Conquer Club

Bush said: pollution is not our problem, our problem is the contaminants in our air and water. Either statement in isolation is fine, conjoined they make him appear to have no idea what he is talking about. Had Mets not joined his statement with another one "it's competition between genes" he would have sounded merely misguided. I would have pointed out his mistake. But from what he said, based on what I said, I would say that he thinks of other races as other species.

I could go through all the times you called me an idiot or what not. I could push you to be more honest about the implications of your theory, I could continue this discussion with you, but I won't. It has all been written. Now it would just be vindictive.

I haven't been vindictive once. I told you that in my view of reality being told you're being an idiot when you are being an idiot is a kindness. I want to know when I'm being an idiot, and and I want it made very clear to me rather than being subtley hinted at. I am treating you exactly as I would wish to be treated if I were in your place.

Further to that, I'm probably being even more insulting than usual because I have come to the conclusion, having had some time to process some things on my recent holiday, that those who have been more deeply brainwashed into believing idiotic things, either by others or by themselves, will need a more forceful intervention to bring them back to correct thinking based on evidence, experiement and logic. Those that appear to have strayed further from that will only be shocked into re-evaluating those misapprehensions by a gradually increasing scale of insults.

(I admit this is a hypothesis rather than anything I have proved, and you are my first guinea pig, but I do know that trying to debate civilly with creatards doesn't get you anywhere)

If you, as a christian, have ever threatened anyone with Hell or eternal torment or God's judgement, then you will know that it is important to correct people that do not hold correct beliefs. It is, in fact, the moral thing to do. The difference between you and me is firstly that I actually know how logic and fallacies work, secondly that I can produce evidence to back up my claims when I do make claims, and finally that I am willing to admit when we lack knowledge instead of making shit up or believing some shit someone else made up without evidence.

In conclusion, you ignoramus, I'm trying to do you a favour out of love of a fellow human being. You getting offended is precisely meaningless. It is impossible for me to give offence, only for you to take it, you imbecile. I'm giving you plenty of opportunity to take offence, and I actually give you kudos for weathering the storm so well, but until you stop promoting idiotic ideas then I'll keep calling you stupid. It's a societal feedback mechanism of the type I described would happen to UC under my moral system a few posts back, encapsulated in a single exchange. You simpleton....

Edit - I only had to go baack to page 22 to find evidence for my claim that you threaten hell/judgement/exclusion:

shickingbrits wrote:Or, you fail to understand better because you reveal in your sin. You carry it with you and when you die, the gates of heaven are too narrow to accommodate you and your burden and you are locked out.

shickingbrits wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:In a survival situation it hurts to be different. A tried and true way of differentiating people is through race. Being a eugist is a policy which flows from that.

Hitler stayed true to the concepts imbedded in evolution.

Hardly. It's a common misconception that natural selection is equivalent to survival of the fittest species. In fact, natural selection is about competition between individuals within species, most of the time (or competition between genes, to possibly be even more precise). The change of a species with time, as the result of the gradual change of individual members within that species, is a side effect.

Mets, hate to break it to you, but just because someone is another race, it doesn't make them another species.

Completely irrelevant to the point. The history of evolution is filled with violence and competition against the organisms that look the most like you. Therefore for anyone to draw racism as a lesson from evolution would imply a lack of understanding of natural selection. Natural selection doesn't know anything about race or species.

I was talking about competition between the genes that created race. You then said I was making a comparison between species. Which suggest you didn't read what I said and yet choose to disagree with it, or that you believe people of different race are of different species, which is racist.

shickingbrits wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:Me: the most peaceful social system is one that holds each existence as equal since we were all created equally.

What do you mean exactly?

1. we're not created equally. People differ in many ways at t = 0, and even the birthing process differs. Perhaps you meant, "I feel that people are equal on some vague margin(s)."

2. In what way should everyone be 'held equally'? Are people wrong for loving their kids more than serial killers? (If people did that, they wouldn't last long).

1. We are all created equally, because we were each provided with our existence through God, God resides within each of use and we are all capable of kindness and cruelty.

2. If we treated each other equally, who says that there would be serial killers? Aren't they usually from abusive families?

IQ is largely a genetic product, and it differs among babies. It's a fact that we're not created equally. If you're saying that god has impregnated all the women, then okay, whatever. I can say, "we're created equal because our existence was provided through invisible bunnies." This claim and yours can't be falsified.

We could treat each other equally abusively. Equality alone is an insufficient standard. Besides, if you really believed that you should treat everyone equally, then why would you discriminate against people? You pick mechanics to fix your car, and doctors to take care of you. You should be treating people equally!

(And, no, people aren't wrong for loving their kids more than strangers. This claim is rejected by your stance, so there's another problem for ya).

shickingbrits wrote:Exactly, you haven't said much of anything. I have stated on numerous occaissions that belief in evolution without God is equivalent to:

1. Considering life random,
2. Considering death the end,
3. Thereby justifying any action to maintain one's individual life,
4. Not being accountable for those actions if they succeed.

You took minor issue with the fourth point, saying that it true of someone who believes in God as well, but didn't take much issue otherwise.

I took your silence as a tacit understanding. But you may at any time clarify it. If you choose not to do so, then I will just continue to "misrepresent" a position which you have decided it's better not to disclose.

You should really separate science from moral philosophy. Until then, your ramblings about evolutionary theory are incorrect.

shickingbrits wrote:For example, (let's act like Mets didn't suggest that different race equals different species) with resource constraints which may exist, is it better to send forth our strongest generation? Should there be constraints on who should be allowed to reproduce and safeguards to prevent the less desirable from consuming scarce resources?

There's this idea called "classical liberalism." You should check it out sometime.

shickingbrits wrote:I was talking about competition between the genes that created race.

You don't understand how evolution works, and you need to step back and reflect on it before you go further. The competition between genes did not create race any more than it created species, which is the point I was making by analogy. Different "races" are created, for example, when some circumstances (geographical, perhaps) force two otherwise similar groups from the same species to start evolving independently from each other. They only interbreed within the same isolated group. The major difference between the terms "race" and "species" is that the two races haven't yet been separated long enough to have lost the ability to interbreed with each other, if reconnected. It's merely a matter of chance and time.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:For example, (let's act like Mets didn't suggest that different race equals different species) with resource constraints which may exist, is it better to send forth our strongest generation? Should there be constraints on who should be allowed to reproduce and safeguards to prevent the less desirable from consuming scarce resources?

There's this idea called "classical liberalism." You should check it out sometime.

Is that anything like this, BBS?




--Andy

AndyDufresne wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:For example, (let's act like Mets didn't suggest that different race equals different species) with resource constraints which may exist, is it better to send forth our strongest generation? Should there be constraints on who should be allowed to reproduce and safeguards to prevent the less desirable from consuming scarce resources?

There's this idea called "classical liberalism." You should check it out sometime.

Is that anything like this, BBS?




--Andy

It's exactly like that. The red commie is being freed from his sins! ALL HAIL FREEDOM! HAIL! HAIL! HAIL!

No, he's a red republican. The wussy democrat is hiding behind the government while the government strikes down freedom!

BigBallinStalin wrote:IQ is largely a genetic product, and it differs among babies. It's a fact that we're not created equally.

Not completely true... and in this case there is a huge difference in import between "not completely" and "largely". One of the biggest problems is that tests/analysis err. I can remember when people began to first propose measuring different types of intelligence, suggesting that there were other factors that were of great import, rather than just IQ.

I like the show "Big Bang Theory". If you have seen it, you know the character Sheldon is a caricature of a genius with Asperger's. He is brilliant, but does not understand other people or their emotions. The funny part, in the show is how he uses is brain to compensate. He is, in the show successful. The reality is not that universities are filled with such folks. Sure, a few do exist. However, more often people like Sheldon are shunted off long before they get to a university or other setting where they might be successful. In reality, it is something colloquially called "emotional IQ" that matters for success far more than IQ. Another factor is shear determination. That last is particularly important but also very hard to define in a test. (the marshmallow test comes close, but does not really get at why the factor matters)

In real life, human history is rife with people evaluating others based on narrow criteria that, in the end, don't really matter or that can be truly harmful and distorted. Eugenics is just one example. The problem is not so much that we are incapable of selecting traits. More and more, we can. The problem is that we target the wrong things and forget the related factors.

Intelligence without compassion and, well, something I will esoterically call "honor" for lack of a better term, is evil.

If you add women into the mix, things get even more complicated because so much of what women are traditionally supposed to be good at is just dismissed by much of male society... even as we realize more and more how important those very skills are to society and human success.

shickingbrits wrote:Those bronze age herders had the same intellectual capacities that we do. Their myths were based on the best information they had available. Their theories were modern at their time.

You are just rejecting one myth for another. You are shunning a myth that has allowed for a civilization that has spanned thousands of years for one which rejects civilization. What are the principles of evolution that its adherents must follow?

There are literally none, except that evidence must be tested and proven to be considered valid. From that evidence comes theories that we hope explains what we see.

The problem with your arguments and ideas is that they are not based upon evidence and are largely based on utterly misunderstanding what evolution even says or its proofs. If you truly want to criticize something, the first step is to understand.

shickingbrits wrote:What mandates are decried in "survival of the fittest"?

A good place to begin. FIRST, and foremost, the theory is natural selection, not "survival of the fittest". Selection often leads to species surviving for a while, but then dying off, rather than surviving. The reason is because rather than moving a species toward an overall "fitness", it moves species to be more and more specialized within a small area, something we call a biological "niche". There is, for example, a type of seahorse called a "sea dragon" that looks very much like a piece of floating sargassum. It is very, very effective camouflage within the Sargasso sea. It represents, in that way, the epitome of natural selection...it really cannot be more heavily adapted. However, it would not be very effective in any other environment. It would, in fact, die. Contrast that with something like the common cockroach that can survive in a wide range of habitats and environments. Which species is more likely to endure climate change, nuclear holocaust, any other major change? Its not the sea dragon!

shickingbrits wrote:A true evolutionist will be a racist, a eugenist, an elitist. The virtues that have lead to our greatest institutions become our faults and our sins become idolized.

Darwin first hesitated to publish his theories, particularly the book Descent of Man, because he saw that it would be instantly abused just as you are suggesting.

The error is multiple. First, behavior is only partially linked to genetics. Second, how it is connected is often not fully clear. Even when it is, you have the question of how to decide what traits are truly superior to others. Humanity is notorious for making wrong judgements on that front. At one point, it was assumed that royalty was inherently superior to non-royalty, and that this difference was ordained by God. Today, we see a similar distortion regarding the ability to acquire money and, to a lesser extent, to be good entertainers.

shickingbrits wrote:Instead of rejoicing in life and thankful for it, you struggle through its minefield. Your neighbour is your competitor and your family a burden. You are expounding feudalism guised as science.

No, you come to that view because you get your information about evolution from people who have no interest at all in even considering if the theories are correct.

Metsfanmax wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:I was talking about competition between the genes that created race.

You don't understand how evolution works, and you need to step back and reflect on it before you go further. The competition between genes did not create race any more than it created species, which is the point I was making by analogy. Different "races" are created, for example, when some circumstances (geographical, perhaps) force two otherwise similar groups from the same species to start evolving independently from each other. They only interbreed within the same isolated group. The major difference between the terms "race" and "species" is that the two races haven't yet been separated long enough to have lost the ability to interbreed with each other, if reconnected. It's merely a matter of chance and time.

You don't understand how the world works, and you need to take a step back and reflect on it before you go any further.

Once you attribute success to a random mutation of genes that provides a competitive advantage, you create a situation where:

1. People are unequal,
2. We strive to replicate the success,
3. We strive to eliminate the "weak" genes.

This existed prior to the theory of evolution. In order to justify slavery, the church said that black people were the offspring of Ham who had been cursed by Noah to serve his brothers. This doesn't make a lot of sense being that the church derives its moral authority from Jesus who never condoned slavery and whose golden rule would negate the possibility of slavery. The church was stubborn and intent on their own ends and decided to ignore Jesus for greed and power.

Over time, it was recognized that the stance taken by the church was backward and unchristian, but only because this and similar actions set the church at odds with their own position. Broader understanding could be reached and dispel the false morality of the stance. The central tenet of Christianity, treat others as you wish to be treated (not as you feel they deserve to be treated) would suffice to erode the moral authority of the church when they acted against it.

In the past, "science" has claimed many things about the different races. Black people have smaller brains, lower IQs, have a subservient gene. If a series of experiments confirmed a subservient gene to be true, what affect might that have? In isolation, perhaps not too much. Let's combine it with some other hypotheses. Let's say we confirm a blue blood gene, a hostility gene, a stubborn gene, an indoctrination gene, a tall gene, a hope gene. Now a caste system begins to appear. Time to reexamine the central tenets of evolution.

Life is random and your own genetic coding is random. You were randomly assigned a gene that will compete with other genes for position. The "species" with the strongest set of genes will be the fittest to survive in a world of competing species with scarce resources.

As the leading blue blood in the pool, I manage the pool to be the most competitive with other pools. I have no hope of afterlife and my body of knowledge tells me that I should do anything to survive. And in doing so, I seek to reduce the randomness (risk) of the gene pool.

How many subservient blue-bloods with hope are needed? Without hope? How many non-subservient blue bloods with hope are needed? How will I ensure this number? What positions will the different genes command? Will the laws vary for the genes? Are the neighbouring pools blue blood genes equal to mine?

Leadership has been examining this question for thousands of years. Our education system is not a means of acquiring knowledge but a rudimentary means of deciphering our genetic disposition. But it's slow, resource intensive and full of cracks. An Aaron Swartz or Mohammed Ali could still slip through the cracks. As a leader I want to limit my risk, maximize my strength, maximize the resources at my disposal and minimize their expenditure. That is, I will eliminate the possibility of competitive blue blood genes (blue blood, not-easily indoctrinated, with hope) to the most logical amount needed to maintain a steady leadership. I will eliminate the hostility gene, the stubborn gene, the weaker intellectual gene, and restrict the not easily indoctrinated gene, the subservient gene.

Whereas the gene pool had the moral imperative provided by religion to subvert these attempts, teaching children that God is a bronze age herder's myth of a jealous man in the sky whereas evolution is scientific fact will eventually allow for the reduction of certain genetic dispositions from the gene pool, not to strengthen it, but to make it easier to manipulate. These concepts are not new.

From simple observation, I would say that crispybits, Chang50, Phatscotty, Goranz, shickingbrits, Saxitoxin, UC, Patches are assured candidates for quick elimination.

AoG, Bigballinstalin, Gweedo, Nietzhe, Sjnap, Metsfanmax are candidates for future elimination while processing the elimination of the first group.

Player, Andy and Mrswkd are candidates for the "ideal" order.

None of this again is new. Competitor blue bloods have been restricted throughout history by their leaders. Gnostics, Jews, witches, heretics, etc. We just never had the tools to be efficient or central tenets to justify it.

None of this has to do with evolution. Henry the 8th had nothing to do with evolution, laws, war, morality, slavery, none of it. Evolution is a well-supported scientific theory that has no implications beyond itself. Using it to denounce God will not generate any lashback. It will not be used to guide society.

Let's just find a way to co-operate within the guidelines of scarce resources available and create a peaceful society guided by our scientific understanding. That in no way suggest that we use the theory of evolution to eliminate non-co-operative genes and then decide to restrict the remaining genes to the "peaceful" genes (those that don't clash with authority or each other) at a predesigned level.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Intelligence without compassion and, well, something I will esoterically call "honor" for lack of a better term, is evil.

Went back and found this post I missed earlier...

shickingbrits wrote:Gravity doesn't propose to replace a belief system. Certain posters suggest that evolution and God are incompatible. Accordingly, an evolutionist who doesn't believe in God must believe:

1. Life is random.

This does not mean pure mathematical randomness, at all. When biologists use the term "random", it is in two contexts. The mathematical randomness bit is used in testing/sampling. It is mostly used to avoid unintentional bias' in studies. (and even then, the concept is much abused and misused, but that is another topic).

The other way, the way that is important here, is that it is used to refer to the multiple factors we cannot test or of which we might not even be aware. In the case of genetics, we already know or suspect that many mutations are not truly random in the mathematical sense. They are driven by combinations of factors too complex for us to detect or predict. For most uses, the difference does not matter. For example, if I decide to give the next "random" person to appear a $100.00 bill, am I truly being random? The first limit is that I will only see someone within a specific distance at that moment. Then, depending on where I sit, various factors will alter who appears... near a coffee shop = more likely to see an adult or teen coffee drinker. Near a playground= more likely to see someone with young children. Is that exact? Of course not! That particular example would not work for most scientific studies, but people generally use "random" I such contexts all the time. Even in science, it is almost impossible to be truly, truly random. The best we can do is to limit as many factors as we can... and then use valid statistical sampling methods to try and limit the bias.

The inherent, most basic error in ALL of the above, though, is that no matter how you set up the study, you are more likely to get the most predominant results. Go to small town USA, and you are more likely to find a human who is white. Go to China, and you are more likely to find someone who is Chinese. There are plenty of exceptions, though. In evolution, it is those very exceptions that probably matter more than the norms. One example I give is a deer herd. Normally, with lots of food, the bigger buck will, well, have more progeny. However, if something happens to limit food, then those bigger bucks, requiring more food, might well die off and not survive. In that extreme case, the little scrawny buck may survive better. OR, something entirely different might happen. If there is, say a chemical spill, then size might have nothing at all to do with what animal survives and does not. THAT is where scientists will talk about "random" variation or "chance" survival. It could be that a few animals have something that allows them to survive that chemical. They will then pass on that trait to the other animals... BUT, in that particular scenario, it is only resistance to the chemical that matters. No other mutated/selected factor matters. The "genes" might have been "leading" the herd toward bigger bucks, but that process is utterly cut short by the chemical spill impact. In nature, things like volcanic eruptions, algae blooms, etc can, potentially do this. Add in something like a meteor hitting Earth and you have a whole different scenario than basic natural selection.

Biologists will summarize all of this as "random", knowing full well it means "factors we don't understand yet and cannot yet predict". Only Creationists and those not bothering to be specific take it mean something else.

The real fact is that there is nothing in evolution that excludes God, except that because the presence of God is not testable and measurable, it is considered one of the "random" factors.

shickingbrits wrote:2. Death is the end.

This has nothing to do with evolution, at all! Why would it?

shickingbrits wrote:3. Any action to maintain or strengthen your hold on life is justified.

Actually, that is more how many Christians want to see thing... aka the whole " right to die" debate . Many Christians seem to think that having the technology to allow a human to survive is equal to a mandate from God that they be forced to survive.

shickingbrits wrote:4. There is no accounting of actions if they succeed.

Thought you were referring to evolution?

The connection between behavior and evolution is far too elusive and esoteric to say it "mandates" anything so specific.

shickingbrits wrote:Anyone who could propose that society base itself around such concepts is beyond dangerous.

Agreed, but what does that have to do with evolution. Almost nothing you put forward really had anything to do with the theories that make up the Theory of Evolution.

shickingbrits wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:I was talking about competition between the genes that created race.

You don't understand how evolution works, and you need to step back and reflect on it before you go further. The competition between genes did not create race any more than it created species, which is the point I was making by analogy. Different "races" are created, for example, when some circumstances (geographical, perhaps) force two otherwise similar groups from the same species to start evolving independently from each other. They only interbreed within the same isolated group. The major difference between the terms "race" and "species" is that the two races haven't yet been separated long enough to have lost the ability to interbreed with each other, if reconnected. It's merely a matter of chance and time.

You don't understand how the world works, and you need to take a step back and reflect on it before you go any further.

Once you attribute success to a random mutation of genes that provides a competitive advantage, you create a situation where:

1. People are unequal,
2. We strive to replicate the success,
3. We strive to eliminate the "weak" genes.

.

I stopped you here, because you are in error at a most basic level.

What you are talking about is something called "social Darwinism". It is the idea, as you claim, that because superiority in genes leads to genetic changes in life, that must be true for behavior as well. Our best example of why and how this is wrong happened just before and during WWII.

I address your most basic errors in understanding genetic evolution in my previous post (one I was apparently typing while you were typing the above)

Social Darwinism, despite is loose appearance of being connected to evolution, really has nothing at all to do with the biologic concept. Its like staying that a starfish must be like a star and a fish, because they have the same names.

Now to take your statements:

1. People are unequal,[/quote]
True, in most ways humans are able to judge things. And, most humans like to equate difference with some kind of ranking. Western society, in particular, seems to make a religion of competition. Because Christianity is so tied to western society, the two get intermixed a lot.

Still, the Bible makes no claim about people being totally equal. It says that "to each is given.." but what is given is not the same, just what each needs. The question to ask is why? Why would God make us all so different? THAT is where humans often stumble. See, people are different because the world needs different people. The world, even society function best when different skills and abilities are evident.

shickingbrits wrote:2. We strive to replicate the success,

Define "success". In truth, humans have very, very different ideas about that. Given those huge differences making a single broad claim like that is utterly nonsensical. My success might literally be your idea of failure.

shickingbrits wrote:3. We strive to eliminate the "weak" genes.

??? Not sure where you get this or what you think it means.
Medically, we are trying to eliminate certain genetically based illnesses, but it is also seen as a "never-ending" battle, AND is very, very rife with controversy. It is completely untrue to say it is a goal of everyone. Many people are utterly opposed to anything to do with eugenics, in big part because we just don't know enough yet to make such judgments correctly.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:I was talking about competition between the genes that created race.

You don't understand how evolution works, and you need to step back and reflect on it before you go further. The competition between genes did not create race any more than it created species, which is the point I was making by analogy. Different "races" are created, for example, when some circumstances (geographical, perhaps) force two otherwise similar groups from the same species to start evolving independently from each other. They only interbreed within the same isolated group. The major difference between the terms "race" and "species" is that the two races haven't yet been separated long enough to have lost the ability to interbreed with each other, if reconnected. It's merely a matter of chance and time.

You don't understand how the world works, and you need to take a step back and reflect on it before you go any further.

Once you attribute success to a random mutation of genes that provides a competitive advantage, you create a situation where:

1. People are unequal,
2. We strive to replicate the success,
3. We strive to eliminate the "weak" genes.

.

I stopped you here, because you are in error at a most basic level.

What you are talking about is something called "social Darwinism". It is the idea, as you claim, that because superiority in genes leads to genetic changes in life, that must be true for behavior as well. Our best example of why and how this is wrong happened just before and during WWII.

I address your most basic errors in understanding genetic evolution in my previous post (one I was apparently typing while you were typing the above)

Social Darwinism, despite is loose appearance of being connected to evolution, really has nothing at all to do with the biologic concept. Its like staying that a starfish must be like a star and a fish, because they have the same names.

I stopped you previously, restricting you from commenting on my posts. You have shown a genetic disposition towards cognitive dissidence, which my computer model suggests will eventually create a breakdown causing potential social disorder and weakening the state. You have been moved into the category of immediate elimination. Mets be so kind and dispose of Player.

shickingbrits wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

shickingbrits wrote:I was talking about competition between the genes that created race.

You don't understand how evolution works, and you need to step back and reflect on it before you go further. The competition between genes did not create race any more than it created species, which is the point I was making by analogy. Different "races" are created, for example, when some circumstances (geographical, perhaps) force two otherwise similar groups from the same species to start evolving independently from each other. They only interbreed within the same isolated group. The major difference between the terms "race" and "species" is that the two races haven't yet been separated long enough to have lost the ability to interbreed with each other, if reconnected. It's merely a matter of chance and time.

You don't understand how the world works, and you need to take a step back and reflect on it before you go any further.

Once you attribute success to a random mutation of genes that provides a competitive advantage, you create a situation where:

1. People are unequal,
2. We strive to replicate the success,
3. We strive to eliminate the "weak" genes.

.

I stopped you here, because you are in error at a most basic level.

What you are talking about is something called "social Darwinism". It is the idea, as you claim, that because superiority in genes leads to genetic changes in life, that must be true for behavior as well. Our best example of why and how this is wrong happened just before and during WWII.

I address your most basic errors in understanding genetic evolution in my previous post (one I was apparently typing while you were typing the above)

Social Darwinism, despite is loose appearance of being connected to evolution, really has nothing at all to do with the biologic concept. Its like staying that a starfish must be like a star and a fish, because they have the same names.

I stopped you previously, restricting you from commenting on my posts. You have shown a genetic disposition towards cognitive dissidence, which my computer model suggests will eventually create a breakdown causing potential social disorder and weakening the state. You have been moved into the category of immediate elimination. Mets be so kind and dispose of Player.

Yeah, why bother dealing with someone who intelligently disagrees... just call them an idiot and dismiss them. Far easier to convince yourself you are correct, that way.

You don't get to choose who comments on a thread you fucking idiot.

You do get to do what all creatards do and ignore the people coming forward with good arguments or claim some sort of un-necessary offence despite your threats of eternal torment for anyone not saved (with the underlying implication that they are a worthless piece of shit that comes from your twisted theology). Thing is that would make you an intellectually dishonest, prissy little bitch. You make your own bed....

You are not intelligently disagreeing, you are merely spouting supporting doctrine and refusing to discuss the source and real activities that those doctrines refer to.

You will know them by their fruits:

evolution has some pretty interesting fruits, as you yourself have pointed out. That you can somehow disassociate the fruits with the theory, ie more persuaded by their pretty words than their poisoned fruit and continually try to dissuade me from attaching their fruits to them suggests I have not much to discuss with you.

I don't much care for the their fruits. If you at any point decide that that is something you are willing to address, then I am more than happy to have a fruitful discussion.

shickingbrits wrote:You are not intelligently disagreeing, you are merely spouting supporting doctrine and refusing to discuss the source and real activities that those doctrines refer to.

Really? I can provide any sources you like, and I have said so more than once. In fact, the major criticism I have for you is that you have not bothered to investigate sources.

shickingbrits wrote:You will know them by their fruits:

evolution has some pretty interesting fruits, as you yourself have pointed out.

Really? Or have I pointed out how wrong and twisted your ideas are, that they have nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution, despite your claims to the contrary.

Might as well point to the Inquisition, slavery and white supremists are examples of what Christianity has spawned.. and note, plenty of atheists here proclaim them as "good reason" to reject Christianity. The sad part is there is more truth to their claims than yours....

shickingbrits wrote:I don't much care for the their fruits. If you at any point decide that that is something you are willing to address, then I am more than happy to have a fruitful discussion.

Discussion is a two way street. You reject anyone who honestly opposes your views. That is not honesty, nor is it reflective of how Christ teaches us to act.

Sources for what? For the "supporting doctrine". Which is not the "fruit" of that doctrine, but merely "pretty words".

You are not honestly opposing me, you are merely trying to convolute the matter.

Evolution is a tree and from that tree we've sampled several of its fruits. Social Darwinism, eugenics, genocide. You recognize that these are the fruits and yet keep offering me the apple. I don't want the apple and I don't care much about the poetic sales pitch of the serpent who convinced you to eat it.

i am merely concerned with the fact that it has proven itself poisonous. If you would like to dissuade me that it is poisonous, the best way isn't to say the Nazis are the best example of it. Letting you try to convince me that that wasn't a poisoned fruit is not a torment that I would wish upon myself.

PLAYER57832 wrote:Our best example of why and how this is wrong happened just before and during WWII.

The Nazis' racial purification efforts were rather abruptly halted and not really practiced widely or for long enough for tangible results to be observed. Sweden also failed to maintain its eugenics program for an extensive period of time. There hasn't really been comprehensive and lengthy enough experimentation with the selective breeding of humans to conclusively say that it does or doesn't work.

The question isnt whether social darwinism works mrswdk, the question is it immoral? (the answer is yes)