Cross Reference
New member
Tell that to your local junkyard dealer; the proud owner of rotting classic cars sitting in his outback.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Tell that to your local junkyard dealer; the proud owner of rotting classic cars sitting in his outback.
Cross Reference
New member
Did Darwin ever investigate morals? Conscience? How 'bout the sex drive?
Speak up now and don't hold back all those facts,; all that "empirical evidence" we C's can't understand, OK?
Last edited:
It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality
gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his
children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in
the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of
morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over
another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high
degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and
sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice
themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other
tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout
the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is
one important element in their success, the standard of morality and
the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and
increase.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man chapter V
The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation,
for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if
we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could
only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Darwin, same source.
That comes a lot earlier than humans. (Barbarian checks)
He was a bit reticent about sex, it seems. Man of his times, in many ways.
You might look up "Descent of Man", and read chapter 8. He was rather roundabout in his opinions, using a lot of data on organisms to make his points in a rather subtle way. Read it and see.
As I said, Darwin was a man of his times, and sex was a touchy thing for him. A lot of work has been done since on sexual selection. Francisco Ayala has some interesting insights and research. And there's this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219729/
Cross Reference
New member
Very good! However, what part was linked to man evolving rather then man learning and in most cases, as a child learns, by pressure?
alwight
New member
It seems to me that if you are actually interested in Darwin's morality and in his thinking on the human sex drive it would not be too difficult to use this site:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/
Darwin seemed to have pretty typical moral values of his day imo, which some (YECs?) might claim was somewhat racist but I don't think so. YECs are imo perhaps rather desperate to assassinate Darwin by any means available, although the man isn't really the issue here, his ideas are, and those of others, that life evolved on an old Earth and wasn't magically created a few thousand years ago.
Will you soon be bringing up Eugenics or Social Darwinism, which might provide you with another opportunity to detour from the point?
noguru
Well-known member
That does seem to be the pattern with these people who, in their inability to understand science, history, geology, philosophy..., parade their contempt for education around like a flag for their cause.
noguru
Well-known member
Would you care to compare human actions from the past going back thousands of years, and still make that claim?
This is just another case of 6days being ignorant of the accurate history of social interaction and morality.
Cross Reference
New member
No detour. Just mentioning some things that can't be incorporated into Darwin's "idea's" you would have as fact.
If fact and idea is what you are after don't you detour from the subject, which all you have been doing.
Evolution you, say? From what to what, starting at the beginning? Then, explain the beginning __ how did it begin? It is no more complicated than asking for evidence of the building blocks when coming against Darwinism, when did everything begin and from what it did do so?
Your turn.
gcthomas
New member
Darwin provided, along with Wallace, the basis of the neo-darwinian synthesis of evolution natural selection with genetics.
Darwin's morals or social behaviour are irrelevant.
Cross Reference
New member
Sure, but, only as far back as recorded history takes us. Beyond that it wasn't as we are.
alwight
New member
The difference is that cars don't self-replicate whereas life does and requires constant energy to do so. Old Cadillacs will fade away in time but life renews, evolves, often gains complexity and doesn't have to worry about entropy until the sun dies.
noguru
Well-known member
The prevailing attitude of that time among the vast majority of people was that blacks were inferior. Though Darwin's perception would be considered liberal in that regard. He even had a major debate with the Capt. of The Beagle about the morality of slavery. Darwin believed slavery was immoral, the Capt. accepted slavery as moral.
Woman and children as property goes back in history even further, as it has been part of the history of almost every culture in the world. There are even quotes in the Bible accepting it as part of the prevailing morality of the time.
As you try to blame every ill that society has or has had on evolution, it becomes quite clear that you are just another ignorant YEC who has been spoon fed inaccurate information by your creationist overlords.
noguru
Well-known member
So are you claiming that prior to written history morality abounded everywhere?
Cross Reference
New member
You'll be able to explain how the sun improves DNA's complexity then. :up:
noguru
Well-known member
He does not think things through thoroughly enough to have reached that realization. He just accepts anything he is told by his creationist overlords. Because they all wave that same flag that announces contempt for education and and overwhelming fear of being accurate about natural history, world history, and biodiversity.
6days
New member
Barbarian must not realize that Collin Patterson, who I quoted, was a committed evolutionist.*Barbarian said:
This is what he said...
"Collin Patterson, paleontologist said "If I knew of any, (evolutionary transitions) fossil or living, I would certainly have included them (in my book) . You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’
......
‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.”*I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’
.......
The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question."
Nice strawman. You should read slower.*Barbarian said:
As Kurt Wise explains, it depends on your beliefs and how you define things. In the article you quoted, *he says "...has been the most disappointing for classical Darwinists. The current lack of any certain inter-specific stratomorphic intermediates has, of course, led to the development and increased acceptance of punctuated*Barbarian said:
equilibrium theory. "
.......
"There is little doubt in this author’s mind that with the maturity of the creation model willcome an explanation of
stratomorphic intermediates superior to that of macroevolutionary theory."
Barbarian. ... as you know the creationist model is rapid adaptation. Organisms change. We can breed dogs from large size down to miniature size. We can call the medium size dog a transitional..... and it is, depending on definitions. But the medium size 'transitional' dog has nothing to do with your common ancestry beliefs.*
From God's Word we know He created the marine animals and birds on day 5God created the land animals on day 6.*
Gen. 1
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21*And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
On the following day ... God created the land animals.... formed man from the dust..formed Eve from Adams rib.*
noguru
Well-known member
The sun supplies the energy through photosynthesis to life. It is not the only way that life gets energy there is chemo synthesis as well. But both inputs have the same effect. Metabolism allows DNA to reproduce, copying errors create novel characteristics in organisms, and the environment chooses those variations that represent a reproductive advantage.
See that was easy.
- Status