dad
Undefeated
You have a religion that lacks all those things? Strange.
You have no fact based material for your belief based same nature in the past on earth, otherwise we would not be chatting.
-
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!
The biogeographic evidence for evolution
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
You have a religion that lacks all those things? Strange.
You have no fact based material for your belief based same nature in the past on earth, otherwise we would not be chatting.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Thank you.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Are you serious?
So when we accept scientific theories that are best supported by the evidence, we also have to take on the personal beliefs of the scientists involved in developing these scientific theories? Do you realize how silly that is?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
dad
Undefeated
On the issue of the need to support a claim, we should make a distinction between faith based claims, and science claims. If you admit your same nature in the past is faith based you don't have to support it as a science claim!Trying to shift the burden of proof again. Ho hum.
If not, obviously you do. Check and mate.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Once again, they have been supported. Your inability to understand how they have been supported does not mean that it has not happened. This ignorance might be understandable if you were never given an opportunity to learn from your errors, but sadly you never do. Instead you only run and hide. Then you make false claims about others and as you have just done show that you are a master at pigeon chess . . . What's that? We have an objection from the audience?
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Seriously? You just called many of the people here racists, for no other reason than they recognize evolutionary biology as valid science?
I never thought you'd stoop so low, yet here we are.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
dad
Undefeated
Once again, show us the link where you did this. ZZzzzzz
dad
Undefeated
Well, what the basis for modelling the past is as far as science is concerned is well known, and no secret. Laughable...yes. Faith based? Yes.
Now if you want to use the dates based on the beliefs science uses, then show us support for that same nature in the past that is used? Failing that, your pathetic attempts to get out of doing so by blabbering on about other beliefs is going to remain exposed.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Hardly. There is no evidence of some magical change in the past. There is no reason to believe in such a change. You are the one making a positive claim putting the burden of proof upon you. You are claiming that there was a change in the past. We are saying that there is no known evidence of such a change so it would be foolish to believe in it.
Of course since creationists know that they are wrong they try to shift the burden of proof.
dad
Undefeated
We are saying that there is no known evidence that the past was the same as science claims. So prove it. If you claim you did...link. Ha
gnostic
The Lost One
I personally don’t care about anyone’s religious or non-religious background and belief.
If they are scientists, then all they need is to back up their theories with verifiable evidence. They can be atheists or theists, it doesn't matter as long as they don’t let their belief and biases interfere with scientific researches.
For instance, Michael Behe has let his creationism (Intelligent Design) to interfere with his works as biochemist. This is why even his own department at the university have place a disclaimer notice that they don’t endorse his pseudoscience Intelligent Design and Irreducible Complexity.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Ow dear....
tas8831
Well-Known Member
he is projecting, as usual.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Aboriginal man is a MAN. Caucasians are MEN. People are PEOPLE. Darwinism is gross.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You avoided the question. Or maybe you answered it.
And what do you mean by "Darwinism?"
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
What's truly "gross" is people who so desperately need to maintain their religious beliefs, even in the face of reality, they'll stoop to painting millions of people as card-carrying racists for no other reason than that they acknowledge evolutionary biology as valid science.
If these are the depths to which you must sink, that speaks for itself and there's nothing more to say.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
Wow, there's that amazing scholarship shining through!
But I have to agree - Darwinism is gross - look what it produces:
"The descendants of Ham were marked especially for secular service to mankind. Indeed they were to be 'servants of servants,' that is 'servants extraordinary!' Although only Canaan is mentioned specifically (possibly because the branch of Ham's family through Canaan would later come into most direct contact with Israel), the whole family of Ham is in view. The prophecy is worldwide in scope and, since Shem and Japheth are covered, all Ham's descendants must be also. These include all nations which are neither Semitic nor Japhetic. Thus, all of the earth's 'colored' races,--yellow, red, brown, and black--essentially the Afro-Asian group of peoples, including the American Indians--are possibly Hamitic in origin and included within the scope of the Canaanitic prophecy, as well as the Egyptians, Sumerians, Hittites, and Phoenicians of antiquity.
...Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
...Yet the prophecy again has its obverse side. Somehow they have only gone so far and no farther. The Japhethites and Semites have, sooner or later, taken over their territories, and their inventions, and then developed them and utilized them for their own enlargement. Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.
Such gross racism from Darwinism!
Oh, wait - that is not 'Darwinism' - that is Scripture based racism from Henry Morris, the father of the modern Creationism movement!
in 1991!!!
Dr. Henry Morris, YEC
The Beginning Of the World, Second Edition (1991), pp. 147-148
And let us not forget that our friend and resident language scholar @BilliardsBall was kind enough to link to a paper examining the link between Darwin and Hitler that concluded:
"In order to sustain the thesis that Hitler was a Darwinian one would have to ignore all the explicit statements of Hitler rejecting any theory like Darwin’s and draw fanciful implications from vague words, errant phrases, and ambiguous sentences,neglecting altogether more straight -forward, contextual interpretations of such utterances. Only the ideologically blinded would still try to sustain the thesis in the face of the contrary, manifest evidence."
@BilliardsBall also foisted upon us the crazy ranting of Richard Weikart - probably to contrast his lies and nonsense with the work of Robert Richards quoted above. Here is how Weikart's religious pap was received by actual non-right wing religious nut scholars:
Negative evaluations by academic reviewers are critical of the book citing Weikart's selective use of primary sources and ignoring a range of developments that shaped Nazi ideology.[4] In 2004, Sander Gliboff, professor of History and Philosophy of Science at Indiana University, criticized the work writing that "It is dismaying to see such opinions being passed off as results of scholarly research."[16] In 2005, Andrew Zimmerman, a professor of German history, reviewed it in the American Historical Review, writing "Weikart presents an image of Darwinism at once both too narrow and too broad."[17] Zimmerman wrote:
Also in 2005, science historian Paul Lawrence Farber wrote in the Journal of the History of Biology that "Like other attempts to tar Darwin with all of the problems of modernity, Weikart's suffers from conceptual flaws that detract from his book, which contains some interesting material on the German eugenics movement, popular Darwinism in Germany, and German evolutionary ethics."[25] He concluded "Weikart's book, unfortunately, is likely to spawn more urban myths about Darwin that will have to be addressed."[25]
In 2006, Robert J. Richards, historian of Darwin and eugenics at University of Chicago, wrote "It can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis."[26] Richards more pointedly concluded "Hitler was not a Darwinian" and "calls this all a desperate tactic to undermine evolution."[27] Richards explained, "There's not the slightest shred of evidence that Hitler read Darwin," and "Some of the biggest influences on Hitler's anti-Semitism were opposed to evolution, such as British writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose racial theory became incorporated into Nazi doctrine."[27]...
So - thanks BB for demolishing your OWN claims yet again!The German Darwinians who are the focus of the book appear only as advocates of eugenics, racism, and imperialism, although presumably these policies were informed by a broader intellectual project. At the same time, German anthropologists, who opposed Darwinism before the turn of the century (as a doctrine possessing no more empirical foundation than revealed religion does), are lumped with Darwinists, since these anthropologists also supported imperialism and racist hierarchies.[17]
Weikart replied to Zimmerman's criticism with a letter to the editor[18] to which Zimmerman offered a rebuttal saying Weikart's work "is anachronistic, projecting present‐day theocratic agendas onto the history of science in Imperial Germany."[19]...
Also in 2005, science historian Paul Lawrence Farber wrote in the Journal of the History of Biology that "Like other attempts to tar Darwin with all of the problems of modernity, Weikart's suffers from conceptual flaws that detract from his book, which contains some interesting material on the German eugenics movement, popular Darwinism in Germany, and German evolutionary ethics."[25] He concluded "Weikart's book, unfortunately, is likely to spawn more urban myths about Darwin that will have to be addressed."[25]
In 2006, Robert J. Richards, historian of Darwin and eugenics at University of Chicago, wrote "It can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis."[26] Richards more pointedly concluded "Hitler was not a Darwinian" and "calls this all a desperate tactic to undermine evolution."[27] Richards explained, "There's not the slightest shred of evidence that Hitler read Darwin," and "Some of the biggest influences on Hitler's anti-Semitism were opposed to evolution, such as British writer Houston Stewart Chamberlain, whose racial theory became incorporated into Nazi doctrine."[27]...
Brilliant work!