CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I'm an atheist, but darwin + evolution have nothing to do with the formation of the earth, so I'm going with God here. Sorry, but your argument kinda sucks, please choose good options next time.
well considering in darwins book on origins of species he says himself that evolution only works in a relitive time and as such some higher power being must of started it. so i'm not saying god wins but darwin wouldn't agree with evolution himself so the otherside has already lost.
(no those are not his exact words just rufly translated)
"well considering in darwins book on origins of species he says himself that evolution only works in a relitive time and as such some higher power being must of started it."
Have you read On The Origin of Species? I certainly have, and it doesn't say anything of the sort.
Has anyone who has posted a position on this question read C. Darwin's' book, "The origin of species"? For not even C. Darwin asserted the origin of species. He only presupposed the derivation of species and not the origin of a species. He infers from species to species not cause/origin of the genus of a species.
Which is the better theory of the earth? The theory of evolution or its' counterpart presume man has the ability to understand a thing that he cannot duplicate or test or predict.
So, theories are the fruit of people guessing for funding or religion and never the fruit of a identifiable, testable law.
How can you not agree, sure, you can say no, and walk away and be damned to hell forever, yes, FOREVER. Imagine getting up for the rest of the afterlife just doing the Devil's chores. Anyway, back on topic, What is the proof Darwin, some random person, made a theory and it becomes a fact, Theories are not real most of the time, the Bible dates back way longer than Darwin, thats all you need to win this argument. I am going to sit back and watch the down votes pour, so I can laugh at the stupid mistakes of people choosing the Devil to die too, Have fun In HELL.
Of course it's Darwin and evolution and not some absolute god that shape our Earth and universe in 7-days.
Some christians say there must be a creator to create all these universe and stuff but who creates the creator ? And who creates the creator of the creator ?
And they will argue Our god creates time so he isn't involved in that process.
I would not pick either one of these but I'm forced to in order to state what I consider the best theory of the Earth, namely that it is round, not flat.
No he didn't. He certainly discussed the possibility of eugenics based on his theories, but dismissed them as evil.
"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... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind."
He also implied that society itself does indeed deal with the weakest of the species. Comparing the realisation of what his theory could imply with the genocide of millions is false, and that is mostly likely why you were voted down (I wasn't the one who voted down, by the way, as I strive to always give a reason for my down votes).
True. But even as Xaeon agreed, Darwin looked at it as hopelessness. In being sympathetic, we continue to allow parasites to breed, but if we were to do just the opposite, there would be a moral strike that would hurt us all.
Thus, the Descent of Man, we're screwed either way.
And Ben Stein was actually right about Hitler being motivated by Darwinism. Although he hated the Jews, he also killed gays, handicapped, and any other person with illnesses or weaknesses that kept the human kind from "progressing". Eugenics was a system built on assisted Natural Selection. Most of the great scientists of that time actually believed in Eugenics (even though now we know it is fault).
as for religion, some of the Nazi descenders descended because of his belief that religion was a parasite to the Nazi regime. Since most of the sensible Nazi Officers knew that support from the Christian Germans and the Catholic Church is what gave them a lot of power, they joined along side with the other descenders for other reasons.
Hitler, whether Mein Kampf was true about his belief in Christianity, quickly started attacking religion as a whole once he gained power.
Did you even look at your source before you posted it? "Exposing the myth of evolution"?????
As for your talks about Hitler and atheism, I never doubted that he didn't like religion, and that he killed people for religion. He was a total asshole...probably the biggest asshole in history. And during his last few years he went apeshit insane. Saying that he got his ideas from Darwin is flat out ridiculous...and you have to see that.
I did read the article. It was painful. It is rare that you find so much bullshit crammed into a single article.
Let's ignore for a second that the article is from a site which claims to be "intellectually honest" and then spouts that evolution is bullshit, and the earth is 6,00 years old, repeating the same disproved claims as if they were scientifically valid.
So now that we've put that behind us I will try my best to take the article seriously. It says:
"Darwin’s theory, as modified by Haeckel,2,3,4,5,6 Chamberlain7 and others, clearly contributed to the death of over nine million people in concentration camps, and about 40 million other humans in a war that cost about six trillion dollars. Furthermore, the primary reason that Nazism reached to the extent of the holocaust was the widespread acceptance of Social Darwinism by the scientific and academic community.1,8,9,10"
Hitler was in fact not a "Darwinist" but instead rejected evolution publicly source(about the 4th minute)
Evolution does not promote eugenics, and actually does the exact opposite. source. And numerous evolutionary scientists spoke out against eugenics: source.
Many of the people killed in the concentration camps were not killed because of race, but instead because of political, and religious views. For example communists, trade unionists, and catholics were killed. Is communist a race? How can Darwin be blamed for these deaths?
Hitler was inspired instead by the theory of an "Aryan race" that had come from India, and was the "master race". This is obviously complete bullshit, but was convincing enough to allow the German officers, and people to go along with the killing of millions of people. source
Hitler instituted the execution of the institutionalized mentally ill as part of a euthanasia program. This is in direct contradiction to what Darwin said in the Descent of Man. The book you originally used as your source! source.
If this is not proof enough that the entire article is bullshit, I will go on, for no other reason then to correct creationist lies. For now though, I hope this will convince you.
Pyg I am disappointed because I know you are an intelligent person. You clearly jut went on google, searched the terms Hitler and Darwin, and copy and pasted the first link you saw that matched your own understanding without looking to see if it was a reliable source. I know you understand that a source is not accurate nor reliable merely because it coincides with your own beliefs. I currently am studying Hitler, and have recently read an entire book about Hitler. If it had given Darwinism as a significant cause of Hitler's evil, I would have conceded the point. But it doesn't, because that's not the truth...and the truth is all I care about.
I never said Evolution PROMOTES eugenics, more like the other way around. As i pointed out (for about the thousandth time) Eugenics is assisted Natural Selection, which is what Hitler WAS CLEARLY DOING. he also killed for political purposes... twood make sense since while he's killing millions of innocents for one purpose, why not do it for another purpose?
the only real argument you can give is that maybe Hitler didn't care about Eugenics, that he just used THAT as an excuse.
and, in the Descent of Man, Darwin described the hopelessness of man kind. our DESCENT. He didn't advocate killing off human beings, in fact, he admitted that we HAVE to help the weak because if we didn't we would feel guilt for the evil we committed. Our morals restrict us from allowing Natural Selection. He saw it as "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
Hitler didn't let morals restrict him. He was perfectly fine with killing off those he found as weak and parasites to the human race.
So your original point about Darwin "thinking like Hitler" was wrong.
Darwin did not promote Eugenics, and neither did the scientific community as a whole
The source you provided was hilarious in it's inaccuracy.
Now, you seem to think that eugenics invented racism. People were killing Jews by the thousands before the holocaust, and needed no excuse to continue this practice. The excuse Hitler did use was that Jews, who worked in the financial industry mostly, were responsible for Germany's economic decline. There were also some nationalistic speeches about Germans being the master race, however this was not even close to as significant as a reason as you make it out to be. The article you provided said it was directly responsible, and this is intellectually dishonest.
The Descent of Man was merely an attempt by Darwin to address how evolution related to humanity. He obviously dealt with some complex moral issues. However, to insinuate (or in your case flat out say) that this led to the deaths of millions is absurd.
i'll give this one to you because i was just trying to see how far it would go (when i made my first statement).
1. i didn't say he thought EXACTLY like hitler, i said A LOT... but of course i was trying to stir things up. in all actuality, Darwin is my one of my heroes (along with Lincoln, Locke, and Plato). He thought as much like Hitler like any pessimist would. He wasn't on an evil track at all.
2. i never said eugenics invented racism... at ALL... don't know how you even got that.
3. it never led to the deaths of millions. I think you're associating one argument with another.
I would still go for the stupid evolution theory about survival of the fittest and mutation of specie overtime. But I am still having a hard time dealing with Darwinism concept. Primates to men still has a huge void connecting to it and could be possible that there could be no link actually.
You can't really deny evolution, but there are Christians who believe in evolution. Even the Catholic church has official accepted evolution as the means of creation (although to disputable extents). Moreover, Darwin's book is on the Origin of Species, not the Origin of Life. I'd be most inclined to go to an extreme and side with Carl Sagan, but even that has room for God and religion, including several forms of Christianity.
If you consider Christianity a theory (which it's not, it's a guess), then evolution is fact (which it is). How someone can still consider christianity even a choice is a joke, it's 2010, grown up you morons, evolution is a proven fact. It's like someone denying 1+1=2...you can still argue it's 3, you're just a stupid faggot if you do.
Darwin's theory of evolution is easily the more logical explanation. Think about it. Either we evolved, like all of the other creatures on the planet, from apes, or "God" plopped two normal folks on Earth and they had an enormous amount of children for the good of mankind. Come on.
Yes, I also believe that it is a more logical concept. But I'd like to believe to the concept that we evolved from man, a primitive man if that's how you put it, to a modern man that we are today. And because we are fit, intelligent and oozing with awesomeness even before, we have survived the mutation process, evolve over time and using dragon voice recognition software is now arguing on this debate. Ape to man? There's a huge missing link. Come to think of it. After 100 years --evolution, mutation and time occurs-- would you believe that all those smart primates will be an arse kicking human by that time? I don't think so.
