Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Great Darwinian Contradiction  
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 999 times:

Here is something I've always wanted to ask all of you Darwinists-that is you believe in the theory of evolution as opposed to Creationism.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Darwinist theory-in a nutshell-the theory that states that "only the fit shall survive"?

In other words, all of the animals in the world evolve or die based on their ability to survive in their given environment. You've all heard "survival of the fittest."

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't Darwinists also hold the belief that Man is simply another animal-albeit far more advanced than-say-cats or lizards?

Are you with me so far?

So here's my question:

If mankind is an animal and evolution is must be allowed to play itself out, then why are so many people determined to stop that effort?

I'm referring to such fringe groups as Greenpeace and PETA (just to name two off the top of my head) that seem to have a hard on for stopping the progress of man at all costs, all in the name of "protecting the animals".

How many times has a new housing development been stalled or a recreation area closed due to some obscure (and perhaps even nonexistant) animal such as the Californua Barking Spider?

If man is the top of the Pyramid of Life, and Darwinistic Evolution dictating that man has control of the world, then why are so many die hard Darwinist supporters trying to stop this at all costs?

This, to me seems quite contrary to what they claim to believe in.

So what's the real issue here?

Are these people REALLY animal lovers?

Or people and God haters?

10 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineGoose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 994 times:

Correct me if I am wrong, but don't Darwinists also hold the belief that Man is simply another animal-albeit far more advanced than-say-cats or lizards?

That's true. But what defines us as a species is the laws and norms which we have created for our society; laws which protect the weak from predation from the stronger or more aggressive members of our species. Laws are made specifically for this reason.



"Talk to me, Goose..."
User currently offlineMatt D From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9502 posts, RR: 47
Reply 2, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 3 hours ago) and read 992 times:

You know I was going to bring that up...

Whatever happened to rule by majority?

Now it seems that we as a society have turned upside down:

We enact (or retract) policy based on the wants and whims of the few and leave the majority hanging in the breeze?

What happened?


User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 972 times:

That's social darwinism, Matt.

Darwinism is an idea that you evolved from animals, apes and such.


Social darwinism has nothing to do with groups such as PETA or ELF or any of those.

Social darwinism, as I read it, is the idea of survival of the fittest among species and within species.

The groups you mentioned might be considered anti-social darwinists.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineGoose From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 1840 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 972 times:

Whatever happened to rule by majority?

We still rule by majority. The difference is that, it's easier for the minority to be fare more vocal than they once were - both sides of any argument say they're the majority, if that makes any sense.

There's also been a shift in the behaviour of politicians and the general public when it comes to politics; in past decades, issues or problems were raised, and then defeated by motion or vote, and then let lie - they weren't re-hashed over and over and protested over ad nauseum. There's also a very prevelant emergence of "guerilla" politics; just because you lose an election or a vote on a particular issue, doesn't mean you can't debate or complain and whine in the public forum until you finally get your way.

We enact (or retract) policy based on the wants and whims of the few and leave the majority hanging in the breeze?

What happened?


One thing that happened was the rise of voter apathy; the other was the rise of special interest lobby groups in government. The two lend themselves to the marginalization of politics, in which the silent majority are pulled around by vocal minorities; whether they be impeachment groups (read: Bill Clinton) or anti-Bush protestors of recent years.



"Talk to me, Goose..."
User currently onlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4317 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 963 times:

It is true that Darwinism is predicated on the survival of the fittest paradigm, but Darwinism-- Evolution, equals not Creationism to begin with.

Think about it. Evolution is not the end all theory for the development of our planet the way Creationism predicates to be. Those who believe this are just simply incorrect. There are many other variables, more than we mortal humans probably realize, that guide the development of life on the planet, not just evolution. The Sun's history, Earth's orbit, Earth's rotation, it's axis tilt, it's nutation, it's precession... well, I don't want to get too technical because I'm not trying to pretend I know more than I really do know. But all of these and other factors have influenced Evolution (the development of life), what species survive and which don't. And life on Earth, according to our current knowledge, has come quite close a few times to total armaggedon, so the system is not 'godly' perfect.

I know some environmentalists like to preach that Mother Nature knows best. She knows better than us, but she does not know all. I equate them with capitalists: they believe The Marketplace knows best. Again, the marketplace knows better than us individuals, but it does not know all.

My point is, Humans are unlike anything that has ever existed on this planet, at least in the last 65 million years. We could adopt the philosophy of survival of the fittest and perpetually use Earth's resources for our benefit, but eventually that would probably lead us to extinction, or at least a population and civilization crash. Nature's way of saving herself, perhaps.

Others would say that since Humans can control their actions, protecting the rest of Earth's lifeforms is the other choice we can make. Nature's other way of saving herself, perhaps? Some would argue that philosophy.

The two options, literally, can be sourced by those who believe in Nature's wisdom, and by those who believe in God's absolute role in such process, of giving humans the power of choice being his way of rewarding OR punishing ourselves by our own actions.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineAirplay From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 960 times:

Man has changed the earth at an alarming rate. We're not sure just how much farther we can push the environment until we find human life can't be sustained.

Groups like Greenpeace understand that we will play out our evolution sooner if we don't take care of the world.

Advances in technology won't help you, if you screw with the food chain so badly it no longer works.

If mankind is an animal and evolution is must be allowed to play itself out, then why are so many people determined to stop that effort?

Everything we do, including what groups like Greenpeace are part of the evolution process. Greenpeace shows that highly evolved organisms like us (humans) that can understand our environment and adapt to conditions. And that includes saving animal species that keep our food chain intact.

Greenpeace isn't inhibiting the evolutionary process. They are contributing to it.


User currently offlineMdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4130 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 2 hours ago) and read 954 times:

Hi, I'm new here. I've been lurking here for about a month and I finally decided to join. Hello everyone. Just a little background...I'm about to graduate from UCLA and I am a pre-med...hopefully I'll be getting into Medical School next year Big grin

On to the topic. I am going to try and make some points about this since my major included about 3-4 courses on Evolution. First off...mostly everything in the mainstream about evolution is completely misunderstood. First of all, evolution is not "Survival of the Fittest" but "reproduction of the fittest"...that is Natural Selection. The idea is that there are some traits which all beings have which vary among individuals, and those traits can make you more likely to produce offspring that will be just as sucessful. Thats the reason why male peacocks are so colorful. So in the end, it doesnt matter how strong an individual is...if he/she doesnt reproduce...that's it.

When he made his theory, Darwin was simply trying to explain a mechanism for the variations that he saw, and saw how species are so well adapted to their environments. There is an example of how a Panda has an enlarged wrist bone to use as a "thumb" since its bamboo environment would be useless to another bear. This is an example of natural selection.

In truth, Darwin didnt offer a theory on the origin of life. As for creationists belief that evolutionists believe we came from monkeys and other lesser animals...that is not entirely true. Monkeys and Humans BOTH came from a common primate ancestor that is now extinct. Genetics tell us that 98% of our genes are the same as a chimpanzee. This doesnt mean that we were chimps that became humans, but that there was something else which gave rise to both us and them.

Darwinistic Evolution doesnt say that species try to evolve to become more powerful. It only says that species evolve to better suit their environment.

I suppose thats all I can say for now. I don't want to bore anyone with the details but if you take these courses...there are *numerous* examples and studies which show that evolution does happen. As for my personal beliefs, I am not Christian so I dont subscribe to that view. My thoughts would be that maybe God was the one who "light the match" and sat back and saw what happened. But...who knows...?



"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 912 times:

It´s not that rare that a species (or a sub-population) becomes so "successful" that it overstresses its environment and finally ruins it, thereby preparing its own doom. The ones that survive for a longer period have avoided such extremes.

Right now we have an actual choice whether to go down in flames or to survive in the long run. We´re capable of destroying the global environment, not just locally; Otherwise, there´s nothing really new about our situation; If we can manage to preserve our natural resources, we may survive.

It´s entirely within the normal evolutionary process; We just know about it in advance, contrary to other species.


User currently offlineUshermittwoch From Germany, joined Jan 2004, 2969 posts, RR: 16
Reply 9, posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 898 times:

Well at least Vafi and Md got it right.
Matt was, once again, trying to push the Christian issue with the typical half-assed stereotypes.
Facts and clear destinctions might help.
But that's where all radicals fail.



Where have all the tri-jets gone...
User currently offlineMdsh00 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4130 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (10 years 7 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 844 times:

I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. The problem with creationists AND so called "evolutionists" is that they really have very little understanding of the subject. Meanwhile, Kansas misses out on learning about it...


"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a big fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Blaise Campaore The Great Africa's Mediator posted Sat Aug 26 2006 20:09:57 by Arifu Gobakuwi
The Great A.net Spoons Giveaway posted Tue Aug 15 2006 15:25:50 by Braybuddy
The Great British Holiday, What Makes It Great? posted Wed Jun 7 2006 20:40:21 by AeroWesty
The Great Texas Judicial System posted Mon Apr 24 2006 14:31:39 by Texan
The Great Dallas Flood Of 2006 posted Mon Mar 20 2006 01:21:39 by Texan
Did The Great Flood Really Happen? posted Sat Mar 11 2006 04:33:08 by AerospaceFan
The Great A.Net Lost Wages Meet Part VI! posted Wed Mar 8 2006 22:59:31 by DL021
It's Here! The Great Totally Lame Weekend Thread! posted Sat Feb 11 2006 11:00:50 by WhiteHatter
The Great British Nutter posted Thu Feb 2 2006 14:57:15 by WhiteHatter
Anniversary Of The Great Ohio Blizzard posted Fri Jan 27 2006 22:31:29 by Falcon84