Economic consequences of Evolution vs. Creation.

[Father Heathen]

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.

That's not even close to how evolution actually works, and if you have no understanding of how it does (or any desire to), it's best not to share such useless input. Also, the slave trade creates jobs for traffickers, but that doesn't make it any less reprehensible.

 

[Revoltingest]

What if I had proof that there is no afterlife? Would I be wise to teach the proof in all high schools? And force all those opposed that they are stupid or ignorant? Yes, anything that is taught that doesn't lead to the common good is false. PERIOD.

So Xianity, Islam, engineering, physics, biology....all are untrue because they've served evil at times?
Even belief in the afterlife must be false because this is used to reward suicide bombers.

Btw, what evidence is there that Hitler believed in & used evolution?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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."

Do you realise how much you're misinterpreting or taking out of context those lyrics? Literal reading of Dylan is misleading at best.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

Woah, woah, woah there.
'Pretty much like Australians'...

No such thing. We are God's Chosen. I'm tempted to start a thread on that in fact.

 

[whirlingmerc]

so... as far as economic consequences... of a list of 100 most significant inventions of the 20th century NONE are inherently related to evolution.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

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.

LOL

 

[Revoltingest]

so... as far as economic consequences... of a list of 100 most significant inventions of the 20th century NONE are inherently related to evolution.

No?
CRISPR
Genetic algorithm - Wikipedia

 

[whirlingmerc]

Actually no, genetic algorithms are not inherently tied to macro evolution as opposed to a creationary orchard of various types of animals descending for each type with some modification. And the father of genetics was .... wait for it.... a Christian Theist. Natural selection, mutation and crossover are not inherently tied to macro evolution. Life from nothing is and amazingly Darwin never explains or observed the original 'origin of the species' merely asserting cells were so simple he imagined the little blobs of goo just happened (unaware the simplest cell is more complex than a saturn 5 rocket)

The operational sciences like agriculture, medicine and technology rest on the observable, testable and repeatable and do not rely on the assumptions of macro evolution

It was not a life springs from nothing person like Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's Grandfather, who put out dead things as experiment and saw they spring to life with maggots and flies and impressed Mary Shelly so much she wrote Frankenstein, but a Christian Theist who got hospitals to use methods of sanitation to avoid infection since life would only spring from life.
( Louis Pastures nods in agreement )

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

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.

I don't think this was the reasons Nazi's used evolution. It wasn't their idea anyways. You can play "evolution" against humanity in different ways.
Some people refuse to evolution because it's a common thing to find a forward and backward result. Which means if

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.

Evolution was not invented by the Nazis. It has forward and backward consequences and they usually happen at the same time. It's horrible. The forward and backward meet some where on the way up or down and meet the bull. It's not distracted by little red colors or .....

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually no, genetic algorithms are not inherently tied to macro evolution as opposed to a creationary orchard of various types of animals descending for each type with some modification. And the father of genetics was .... wait for it.... a Christian Theist. Natural selection, mutation and crossover are not inherently tied to macro evolution. Life from nothing is and amazingly Darwin never explains or observed the original 'origin of the species' merely asserting cells were so simple he imagined the little blobs of goo just happened (unaware the simplest cell is more complex than a saturn 5 rocket)

The operational sciences like agriculture, medicine and technology rest on the observable, testable and repeatable and do not rely on the assumptions of macro evolution

It was not a life springs from nothing person like Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin's Grandfather, who put out dead things as experiment and saw they spring to life with maggots and flies and impressed Mary Shelly so much she wrote Frankenstein, but a Christian Theist who got hospitals to use methods of sanitation to avoid infection since life would only spring from life.
( Louis Pastures nods in agreement )

So many words.
Yet no refutation for my claim that genetic algorithms are related to evolution.
The relationship:
Genetic algorithms (aka evolutionary algorithms) mimic the natural evolution which inspired their invention.

To cite Xian scientists suggests you're refuting an argument that they can't do science.
This would be to bark up the wrong tree (ie, I don't argue that).

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

So Xianity, Islam, engineering, physics, biology....all are untrue because they've served evil at times?
Even belief in the afterlife must be false because this is used to reward suicide bombers.

Btw, what evidence is there that Hitler believed in & used evolution?

I don't think it was evolution he was focused on.. The only thing I can think of is well Austria and before the wars. pan European.

 

[Altfish]

I don't think this was the reasons Nazi's used evolution. It wasn't their idea anyways. You can play "evolution" against humanity in different ways.
Some people refuse to evolution because it's a common thing to find a forward and backward result. Which means if

Evolution was not invented by the Nazis. It has forward and backward consequences and they usually happen at the same time. It's horrible. The forward and backward meet some where on the way up or down and meet the bull. It's not distracted by little red colors or .....

I think you have the wrong person, Meghanwaterlillies.
I never mentioned the Nazis and blaming evolution for the Nazis is like blaming Rutherford for Hiroshima and Nagsaki

 

[Brickjectivity]

There does seem to be a correlation between people's beliefs about evolution and the economy-

It's a curious reverse correlation though, where many liberals passionately defend the principles of a free-market meritocracy in evolution, survival of the fittest, as the most elegant & efficient method of achieving success in species- any meddling from a creative agency would mess things up.

Yet they hold the exact opposite ideology for the economy. And vice versa for many conservatives I guess!


Revoltingest may be an exception to this rule here- but I get the feeling he is an exception to many rules!

The Curious reverse correlation has to do with evolution. Humanity has evolved some anti-social traits mixed in with social ones. For example it is very pleasurable to oppress other people. Taking candy from babies is a pleasure. Killing is a pleasure, too. Rape is another one. Its upside-down and backwards but true. Evolution explains these traits much better than Intelligent Design. Its better to understand the cause and oppose these things directly, but there was a time when this wasn't possible. People had to work with the invisible causes and label them as demons or worse embrace them as a gift of the gods.

 

[LuisDantas]

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

No. That is the social impact, not the truth.

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

The word may well have been. The theory of evolution as known by biology was not. It ill serves such a purpose, being after all quite apolitical in nature.

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.

Then it is not a matter of truth and falsehood, but rather of moral rights, isn't that so?

(...)

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.

Ha! Good joke.

Even if it were true (and guess what, it is not even remotely true), that would still be no argument for protecting the reputation of Creationism.

 

[metis]

Yeah, only if you move your mythological neanderthal to the jokes and games forum. At least one of these "prehuman" skulls you brag about turned out to be nothing but an ape skull. And that was not the only hoax supporting evolution.

So, are you next going to berate Christianity because there's been "hoaxes" there as well?

BTW, it was a scientist who actually uncovered the hoax.

 

[metis]

so... as far as economic consequences... of a list of 100 most significant inventions of the 20th century NONE are inherently related to evolution.

Actually, if you think more about it, all of them relate to evolution. Now see if you can figure out why this is so.

 

[metis]

Life from nothing is and amazingly Darwin never explains or observed the original 'origin of the species' merely asserting cells were so simple he imagined the little blobs of goo just happened (unaware the simplest cell is more complex than a saturn 5 rocket)

Darwin did not say that life came from nothing. What he did say is that there's a possibility that all life forms might have originated from "one prototype", to use his words.

 

[Tony Arthur]

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.

There is absolutely no evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution, and every single piece of scientific knowledge supports it. I don't know when you went to school, or who taught you rubbish like that, but I suggest you read some scientific literature on it and stop spouting such rubbish.

And if you want fatal flaws - so, God created everything perfectly, was sat back watching on a Sunday and Adam said "I'm lonely, why haven't I got a partner?", and God thought hm, "Oh ****, when I created females of every other species I forgot humans. But luckily I put an extra rib in your body that you don't really need, so I'll take that and make a woman". If you can't see that that's a fatal flaw in the logic of your creationist fantasy, there's not much hope for you. Or other fatal flaws, like the ludicrous story of the flood ...

 

[metis]

...Or other fatal flaws, like the ludicrous story of the flood ...

First of all, let me say welcome here to RF.

With your post only partially quoted by myself above, I agree with pretty much all of it, but let me just comment on the above.

To take "the Flood" as literal history, I totally agree that it doesn't make one iota of sense. But where it can make sense is if it's viewed as an allegorical narrative that had the express purpose of teaching morals and values as a type of religious folklore, and there's good reason to believe that we took a well-known Babylonian narrative and reworked it so as to teach what we traditionally believed.

I just wanted to mention this in passing, so I won't continue on with this because it's not directly linked to the OP.

Again, welcome.

 

[meghanwaterlillies]

I think you have the wrong person, Meghanwaterlillies.
I never mentioned the Nazis and blaming evolution for the Nazis is like blaming Rutherford for Hiroshima and Nagsaki

I was just saying that the concept of evolution which didn't improve much was before such, Anaximander is one.