior or lesser evolved.  The difference is, while eugenics is contrary to God's teaching, racism fits in perfectly with evolution.  If all humans evolved, then some are by definition more evolved than others.

[Diamond]

10 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

It might be interesting to do a study on Americans, descendants of slaves that moved to Liberia, and those moving to nations in Europe or to Canada.

Canada, Mexico and Columbia abolished slavery in the early 1800's. Also as you say they did not have as much of an issue with civil rights. Civil rights was actually an issue in the Douglas - Lincoln debates. 

Douglas was not pro slavery anti civil rights. He just believed it should be up to the states to decide. Of course the issue today is that whites are becoming a minority and blacks are becoming a majority. AT least in 20 major cities. It looks like we will become one third black, one third white and one third hispanic. Although I do not understand how you can have a hispanic from the Bronc. That seems to be a contradiction to me. But west side story has been my favorite movie. 

I actually did work on John Brown's house. Perhaps the most famous abortionists. Actually we were working on the carriage house at the time. The house is well taken care of and well preserved. 

[The Barbarian]

9 hours ago, Diamond said:

Of course the issue today is that whites are becoming a minority and blacks are becoming a majority.

Part of the problem is that if a person is partly white and partly black, we classify that person as black.     But blacks are only about 12% of the population.    Hispanics of any race are second to "white, non-Hispanic" but the US will be more Hispanic in the future.   Today:

9 hours ago, Diamond said:

Although I do not understand how you can have a hispanic from the Bronc.

Used to be mostly Puerto Rican.    Now, it might be different.

[The Barbarian]

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

As you have learned, benevolent mutations are not, never have been, and can never be the driving force in increasing complexity, which MUST be readily demonstrable for the advancement of any species; much less all.

So many errors there.   First, new mutations play a large role in speciation.   Second, evolution is not about "increasing complexity."    Mammals, for example are anatomically simplied, relative to their reptile ancestors.   Would you like to learn about how?    Evolution isn't about "advancement", either.    It merely tends to make a population more fitted to the environment.   

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

You don't know what I've read or what I have not read.

I know you haven't read The Descent of Man, because you attributed to that book exactly the opposite of what it actually says.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

I think that's what happened to you rather than education.  You were molded into an automaton devoid of original thought; endlessly repeating tales of dubious origination in an attempt to promote your profundity.  

You're just chanting slogans you were indoctrinated to say.   

Darwin called eugenic ideas "an overwhelming evil."  While YE creationists like Tinkle and Morris promoted them as beneficial to the advancement of the race and for the overall betterment of the species. 

Because Darwin didn't know about genetics, he couldn't debunk such ideas directly, but pointed out that such idea were innately evil:

…if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind…

YE creationists like Morris and Tinkle, and politicians like Hitler disagreed with Darwin; arguing that some people shouldn't be allowed to have children at all.

William Tinkle was an enthusiastic eugenicist, who argued that "inferior" people should be prevented from having children. 

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

In other words, he repeated what Darwin espoused was beneficial to the advancement of the human race. 

Darwin decried this kind of racist nonsense by saying that it would have only a temporary benefit but would be an overwhelming evil.    He bluntly objected to racism of the sort we see in the founders of YE creationism.

And as you have seen, with the discovery of genetics, Darwinists like Punnett debunked the racial ideas of people like Morris and Hitler.

And again, I admit that many of today's YE creationists have rejected the racist foundations of YE creationism.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

However, if you can link creationists with eugenics (an affront to God, by the way)

Not all creationism is an affront to God.    Like eugenics, most of it is merely an error.

10 hours ago, RV_Wizard said:

However, if you can link creationists with eugenics (an affront to God, by the way), then we can lump you in with Hitler, Stalin, the Japanese government in the late 30's, the KKK and any other group who ever saw another person as inferior or lesser evolved. 

As you know, evolutionary theory debunked that foolishness.    There are no biological human races today.    But as late as the 1990s, YE creationists like Morris were blathering about the supposed genetic inferiority of black people.    Like Hitler and other racists, they espoused ideas that biologists had completely debunked.

BTW, Darwin's theory and Mendel's genetic findings were banned in the Soviet Union under Stalin.   You should at least do a little research before you presume to lecture us about such things.   

[Sparks]

11 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

If I had [lost], you wouldn't have abandoned it.

When you have lost the debate, then the debate is over.  It is really that simple.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

When you have lost the debate, then the debate is over.  It is really that simple.

If that was true, you wouldn't keep trying to convince people you won.  People can go back and look for themselves.

So can you.    That's the problem, isn't it?

“Let’s declare victory and get out.”

Sen. George Aiken, regarding Vietnam

 

Edited August 31, 2024 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

12 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

If that was true, you wouldn't keep trying to convince people you won.  People can go back and look for themselves.

So can you.    That's the problem, isn't it?

“Let’s declare victory and get out.”

Sen. George Aiken, regarding Vietnam

If any one needs convincing, it is you.  When you lose a debate, you would seem to be the last one to know about it.  Refusing to concede your loss is about the only tactic you have left.  Some call your tactic gaslighting. 

[enoob57]

theistic evolution is the same as a square circle...