View Poll Results: Do you belive in Evolution

Voters
175. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    128 73.14%
  • No

    47 26.86%
Page 32 of 35 FirstFirst ... 22272829303132333435 LastLast
Results 311 to 320 of 347

Thread: Do You Believe in Evolution?

  1. #311
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Siebenbürgerin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Transylvanian Saxon
    Subrace
    Alpinid/Baltid
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Location
    Hermannstadt
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Ethno-Cultural
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    2,756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    234
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    463
    Thanked in
    226 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    Since I just realized this thread was started by me () I would like to ask to take the starting premise into account when you respond.
    Namely, that by rejecting the facts of evolution, race becomes something else entirely. Then, as I see it, the only thing which is left to argue for race is that mixture goes against the "will" of God(s).

    Incidentally, many anti-Evolution-Facts people are also not necessarily followers of Abrahamic religions. If they are, race is non sequitur anyways, and if they are not: how do they even know the will of God?
    So what is race to you?
    But how is evolutionism, which teaches that we either came from stardust or Africa or evolved from apes, any more in support for ethno-racial preservation than respect for the God created and established boundaries of race, nation and language?

    In fact, evolution could even be a little bit anti-preservationist in my view, because it teaches that we could further evolve into different races and species. For example, here's what the National Geographic determined Americans will look like in the year 2050:



    Or Time Magazine's "new face of America":




    Wherever you look at the opinions of scientists for evolution in future, it's either two big races or a mono-ethnicity:



    According to some scientists, humans are expected to evolve into a single, ubiquitous ethnic group, which is the result of miscegenation becoming commonplace. 



    Or the two races, an elite and an underclass.



    But even those who support the idea of two major categories believe racial differences will be ironed out by interbreeding, producing a uniform race of coffee-coloured people.

    So that's the result according to evolutionism, we should just let things - ethnicity, language, race, culture, evolve naturally, instead of preservation? What's the logic to preserve the race if you can evolve into something else anyway?

    On the other hand, if you believe God made several peoples and nations, you also believe in preserving his works. While some of the traits change overtime, for example vocabulary because it accomodates new technology, the root of the language and culture remains the same.

    Here an article from a nationalistic site about how multiculturalism is anti-Creational. I'll paste the most important parts:

    http://www.eurocanadian.ca/2016/08/m...an-legend.html

    In the seventeenth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, we read of St. Paul conversing with "certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoics" on Mars Hill, in Athens. And when he rose up to speak, he declared unto them that God hath "made from one [man or blood], every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times, and the boundaries of their habitation."

    Thus, we can clearly see, from this short passage of scripture, not only the God-ordained/God-created universality and origination of the "one" human race but also the God-ordained/God-created diversity of the human races at the same time. That is, a wonderful diversity of races that are both founded upon and expressed within that "one" race, and, with each race being accorded, providentially, their appointed time and particular place on the earth.

    Moreover, this divinely ordained (or genetic-familial) law of nation, as a genetic-race (or racial "family"), is clearly revealed in the Table of Nations contained within Genesis, Chapter 10. Thus, or once again, all of the wondrous and/or God-created diversity of the various, national "families," "kindreds," "tribes" and "peoples" of the earth, today, have their genealogical (and/or genetic) source or origination, after the Great Flood, in Noah and his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. In ethnographically tracing the Table of Nations (i.e. as a divinely determined, micro-creative, evolutionary process over time, or over many generations), the Caucasoid/Indo-Europoid, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, or Indo-Aryan "families," "kindreds," "tribes" and "peoples" can trace, by and large, their micro-creative or evolutionary-genetic and genealogical origins to Japheth. Likewise, the Semitic (or Shemite) "families," "kindreds," "tribes" and "peoples can trace, by and large, their unique or particular micro-creative or evolutionary-genetic and genealogical origins to Shem. And finally, the Australoid, Negroid and Mongoloid "families," "kindreds," "tribes" and "peoples can trace, by and large, their micro-creative or evolutionary-genetic and genealogical origins to Ham.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Siebenbürgerin For This Useful Post:


  3. #312
    Bloodhound
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,404
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    20
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    73
    Thanked in
    44 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorburn View Post
    Not exclusively, but that's one of the conclusions, yes. Since evolution (including abiogenesis) has never been observed, it is a faith and not a scientific theory. Equally, pink skyscrapers could exist on the dark side of the moon, certainly, but without evidence, it is not reasonable to believe in their existence.
    Evolution does not include abiogenesis. We can observe mutation and thus life forms different from their origin. The abiogensis is officially a hypothesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    ...to gain knowledge of God by way of studying His creation.
    Well, this is an idea. If you have a scientific taxonomy for that I accept it. Is there such a thing? Or is it just feelings and guesswork?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bernhard View Post
    I'm not quite sure about his alternative but didn't H.S. Chamberlain reject the notion of evolution (or at least Darwinism)? There might be something to gain there for a non-evolutionist account of race.
    Are you brainstorming here?

    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    But how is evolutionism, which teaches that we either came from stardust or Africa or evolved from apes, any more in support for ethno-racial preservation than respect for the God created and established boundaries of race, nation and language?
    How do you know God doesn't want you to overcome those boundaries? Are you even implying a Swedish immigrant in Germany is already against the Will of God?
    Are the Netherlands and Switzerland heresy?
    Questions over questions and you are just guessing here.
    And if e.g. Germany has a 25% Alpinid population, is it against the will of God to increase or decrease this percentage? Do we need to actively keep it at the same level as when God created us or else fear the wrath of God?
    Why don't the same rules apply for Alpinid-Nordid as they do for Negrid-Nordid?

    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    In fact, evolution could even be a little bit anti-preservationist in my view, because it teaches that we could further evolve into different races and species.
    Yes, an important lesson: standing still is being dead. We will change for sure, it is up to us how we will change, Natural Geographic or not. My Alpinid-25%-example fits right into this. Is it our duty to keep it at that percentage? If not we will change the racial look you know! Heresy!

    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    According to some scientists, humans are expected to evolve into a single, ubiquitous ethnic group, which is the result of miscegenation becoming commonplace.
    Sounds possible, it is thus our duty to avoid this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    So that's the result according to evolutionism, we should just let things - ethnicity, language, race, culture, evolve naturally, instead of preservation? What's the logic to preserve the race if you can evolve into something else anyway?
    There is no logic in preservation I agree. Only in advancement, but it is not against evolution to try to influence the outcome. This is actually evolution par excellence.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jäger For This Useful Post:


  5. #313
    Yes I was. It wasn't an answer to your question, but simply a suggestion to show that the topic has been dealt with by others. But I know too little about Chamberlain's position to explain it, let alone know whether it is convincing. But perhaps some knowledgeable member on this board is willing to help out.


    Well, this is an idea. If you have a scientific taxonomy for that I accept it. Is there such a thing? Or is it just feelings and guesswork?
    I reckon that to 'bridge the gap' between creation and God is the task of metaphysics and not the natural sciences. Or do you mean that this approach would have to depend on an objective taxonomy that does not depend on human reasoning? Any taxonomy is indeed a working tool of human beings and therefore difficult to sell as the work of God.
    The reason I referred to the Theologia Gloriae was mostly to show that theist objection to evolution can go hand in hand with an account of race. But, in order to be consistent, it would probably have to result in a system like the theozoology of Von Liebenfels. Only in this way can it account for mixture of races, as a 'fall from paradise'. Otherwise we are indeed left with the problem you formulated with the question "How do you know God doesn't want you to overcome those boundaries?"

    Concerning my personal position, I see no reason to reject evolution. So my answer to the question of this thread is a simple 'yes'. What I find more interesting though is the question to what extent our biological evolution determines our human constitution, i.e. to what extent we are 'mere biology'. That's why I find anti-darwinist (which, by the way, is not necessarily anti-evolutionist; Buffon believed in evolution as well) accounts of human nature interesting. Goethe's study of the inanimate world was 'evolutionist', but his study of living nature wasn't; instead it was concerned with 'Gestalt'. But again, just brainstorming here.

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Bernhard For This Useful Post:


  7. #314
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Siebenbürgerin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Transylvanian Saxon
    Subrace
    Alpinid/Baltid
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Location
    Hermannstadt
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Ethno-Cultural
    Religion
    Lutheran
    Posts
    2,756
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    234
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    463
    Thanked in
    226 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Jäger View Post
    How do you know God doesn't want you to overcome those boundaries?
    Two reasons: Because it's in the Bible, which is His word.

    Genesis 1:25
    And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.

    Acts 17:26
    And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.

    Deuteronomy 7:3-4
    You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

    Deuteronomy 23:2
    No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord.

    Leviticus 19:19
    You shall keep my statutes. You shall not let your cattle breed with a different kind. You shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear a garment of cloth made of two kinds of material.

    Job 14:4 ESV
    Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.

    And because as a Christian, I have received and am guided by the Holy Spirit. God isn't unfair and doesn't unleash wrath without giving us a chance. He gave us free will and he gave us his Word, but he also gave us an aid, who helps us interpret it (the Holy Spirit).

    Are you even implying a Swedish immigrant in Germany is already against the Will of God?
    Are the Netherlands and Switzerland heresy?
    Questions over questions and you are just guessing here.

    And if e.g. Germany has a 25% Alpinid population, is it against the will of God to increase or decrease this percentage? Do we need to actively keep it at the same level as when God created us or else fear the wrath of God?
    Why don't the same rules apply for Alpinid-Nordid as they do for Negrid-Nordid?
    No, because Sweden, Germany, Netherlands or Switzerland are man-made concepts. But the Germanic tribes all have a common origin and language, that's the natural concept of a nation. The borders have switched over time, but a Germanic with another Germanic is not miscegenation, because they come from the same root. For example, there are Saxons in England, Germany and Netherlands, the Frisians in Netherlands and Germany, the Bajuvarians in Germany and Austria, and so forth. A Germanic with a healthy system recognises the natural "borders" in his heart. Tribalism is hard to abandon, it's a natural thing, that's why it's so difficult to change societies and it takes heavy indoctrination and laws to enforce it.

    Subracialism is an artificial taxonomy system, people are rarely of a single subrace and there are siblings who don't share the same subrace but share the same genetics. Dividing the world according to subraces negates tribes/nations, cultures, languages, mutual understanding.

    Yes, an important lesson: standing still is being dead. We will change for sure, it is up to us how we will change, Natural Geographic or not. My Alpinid-25%-example fits right into this. Is it our duty to keep it at that percentage? If not we will change the racial look you know! Heresy!

    Sounds possible, it is thus our duty to avoid this.

    There is no logic in preservation I agree. Only in advancement, but it is not against evolution to try to influence the outcome. This is actually evolution par excellence.
    Hmm, let's not call it "preservation" then, what's the evolutionist argument against racial mixing? Why is it our duty to avoid it, according to an evolutionist? What speaks against evolution doing its "work" again?

  8. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Siebenbürgerin For This Useful Post:


  9. #315
    The Germanic Orthodoxy
    Juthunge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    51 Minutes Ago @ 07:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    German
    Subrace
    Keltic Nordid-CM
    Gender
    Religion
    Religion of the Blood
    Posts
    1,640
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    512
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    665
    Thanked in
    286 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    Two reasons: Because it's in the Bible, which is His word.
    [...]
    That's from the Old Testament, the words of JHWH to his chosen people, the Hebrews. (Or so they say, for me it's just the recorded rants of some ancient desert priests.)
    Why would that have any bearing on the world at large? Apart from the fact, that even his "chosen people" has obviously sinned against his laws against mixing countless times without obvious godly punishment.

    Subracialism is an artificial taxonomy system, people are rarely of a single subrace and there are siblings who don't share the same subrace but share the same genetics. Dividing the world according to subraces negates tribes/nations, cultures, languages, mutual understanding.
    Personally, I'm not into strict subracialism but strictly technically speaking even siblings, that belong to different subraces, can't have the same genetics. That won't be the case even for siblings that resemble each other very much, only 50% of your DNA(well, the 0,1% that aren't identical to your average human anyway) with your siblings (and parents).
    Only monozygotic twins are genetically the same. At birth at least, there is some evidence by now that epigenetics can change even that. But that's a different matter.

    Hmm, let's not call it "preservation" then, what's the evolutionist argument against racial mixing? Why is it our duty to avoid it, according to an evolutionist? What speaks against evolution doing its "work" again?
    Evolution of the past existed under circumstances of natural selection, which made sure that those most adapted to the selection pressures of the time("the best") survived. And basically always, except for the mixing with Neanderthals, it was between groups that were much closer to each other than nowadays. Like that between the palaeolithic hunter gatherers and neolithic first farmers and then, in the Late Neolithic, between the combined descendants of these groups and our Indo-European steppe invader ancestors. Who eventually gave rise to people that could conquer basically the whole globe and eventually even Space, invent PCs and modern medicine.
    You could not basically "teleport" from Africa or South Asia into Northern Europe in the past.

    Such ancient evolution/"race" mixing was advancement, if it made it possible for people to survive where otherwise they would have died off, whereas modern race mixing is entirely artificial and long range. Traditional rules of evolution don't apply here because it's not the case of a stronger (sub-)race conquering and mixing with a weaker (sub-)race but the less evolved human surplus, made possible by Western medicine and economics, longe range migrating into the origin nations of that progress, to leech off the fruits of millenia of another people/race's work.
    Mixing of these with us will cause devolution, not evolution. The effects are somewhat dampened by modern technology and ever refined methods of education but eventually it will take its toll and, at best, will lead to a stand still. Until a major breakdown will necessitate a new evolution.
    And the day they sold us out, Our hearts grew cold
    'Cause we were never asked, No brother, we were told!
    What do they know of Europe, Who only Europe know?



    Ancient DNA: List of All Studies analyzing DNA of Ancient Tribes and Ethnicities(post-2010)


  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Juthunge For This Useful Post:


  11. #316
    The first two quotes are explicitly universal statements.

    Apart from the fact, that even his "chosen people" has obviously sinned against his laws against mixing countless times without obvious godly punishment.
    Well, have they been punished by the laws of evolution? Bringing me to the next point...

    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    Evolution of the past existed under circumstances of natural selection, which made sure that those most adapted to the selection pressures of the time("the best") survived. And basically always, except for the mixing with Neanderthals, it was between groups that were much closer to each other than nowadays. Like that between the palaeolithic hunter gatherers and neolithic first farmers and then, in the Late Neolithic, between the combined descendants of these groups and our Indo-European steppe invader ancestors. Who eventually gave rise to people that could conquer basically the whole globe and eventually even Space, invent PCs and modern medicine.
    You could not basically "teleport" from Africa or South Asia into Northern Europe in the past.

    Such ancient evolution/"race" mixing was advancement, if it made it possible for people to survive where otherwise they would have died off, whereas modern race mixing is entirely artificial and long range. Traditional rules of evolution don't apply here because it's not the case of a stronger (sub-)race conquering and mixing with a weaker (sub-)race but the less evolved human surplus, made possible by Western medicine and economics, longe range migrating into the origin nations of that progress, to leech off the fruits of millenia of another people/race's work.
    Mixing of these with us will cause devolution, not evolution. The effects are somewhat dampened by modern technology and ever refined methods of education but eventually it will take its toll and, at best, will lead to a stand still. Until a major breakdown will necessitate a new evolution.
    You make a completely arbitrary distinction to support your argument. When did the process cease to be natural and become artificial? Wasn't the wheel already artificial? Or the domestication of the horse? Why is the way we arrange things now less natural than the way ancient Germanic tribes did? Or even their ancestors? We use our same human body and human intelligence to create these structures as did our ancestors.
    Besides, you cannot know whether mixing in the past (because indeed, people have always mixed) was advantageous. Perhaps it wasn't, but we simply aren't able to see the disadvantages very well because there was less racial difference between the groups that mixed. But there is no way your posited duality between 'evolution/advancement/natural' vs 'devolution/regression/artificial' can be scientifically grounded. At best, your argument shows that the impact of race mixing was smaller in the past. But there's no 'argumentum ad naturam' gained from it.
    In the end, 'to mix or not to mix' is always a matter of choice. Humans choose with whom they mix. And since the God of the Abrahamic religions is a personal God, he might choose as well what's desirable, i.e. God's will.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bernhard For This Useful Post:


  13. #317
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Bleyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Transylvania Transylvania
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Ethnocentrism
    Religion
    Tradition
    Posts
    145
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    132
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    166
    Thanked in
    63 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Juthunge View Post
    That's from the Old Testament, the words of JHWH to his chosen people, the Hebrews. (Or so they say, for me it's just the recorded rants of some ancient desert priests.)
    Why would that have any bearing on the world at large?
    That is incorrect, God has no "chosen people". The ancient Israelites were the first people to practice Christianity, however God's word is for everyone. The Bible says so. Jews who claim to be "God's chosen" pervert the word of God.

    John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

    Acts 10:34-35 "So Peter opened his mouth and said: “Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him."

    Christianity is a universal religion, any people can practice it, from Germanics to Africans. That however, does not mean that God meant for people to mix with one another. Remember, "each according to their kind", "in every nation".

    Apart from the fact, that even his "chosen people" has obviously sinned against his laws against mixing countless times without obvious godly punishment.
    Godly punishment, as the name indicates, is not of this world. The Bible says we are all going to be judged at the time of our death.

    John 3:36 "Whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him."

    Ephesians 5:6: "Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience."

    Personally, I'm not into strict subracialism but strictly technically speaking even siblings, that belong to different subraces, can't have the same genetics. That won't be the case even for siblings that resemble each other very much, only 50% of your DNA(well, the 0,1% that aren't identical to your average human anyway) with your siblings (and parents).
    Only monozygotic twins are genetically the same. At birth at least, there is some evidence by now that epigenetics can change even that. But that's a different matter.
    What Siebenbürgerin was probably getting at is that institutional subracialism would not make sense because it would separate families and re-classify people based on appearance. You do not know for a fact that two people who classify as Nordid have similar genetic background. It is unnatural and uninstinctual. I do not have much in common with a Russian or Berber of the same "subrace" as I. I have much more in common with a Germanic of a different subrace.

    Evolution of the past existed under circumstances of natural selection, which made sure that those most adapted to the selection pressures of the time("the best") survived.
    Hold on a minute. Natural selection is not evolution. For microbes, fish or apes to involve into man (which is what evolution skeptics doubt happened), there must be new information adeed. Natural selection does not add any new information. Natural selection only changes the proportion of organisms in an environment, i.e. it picks the stronger, or better adaptive, and allows it to survive.

    Traditional rules of evolution don't apply here because it's not the case of a stronger (sub-)race conquering and mixing with a weaker (sub-)race but the less evolved human surplus, made possible by Western medicine and economics, longe range migrating into the origin nations of that progress, to leech off the fruits of millenia of another people/race's work.

    Mixing of these with us will cause devolution, not evolution.
    This depends from whose angle you look at it. Let's take intelligence, for example. Blacks have on average, lower IQs than whites and Asians. From a black person's POV, mixing with a white or Asian person could be "upbreeding". Whites have lower IQs than Asians. From a white person's POV, mixing with an Asian person could be "upbreeding". And this is happening to a degree, there are such trends already. When you preach evolutionism, everybody wants to be "the fittest". There is no more God, no more rules, no more moral code to live by, no eternal judgment, no deterrment for people to engage in such behaviors. For, what stops you?

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Bleyer For This Useful Post:


  15. #318
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Idis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Dutch, Low German & French
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Family
    Married parent
    Politics
    Free & Libertarian
    Religion
    Cultural Christian
    Posts
    160
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    107
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    148
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    Interesting discussion. Although I don't take the Bible quite literally, I'm more inclined to believe we were created by an intelligent designer than the story that we evolved our of mud, a primordial soup. Our design is so complex that you would need a skilled engineer to place the pieces together. As for genetic mutations, it seems kind of silly to me... a mutation is a copy error, basically. We see how people with genetic mutations look like today, many of them are unable to reproduce, some die early... so how am I suppose to believe that a series of such mutations overtime lead to "evolving"?

    As for race mixing, it is a matter of personal choice. I always have to wonder how people claim it is "unnatural" when race mixing has occurred in nature and there is no natural "barrier" against it that prevents two people from different races to reproduce. The same goes for homosexuality, it is not "unnatural". Of course it is unbiblical but that is a matter of morality, not nature.

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Idis For This Useful Post:


  17. #319
    Senior Member
    Sigebrond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Last Online
    Monday, July 29th, 2019 @ 12:38 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    English/British, part Irish
    Country
    England England
    State
    Sussex Sussex
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    warehouse work, arts and crafts
    Politics
    Tribalism, Anarcho-Primitivism
    Religion
    Traditionalist Pagan/heathen
    Posts
    154
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    50
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    116
    Thanked in
    66 Posts
    I am going to say no on the grounds that I don't believe in the established narrative of evolution, i.e. the Out of Africa theory. With the increasingly frequent discoveries regarding the various prehistoric hominids that are the basis for the different races or if you like subspecies of modern humans, and discoveries like that in America recently showing humans hunting in the Americas before homo sapiens are supposed to have left Africa, it's an ongoing debate. On a genetic level it has been repeatedly debunked by universities worldwide, including Russian and Chinese studies I believe.

    I think we should talk more of species being suited to environments to begin with in many cases, and focus more on evidence of mutation and cross-breeding rather than this somewhat creationist narrative of all life progressing from one point. The idea of "evolution" suggest the species that exist have all progressed from something inferior, again, a creationist fantasy, and this is also being turned on its head the more we learn about Neanderthals.

  18. #320
    Bloodhound
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Jäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Atlantean
    Gender
    Posts
    4,404
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    20
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    73
    Thanked in
    44 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    Acts 17:26
    And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place.
    So our period in Europe might be over by God's Will?

    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    No, because Sweden, Germany, Netherlands or Switzerland are man-made concepts.
    As I said: heresy!

    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    But the Germanic tribes all have a common origin and language, that's the natural concept of a nation.
    What about Celtic, Slavic and Romanic influences? How do you even know what was originally Germanic to separate it from Celtic etc. today? Do you know more than our historians who have to guess most of the time? Is the holy spirit talking to you about this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    Subracialism is an artificial taxonomy system, people are rarely of a single subrace and there are siblings who don't share the same subrace but share the same genetics. Dividing the world according to subraces negates tribes/nations, cultures, languages, mutual understanding.
    "Subrace" is a political term, e.g. Alpinid is just a race, not a subrace.
    Again: how do you know all "subraces" were present in Germanic tribes of old and are not the result of Celtic, Slavic or Romanic influences? Is the holy spirit talking to you about this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    Hmm, let's not call it "preservation" then, what's the evolutionist argument against racial mixing?
    Broadly speaking you lose: psychological/biological adaptations/skills and cultural penetration.

    Quote Originally Posted by Siebenbürgerin View Post
    What speaks against evolution doing its "work" again?
    Nothing, but I understand where you have problems comprehending evolution. I am trying to clarify:

    Imagine you have two squirrel races: A) red and B) grey.
    If A dies out and B lives, it is evolution.
    If B dies out and A lives, it is evolution as well.
    So what should A do? Should A say: "well I believe in Evolution, so it's OK if I die out and B lives"?
    This would just mean A was psychologically not fit to live at all.
    Or should A simply try to live and make sure, if anyone, it is B who dies out. Try as hard as A can and hope for the best. If A manages to live and only B dies out, it just means it was better adapted, better suitable to live.

    From this the duty to try follows.
    "Nothing is more disgusting than the majority: because it consists of a few powerful predecessors, of rogues who adapt themselves, of weak who assimilate themselves, and the masses who imitate without knowing at all what they want." (Johann Wolfgang Goethe)

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jäger For This Useful Post:


Similar Threads

  1. Evolution by Cultural Changes
    By Halldorr in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Monday, December 26th, 2011, 08:02 PM
  2. What is the value of evolution?
    By SouthernBoy in forum General Anthropology
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, February 22nd, 2005, 01:57 PM
  3. Human Evolution: Evolution and the Structure of Health and Disease
    By Frans_Jozef in forum Paleoanthropology
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Saturday, November 6th, 2004, 07:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •