Kilgore Trout
Misanthropic Humanist
Here's a puppy for you to pet. Isn't he cute!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Economic consequences of Evolution vs. Creation.
- Thread starter Brian Schuh
- Start date
Here's a puppy for you to pet. Isn't he cute!
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
The song could very well be about gentrification. How Darwin's progress of man justifies
yeah, we also had pet therapy. I seem to be joking, but indeed in the state hospital we had dogs and cats too, and don't forget free vitamin D. and plenty of sunshine.
Brian Schuh
Well-Known Member
The song is about gentrification. How Darwin's progress of man justifies the displacement of poor people. Also check out John Prine's song about how the coal industry used Darwins progress to man to destroy a town called Paradise in Kentucky by coal mining.
And who decides what is the common good? You?
I don't think anyone has the right to declare that something must be false just because people might behave funny if they find out how things really work. This is not only arrogant, but assumes that people are a bunch of idiots that cannot swallow the truth.
And even if that was the case, then too bad for humanity. Much better to get extinct than prospering as a species that lives on cool-aid waiting around to die.
Do you realize how close you are to advocate for the burning of books that might be detrimental to the "common good", whatever that is?
Ciao
- viole
Monk Of Reason
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Currently creationism is a terrible drag on the economy. Oh wait this isn't where you were going with this thread. Title is misleading.
Bird123
Well-Known Member
People do make their judgment calls based on what they believe and know. People tend to see what they want to see. What happens to real truth then??
What happens when people impose their will on others when their view is not always sound? What happened to the Nazis? Everything has it's run but truth will end up on top.
Genetic engineering with change people in time. It will not come from governments. People will attempt to manipulate how their children will be before they are even born. That does make one wonder if mankind will loose that random mutation no one could expect that could change mankind for the better. I guess there will always be some who will never engineer their kids.
Creation has to be more than Poof, it's here. Perhaps you should be open to the possibility that evolution is part of creation. It's only your Ego that is bruised that your physical body might have been generated through a lower form.
Survival of the fittest is part of the equation. On the other hand, it is not the entire picture. After all more than just the fittest are surviving today. Our intelligence and humanity for people and life carry us beyond just the need to survive.
Jon_Roland
New Member
Yes. "survival of the fittest" comes from Charles Dickens, not Charles Darwin, but Dickens probably did not originate it. And yes, there were evolutionary theories around long before Darwin, including some that arose out of fetura, or the breeding of animals and plants.
It may be of interest to the forum to read my paper, "Evolutionism v. Creationism" at Evolutionism vs. Creationism The concepts are not well understood by advocates on either side.
But no, humans can and do breed themselves. We are the result of millions of years of social selection, which is still going on, with government playing a part in it, mainly by its influence on fitness functions. We can and have created ourselves to a large degree.
I have a new science fiction novel, Wayward World, that explores how such genetic engineering might work out. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MPW3Y10 But the novel is about much more than that, including the use of fetura, also known as evolutionary algorithms, to select public officials. It also examines how gestational accidents combined with self-organization, has a large effect on the traits one develops.
Fetura is a probabilistic strategy, not a determinate one. Its can improve the odds for fitness, but not the certainty of it.
It may be of interest to the forum to read my paper, "Evolutionism v. Creationism" at Evolutionism vs. Creationism The concepts are not well understood by advocates on either side.
But no, humans can and do breed themselves. We are the result of millions of years of social selection, which is still going on, with government playing a part in it, mainly by its influence on fitness functions. We can and have created ourselves to a large degree.
I have a new science fiction novel, Wayward World, that explores how such genetic engineering might work out. See https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MPW3Y10 But the novel is about much more than that, including the use of fetura, also known as evolutionary algorithms, to select public officials. It also examines how gestational accidents combined with self-organization, has a large effect on the traits one develops.
Fetura is a probabilistic strategy, not a determinate one. Its can improve the odds for fitness, but not the certainty of it.
Laughing Coyote
Member
It is curious how people who know nothing about the science of evolution put up straw men which they can then easily knock down without having to make any effort to undertstand evolution.
Your initial premise that you give for truth of theory actually has nothing to do with science and is just something you made up.
Evolution, science and as much or more so Christian religion, as well as legal theory, all were used by colonialists and enslavers generally, as well as Hitler, to justify what they did.
The term "survival of the fittest" was invented by Spencer, a social Darwinist and positivist, not Darwin. I doubt that you will find it used by evolutionary scientists. Darwin used the term "natural" in analogy with the same processes utilized by humans in domestication of plants and animals. He used also used terms such as "struggle for life," "descent with modification," etc. Darwin was not really talking of survival of populations but with change forms and attributes given to life and how these responded to selective pressures.
Whether traits well be transferred to subsequent generations or not can't be said a priori but depends upon context. Hebrews have many positive attributes such as strong family and community ties, emphasis on education and arts, group endogamy, concept of covenant with the divine, etc. which have facilitated their endurance as a people despite everything. But this is not really the subject of evolutionary science or the origin of species.
Economic success and natural selection are really different things, although context again is propitious for success of a creation museum. If it was established elsewhere than the American south, say Norway, it would probably fail quickly. Its economic success simply proves that where a market is prepared for a product and there is felt to be some need, its likely to be successful.
Your initial premise that you give for truth of theory actually has nothing to do with science and is just something you made up.
Evolution, science and as much or more so Christian religion, as well as legal theory, all were used by colonialists and enslavers generally, as well as Hitler, to justify what they did.
The term "survival of the fittest" was invented by Spencer, a social Darwinist and positivist, not Darwin. I doubt that you will find it used by evolutionary scientists. Darwin used the term "natural" in analogy with the same processes utilized by humans in domestication of plants and animals. He used also used terms such as "struggle for life," "descent with modification," etc. Darwin was not really talking of survival of populations but with change forms and attributes given to life and how these responded to selective pressures.
Whether traits well be transferred to subsequent generations or not can't be said a priori but depends upon context. Hebrews have many positive attributes such as strong family and community ties, emphasis on education and arts, group endogamy, concept of covenant with the divine, etc. which have facilitated their endurance as a people despite everything. But this is not really the subject of evolutionary science or the origin of species.
Economic success and natural selection are really different things, although context again is propitious for success of a creation museum. If it was established elsewhere than the American south, say Norway, it would probably fail quickly. Its economic success simply proves that where a market is prepared for a product and there is felt to be some need, its likely to be successful.
Jeff Strehlow
Member
Your reasoning doesn't "hold water." Whether or not the Nazis used evolution to justify their actions and whether or not creationism creates jobs in Kentucky--those things have nothing to do with the truth of evolution.
Last edited:
Actually, creationism is a tremendous boon.
It ranks right up there with Ponzi schemes for productivity.
Laughing Coyote
Member
That's curious. Name one.
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
Of course one of the discoverers of the double helix structure of DNA felt DNA was so complex it must have been seeded by aliens.... but who made the aliens..... hmmm ?
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
One flaw is where the original information came from since random processes don't give rise to information
and yet for the simplest of cells you need complex language and interpretation of the language
as cells are information rich... and in every point mutation information is the same or less.... a downward effect not the upward one needed...
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
There is some term confusion going on... in a sense everyone believes in some form of evolution...
Several types of Biblical evolution
1) There was the world and mankind before the fall, and a sin broken world after sin.
2) There was a sin broken world that still lived long before the flood but not after
3) Genetically there is specialization of species to their environment but that usually means loss of ability to
cope with other environments being specialized for the environment at hand
4) One might intelligently use genetics to breed special animals and plants
All those are types of 'evolution' but are not marcro-evolution or functional atheism
Several types of Biblical evolution
1) There was the world and mankind before the fall, and a sin broken world after sin.
2) There was a sin broken world that still lived long before the flood but not after
3) Genetically there is specialization of species to their environment but that usually means loss of ability to
cope with other environments being specialized for the environment at hand
4) One might intelligently use genetics to breed special animals and plants
All those are types of 'evolution' but are not marcro-evolution or functional atheism
There's no such thing.
Only "dysfunctional atheism".
After watching the "Nature" program on frogs presented by David Attenborough, I was struck at how many species of frogs have adapted to a wide variety of environments. In one species of frog, the female seeks out the male with the loudest croak and presumably the strongest male, and rebuffs all other males who attempt to mate with her, thus helping survival of the fittest. In another "Nature" program, hummingbirds are able to thrive in the Andes at extremely high elevations (16,000 ft.) where oxygen supply is extremely low. Most hummingbirds live at much lower elevations, but as the Andes began to grow higher and higher (only a few tens of millions of years ago), hummingbirds began to colonize these hostile environments. This is evolution at its most illustrative.
A theory is a mental construct invented to explain observed phenomena. Which came first, evolution theory or observations which display patterns that can be explained by evolutionary theory. There is no reason why a theory of creationism could not also explain observed phenomena. If God is constantly creating new species and variations on species, this could explain how new species appear. It could also explain how new breeds of dogs and cats appear and how hybrid food crops are able to be so prominent in human existence. God can be just as powerful an element of change as evolution.
A theory is a mental construct invented to explain observed phenomena. Which came first, evolution theory or observations which display patterns that can be explained by evolutionary theory. There is no reason why a theory of creationism could not also explain observed phenomena. If God is constantly creating new species and variations on species, this could explain how new species appear. It could also explain how new breeds of dogs and cats appear and how hybrid food crops are able to be so prominent in human existence. God can be just as powerful an element of change as evolution.
Lol isn't this basically Godwin? You know what else Hitler favored? Animal rights! Ergo anyone who supports ethical treatment of animals are Nazis.
Evolution does not care two bits about money. That's a purely man made invention and only we care about it.
Also, your knowledge of evolution is so abysmal, even grade 8 students would laugh at you. Like geez, I thought our education system was crap, but holy damn!
Other more knowledgeable people on the forum can tackle the rest
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Why would you cite this? Of what significance is this? Do you believe that it is a good thing to declare a person a criminal for nothing more than sharing ideas? And to not care whether that person is "dead or alive"? Are these the values your belief system upholds?
Nobel Prize....they'll give that to anyone....Obama, Al Gore.
But having won it, do these guys now have "the truth"?