"Darwinism"

Without a lawmaker, beasts are left to their own devices.

what's wrong this social darwinism anyway? seems to make sense to me

But we have lawmakers, because the majority of men agree that they make life better.
If you want anarchy, go to Somalia or Antarctica.

>better
But how can "better" exist when there's no standard.

Better than anarchy, Jack.

But anarchy is the logical conclusion of Darwinism. Man is an animal, man sets the rules, but man can't set rules because he's an animal.

Who said animals can't set rules?

Because we make our own standards. You're asking for an absolute certitude, something both ironic and dubious if the argument is that it can be derived only from God; an entity that is explicitly found solely in faith.

There are animals and there are beasts. Man is an animal, but he is not a beast -- he is the human animal, just as there exist the bestial animals. Because we are human, we can reason and make ways of living that we find suitable based from this reasoning.

From where did this reasoning arise? Pure chance, a roll of the dice?

>Darwin’s theory, upon which those tyrants based their actions, was wrong.
You have not made an argument for this point. Darwin's theory is not wrong.

It's irrelevant whence it arose, when the point is that it exists. You are free to argue, and possibly even correct, that it came from God -- but it is ultimately irrelevant. My God is not your God, and the morality and life that my God advocates is not twin to yours. In practice, it can only be said that the each of us are living as each reasons to be best, and that is the crux -- that the moral action and laws of humankind must necessarily stem from humans themselves.

answersingenesis.org/charles-darwin/

No, Darwin was right.

Where does it say that Darwin is wrong? There is nothing in that page which argues that he is wrong.

answersingenesis.org/evolution/

>Hitler believed that people were engaged in a constant struggle for survival.

And he was completely right. He only got the race stuff completely wrong

Evidence exists. If you aren't willing to read it, that's your own fault
>It is impossible for extremely simple organisms to come into existence organically.
>But I have no qualms at all about the extremely complicated organism, God, coming into existence.
What's it like to be retarded?
And don't give me "God existed forever dur dur". That's just dodging the question. You're just inviting a whole new question: how can something exist forever?
>God's word or men's truth?
"God's word" is just another term for "man's falsehood". I prefer truth to falsehoods.

Could we say that people deciding to not have children is a former a natural selection?

i love it when darwin discusses the different races of cabbage

UHHHH

RACIST AND SEXIST MUCH????

no since the "natural" part doesn't rly fit
people tend to not want children based on non-natural socioeconomic reasons

Because that would make Jews the master race? All those shoahs are just evolutionary selection at work.

>Whence have we the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today? A glance at nature informs us that in the realm of plants and animals alterations and further formations occur, but nothing indicates that development within a species has occurred of a considerable leap of the sort that man would have to have made to transform him from an apelike condition to his present state.
>Adolf Hitler, "Table Talk"

QED. Belief in selective breeding predates, and does not imply, belief in evolution.

The reasoning arises from utility. Wolves are predatory pack hunting animals. They all possess the ability to kill each other. They don't. They don't because they know it's better for everyone if they cooperate.
Morality doesn't need to come from a god to have meaning.

Darwin also thought that South America should be repopulated with black africans because he considered them more healthy and cheerful than the natives.

>answers in genesis

Okay but for real

So you think because men are animals we should abandon morality?

Oh you're just a religious fag who is trying really hard to make your shit relevant by saying darwinism is proven wrong by tangential social theories.

>I cannot act as a moral person unless some ancient scripture tells me to and threatens me with eternal torture if I don't.

>implying socioeconomic reasons are artificial

He took a scientific theory and tried to drastically defy the status quo by "implementing" it. he problem was that his Aryan race wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

Fuck wrong file.

>implying anything about our society is "natural"

>Implying God is an organism and has parts

He is immaterial and "simple"

If you're not willing to engage with sophisticated natural theology then I can't help you either.

This doesn't make a difference.
The only significant difference is there is a difference.

Darwin's theory is wrong because it's unscientific.
With the technology and the basic gist of the understanding of Evolution we can easily cut out Darwinianism as a viable explanation.

There is simply not enough evidence to substantiate the Darwinian claim.
The lab work doesn't match up and neither does the fossil record.

It's time for a new theory of Evolution.

>Who said animals can't set rules?
other animals...

It is there is no reason to treat them as significant.
Darwinianism takes man off his pedestal and puts him on the ground.

I think they really should teach Evolution Theory in the US school system, it would save us a lot of stupid threads from stupid people.

>I think they really should teach Evolution Theory in the US school system
They do...
too much.
It's as if they make it an article of faith.
Evolutionary theory is not on par with any other legitimate scientific theory.
It doesn't have the predictability of gravity nor the demonstrability of of say the H.U.P.
And they always talk of the missing link or breaks in the fossil record as something of a long lost friend they expect to see.
This is like taking a stroll with a non-sequitur or having lunch with the gap in a narrative.

I think a Marxist interpretation of the "scientists" economic values would show they know less than they'd have us believe.

The problem with official scientists is they are always becoming more official and less scientific.

>inb4 science XD LMAO
I'm being serious, we need to invest in the sciences and put these issues to rest once and for all.

>Evolutionary theory is not on par with any other legitimate scientific theory.
>t. guy that is all alone with his opinion

>It doesn't have the predictability of gravity nor the demonstrability of of say the H.U.P.

Evolution is trivially demonstrable

Here's an evolutionary system that optimizes one body type
rednuht.org/genetic_walkers/

Here's an evolutionary system that allows change in body type
rednuht.org/genetic_cars_2/

Here's one that evolves foraging behavior
math.hws.edu/eck/jsdemo/jsGeneticAlgorithm.html

>Evolution is trivially demonstrable
Especially since Genetics have been discovered, there was a slight change for gene drift and similar phenomenons, but thats that.

got any more of these?

lmgtfy.com/?q=genetic algorithm online

Is a Bee's hive natural?
A Beaver's dam?
It is in our nature to build and develop, and so what we build and develop is natural.

Anyway, who said God knew exactly what he wanted from the get-go?
Could he not have spent billions of years attempting to create the perfect being, making continuous, small, changes?

Why would other animals get a say?
They're stupid.

This isn't a democracy.

What do I need a god for when I can explain this all with science and natural behavior?

Science can do very well without god, but religious people somehow need science to accept their view of their god in scientific theory. Since this doesn't work out they try the back door and try to put god somewhere where that science does not yet understand everything.
And since Science knows a little more every day, gods realm shrinks, he gets more abstract, and religion looses its influence in a scientific world.
If you need your imaginary friend, OK, but please keep him out of Science.

I don't believe in God.
But I believe He has helped the world.
The fact of the matter is, a lot of people need the threat of Hell to keep them moral.

And others use God as an excuse to be immoral. I don't think there actions would change with religion just there rationality as to why.

Which is why I'd create a new state religion, if I had my own country.

Religion needs to be better planned-out.

...

>i dont believe in god i just think he exists and has done things

you fucking what

I didn't say that.
I said that I think Christianity has motivated a lot of people to be more moral than they otherwise would have been.
It was a figure of speech, saying He.

And, yes, a lot of people have used God as justification for being immoral, but most of them would have done the same stuff with Christianity.

>I'm being serious, we need to invest in the sciences and put these issues to rest once and for all.

We did, but people like you said it doesn't count and now we're back to square one.

*without

>people need the threat of Hell to keep them moral
kys authoritarian

Not everyone, but a lot of people do.
To say otherwise would be naive.

Also, I don't kiss filthy hippies.

And what armchair awarded your psych degree?

...

What armchair awarded yours?
Did it massage, too?

...

I can't believe people feel the need to write walls of text on a topic they don't understand.

>pretending to have sources by putting [numbers] in your text

This fails in the first couple of sentences. There is no claim that evolution is some sort of ascending ladder leading to mankind. Adaptation can sometimes lead to life forms becoming more simple.

This entire thing is a strawman made up by someone that didn't really even understand what they were arguing against.

[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
[2] gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
[3] 1 Corinthians 15
[4] Romans 5:12-21
[5] 2 Timothy 1:7-10
[6] Acts 22:16
[7] Revelation 21:1-7

>[1] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Where does this say evolutionists don't value life?

Only one of those sources mean anything, and it's the source for explaining what Gnosticism is.

????????????????????????

When it states that man is just another animal among many, that we are insignificant, and would be better off just killing ourselves.

W h e r e _ t h o
h
e
r
e
_
t
h
o

Do you have a single quote to back that up?

>As had been demonstrated by responses to the publication of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844, the most controversial aspect of evolutionary biology is the implication of human evolution that humans share common ancestry with apes and that the mental and moral faculties of humanity have the same types of natural causes as other inherited traits in animals

...

A. Where are you getting that from?
B. Your best source on a scientific theory is from 1844?

You know that when you cite something you are supposed to cite what it actually says, not pull shit right out of your anus.

So you've demonstrated that evolutionists believe humans are animals, which nobody disagreed with. Now do the insignificance, the recommendation for suicide, and the lack of value for life.

Yes, but it's presence as a behavioral pattern is a bit of a puzzle as it's clearly a negative trait that would be selected against very quickly.

Wow, is that really from the Wikipedia page you cited?

Actually from an objective standpoint plants have much better reasoning ability than humans, they are conscious but not self conscious.
They can sense where the sun is in the sky and postion their leaves in to face it.
Self organizing for maximum photosynthetic efficiency aswell.
This is clearly conscious perception and interpretation.
Humans follow the sun in the sky and think that a a sky wizard that looks like them is doing it.
When was the last time you heard a tree come up with some retarded shit like that?
Symbolic self conscious thought is just one kind of conscious behavior and is overrated by its users, who are often times silly. Because they are able to perceive symbolic meaning, that means information that isn't there, it means humans can understand but that doesn't mean shit to a tree.
It's semiosis, semiosis is an intrinsic quality of all life, and all life consciously interprets signs from its external environment.

Humans aren't so smart, we are actively destroying the systems that provide us with everything we have.
>tl;dr
Anthropocentrism is just plain silly

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
trueorigin.org

...

Citing something else instead doesn't cure the error.

If you had accompanied your new citation with an apology for being mistaken or dishonest and a request to look at your new material that would have been different. However it appears you don't have the humility to admit the error of your ways.

>apologize
Why should I when your side has yet to apologize to the countless lives you stole from their paradise?

To show to have some level of credibility in this discussion of course.

You are everything wrong with Christianity in the modern day.

Why pretend to have sources if you don't know what they are, how they work, or why to use them?

You have yet to show me why darwinism has any """"""credibility"""""" at all, though.

...

That's the worst apology for using fake citations I have ever read.

>>t. guy that is all alone with his opinion
You've just described everyone.
>computerized algorithms ALGORITHMS are Darwinian or in the least comparable to the infinitely varied conditions of the universe
stop, please, I don't think you understand the discussion.
That's also not a natural process.
You're proving my point.
It's not Darwinian and it's certainly not natural.

Idiots like you bother me.

Oh look, another symptom of "recreational science" taking its toll on the uneducated morons who think reading journals is comprable to research.
>people like you
Good to know you've already discredited my response before I gave it to you.
Into the trash you go.

Plebbit pls
How can you argue that a brute sense of obligation is not advantageous??
If feasibility is truth(and this is the only empiricist viewpoint) then it seems as though Christianity is the most true of all religions.

>muh Islam
Christianity is the only religion to win over its followers across the world by its own merit rather than the merit of the sword

>Replying to creationist b8
I'm disappointed in you, Veeky Forums.

>It's not Darwinian and it's certainly not natural.

>In computer science, evolutionary computation is a subfield of artificial intelligence (more particularly soft computing) that can be defined by the type of algorithms it is concerned with. These algorithms, called evolutionary algorithms, are based on adopting Darwinian principles, hence the name.

You got me on the natural though