Economic consequences of Evolution vs. Creation.

[Brian Schuh]

Part of the truth of a theorey is in its effect of people and how they behave. Evolution was used by Nazi's to justify what they did. I believe we can all agree that social darwinism is false, no matter if evolution is true or not, a government has no right to decide who is fit to survive or not survive.

If you look at the Torah, the Hebrews were not "fit to survive." Even Moses under inspiration of God said that "I did not choose you because your were the mightiest people, or the greatest people, or even the most intelligent people, in fact you are the weakest, smallest people." (That is paraphrased.) In fact the Hebrews survived these several thousands years against all odds. Which shows that survival of the fittest doesn't hold water.

The Creation Museam of Kentucky creates more jobs for Kentucky and pays more federal tax to keep the Feds afloat than all evolutionists combined ever had.

Look at the story of Abraham, his wife was barren and it is probably closer to the truth that he himself was impotent. If survival of the fittest were true, Abraham beat all odds.

No, there is no survival of the fittest. It just doesn't hold water.

 

[Rival]

"Evolution is false because Nazis."

 

[Quintessence]

No, there is no survival of the fittest. It just doesn't hold water.

Yup, you're right.

Biological evolution also does not rest upon nor involve this idea. It's an erroneous layman's translation of evolutionary principles. It has never been "survival of the fittest." It has always been "survival of the fit enough" (in some particular environmental context).

 

[Brickjectivity]

Human breeding is an ancient failed idea not a Nazi invention and is certainly not due to evolutionary theory.

 

[Brian Schuh]

The talmudic sages once said, if there is no resurrection of the dead (i.e. no afterlife), it is still better to teach the ignorant masses a resurrection, for when the masses believe in an afterlife, it is better for society. (people behave better.)

When it was believed that the philosopher Neitze had proved there is no god, a rabbi said, "Even if you absolutely prove there is no god, I say it is still better to believe."

Truth value of a belief is not judged only by how factual it is, but also by it's effect on society and how it helps people have good behavior as well as hope.

 

[Rival]

The talmudic sages once said, if there is no resurrection of the dead (i.e. no afterlife), it is still better to teach the ignorant masses a resurrection, for when the masses believe in an afterlife, it is better for society. (people behave better.)

Citation?

 

[Brian Schuh]

Citation?

Well, it wasn't the talmudic sages that said this, it was originally the Pharisees in their argument with the Sadducees. about the resurrection of the dead. I will look for the reference.

 

[Altfish]

Part of the truth of a theorey is in its effect of people and how they behave. Evolution was used by Nazi's to justify what they did. I believe we can all agree that social darwinism is false, no matter if evolution is true or not, a government has no right to decide who is fit to survive or not survive.

If you look at the Torah, the Hebrews were not "fit to survive." Even Moses under inspiration of God said that "I did not choose you because your were the mightiest people, or the greatest people, or even the most intelligent people, in fact you are the weakest, smallest people." (That is paraphrased.) In fact the Hebrews survived these several thousands years against all odds. Which shows that survival of the fittest doesn't hold water.

The Creation Museam of Kentucky creates more jobs for Kentucky and pays more federal tax to keep the Feds afloat than all evolutionists combined ever had.

Look at the story of Abraham, his wife was barren and it is probably closer to the truth that he himself was impotent. If survival of the fittest were true, Abraham beat all odds.

No, there is no survival of the fittest. It just doesn't hold water.

Brilliant, now write up the scientific paper to back this up and await the Nobel Prize.

Meanwhile in the normal world breakthroughs in biology based on evolution keep our hi-tec companies afloat, cure diseases and help our understanding of the world and its creatures.

 

[Revoltingest]

I know creationists who are fire breathing free market capitalists.
I know evolutionists who are little red book waving commies.
No economic impact from believing one or the other.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Bob Dylan just won the Nobel Prize. And he sang, "We got Charles Darwin trapped on Highway 5, our judge told the high Sheriff, we want him dead or alive, we don't even care."

 

[Brian Schuh]

I know creationists who are fire breathing free market capitalists.
I know evolutionists who are little red book waving commies.
No economic impact from believing one or the other.

I don't even want to know the people you know. It's all you, man. If you know commies and ultra right wing nutcases as well, then you need to know a new group of people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't even want to know the people you know. It's all you, man. If you know commies and ultra right wing nutcases as well, then you need to know a new group of people.

I know every kind of person, & cannot imagine the dull sameness of knowing only ordinary people.
And now that you know me, you're sampling my world.
Booowahahhahahhahahahhah, etc!

 

[Brian Schuh]

Human breeding is an ancient failed idea not a Nazi invention and is certainly not due to evolutionary theory.

You forget that evolution and survival of the fittest was first an economic theory not a biological one. And you forget that Hinduism has been teaching evolution for thousands of years as a religious belief. Charles Darwin just provided some scientific evidence for a belief that has existed for thousands of year.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Part of the truth of a theorey is in its effect of people and how they behave.

No it isn't. A terrible truth is still truth, and a wonderful lie is still a lie. I'd rather proceed on painful truth than false hope.

Evolution was used by Nazi's to justify what they did.

Is that why Origin of Species was on the book burning list?

I believe we can all agree that social darwinism is false, no matter if evolution is true or not, a government has no right to decide who is fit to survive or not survive

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with TOE, and neither does the rest of your post. TOE is, in fact, against eugenics programs, racial purity, or even 'survival of the fittest' because TOE supports genetic diversity and has no specific idealized trait or series of traits that is considered 'fit.' And if anything tends to help a species survivability it's adaptability, which makes artificially constraining genetic variability to be pretty silly.

The Creation Museam of Kentucky creates more jobs for Kentucky and pays more federal tax to keep the Feds afloat than all evolutionists combined ever had.

Bioinformatics and immunology both stem from TOE and are billion dollar industries. So this is untrue.

If survival of the fittest were true, Abraham beat all odds.

No, there is no survival of the fittest. It just doesn't hold water.

Survival of the fittest was coined by a free market economist speaking about free market economy. It is not a biological term, for reasons I've already stated. So trying to criticize TOE with arguments about survival of the fittest is an inconsequential red herring.

 

[Brian Schuh]

Brilliant, now write up the scientific paper to back this up and await the Nobel Prize.

Meanwhile in the normal world breakthroughs in biology based on evolution keep our hi-tec companies afloat, cure diseases and help our understanding of the world and its creatures.

Bob Dylan just won the Nobel prize, and he sang in his famous song protesting gentrification, "We have Charles Darwin, trapped on Highway 5, our Judge told our High Sheriff, we want him dead or alive, we don't even care."-- Highwater, by Bob Dylan for Charlie Patton.

 

[Revoltingest]

You forget that evolution and survival of the fittest was first an economic theory not a biological one. And you forget that Hinduism has been teaching evolution for thousands of years as a religious belief. Charles Darwin just provided some scientific evidence for a belief that has existed for thousands of year.

One wonders why Darwin went thru the trouble to research & publish a book with no ideas.
Or could it be that Hindus didn't really come up the TOE?
I'll bet your left one on the latter being correct.

 

[Brian Schuh]

No it isn't. A terrible truth is still truth, and a wonderful lie is still a lie. I'd rather proceed on painful truth than false hope.


Is that why Origin of Species was on the book burning list?


Social Darwinism has nothing to do with TOE, and neither does the rest of your post. TOE is, in fact, against eugenics programs, racial purity, or even 'survival of the fittest' because TOE supports genetic diversity and has no specific idealized trait or series of traits that is considered 'fit.' And if anything tends to help a species survivability it's adaptability, which makes artificially constraining genetic variability to be pretty silly.


Bioinformatics and immunology both stem from TOE and are billion dollar industries. So this is untrue.




Survival of the fittest was coined by a free market economist speaking about free market economy. It is not a biological term, for reasons I've already stated. So trying to criticize TOE with arguments about survival of the fittest is an inconsequential red herring.

I only have a high school education in evolutionary theory. I took Biology in high school. By the time I got to college, I chose a different course of study. All I remember is that evolutionary theory has some fatal flaws and that they anticipate they will be resolved soon. Although they never have.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You forget that evolution and survival of the fittest was first an economic theory not a biological one. And you forget that Hinduism has been teaching evolution for thousands of years as a religious belief. Charles Darwin just provided some scientific evidence for a belief that has existed for thousands of year.

'Survival of the fittest' was never Science or Darwinian and has only ever been a rich man's claim, popularized by Charles Dickens. Darwinism can't make a dent in the human race. We're one race, and evolutionary theory bolsters that truth. You appear to think that the human race could be divided through breeding programs. It couldn't. Look at the evidence that Africa was cut off for millennia, and yet its people are still pretty much the same as Whites who are pretty much the same as Australians. What evolution tells us is that breeding programs can only produce inbreeding. They can't produce a superior race. Only interbreeding can accomplish that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Part of the truth of a theorey is in its effect of people and how they behave. Evolution was used by Nazi's to justify what they did. I believe we can all agree that social darwinism is false, no matter if evolution is true or not, a government has no right to decide who is fit to survive or not survive.

Who cares what the Nazi’s used to justify their atrocities (and they certainly used more than just evolution, by the way)? There is no justification, period. Evil is as evil does.

If you look at the Torah, the Hebrews were not "fit to survive." Even Moses under inspiration of God said that "I did not choose you because your were the mightiest people, or the greatest people, or even the most intelligent people, in fact you are the weakest, smallest people." (That is paraphrased.) In fact the Hebrews survived these several thousands years against all odds. Which shows that survival of the fittest doesn't hold water.

No idea why this is here, because it has literally zip to do with evolution. And it is not “the Hebrews” who have survived all these centuries, it’s humans, and their religions. Every human on this planet could theoretically, if not literally, trace their ancestry back to Africa. So humans have survived.

And do we all look alike, even though we are undoubtedly the same species (any fertile human male and female could produce entirely human offspring)? Not really: there’s a lot of variation in our physiognomy all over the world, giving rise to such bothersome notions as “race.”

The Creation Museam of Kentucky creates more jobs for Kentucky and pays more federal tax to keep the Feds afloat than all evolutionists combined ever had.

So what? As P.T. Barnum rightly noted, “there’s a sucker born every minute,” and getting money out of the ignorant and foolish has never proved a difficult task for anybody.

Would you say, then, that because movie theatres contribute more in taxes than museums that fantasy entertainment is more beneficial to our species than learning?

Look at the story of Abraham, his wife was barren and it is probably closer to the truth that he himself was impotent. If survival of the fittest were true, Abraham beat all odds.

No, there is no survival of the fittest. It just doesn't hold water.

“Survival of the fittest” ain’t a thing in evolution, and you’ll never find anybody who understands evolution saying it. What it does say is that any trait that provides for more offspring possessing that trait will, over time, win out over traits that provide for fewer offspring. And it doesn’t matter if the reasons are natural or artificial. We breed plants and animals all the time, looking for traits that we find pleasing or useful. The Chihuahua, the St. Bernard and the Dachshund all descended from wolves. Corn comes from grassy teosinte through human selective breeding over millennia – to the point where it now can’t even reproduce itself with human help.

And we could, if anybody thought it wasn’t ethically reprehensible, do the same with humans – with the caveat that, because human reproduction is much slower than many other species, it would take an inordinately long time.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who cares what the Nazi’s used to justify their atrocities (and they certainly used more than just evolution, by the way)? There is no justification, period. Evil is as evil does.

Aye dat!
Hitler became a vegetarian.
Does that make.....you know.....never mind.