Damage Done by Creationism

beastmaster

Newbie
Jun 29, 2012
74
0
✟15,187.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Naturalistic Evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a Philosophy. The same with Creationism/ID. Both are still Philosophies.

Only someone not familiar with the scientific method would draw that incorrect assumption.

Very comprehensive Wikipedia article of the topic:
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. A theory is the highest acclimation an idea in science can earn. Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Nails74

Regular Member
Jan 13, 2012
341
5
✟15,563.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If your theory that God is the only source of morality is true then it should hold that Christian societies are moral and non-christian societies are not, is that right? Or at least more moral.
I'm simply asking what is the basis for your morality. I would actually agree with your statement about innate morality.

However, in your random chance world, how do you account for the vast majority of people throughout history being born with the same sense of right and wrong?
 
Upvote 0

Danyc

Senior Member
Nov 2, 2007
1,799
100
✟9,970.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
I'm simply asking what is the basis for your morality. I would actually agree with your statement about innate morality.

However, in your random chance world, how do you account for the vast majority of people throughout history being born with the same sense of right and wrong?

And in which age are you directing your inquiry? 3,000 B.C.? The Dark Ages? Right at this very moment?

Obviously we are not all born with the same sense of right and wrong. Human morality is a process. In a way, it has evolved along with us. In this day and age we are all born (with few exceptions) with a similar sense of right and wrong because if this was not the case, we would not exist, as a species. A community that holds activities such as rape, theft, and murder up as praiseworthy, or even acceptable, will not be with us for very long.

Natural selection in another form.
 
Upvote 0

GrayAngel

Senior Member
Sep 11, 2006
5,370
114
USA
✟21,292.00
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I don't know what that sentence means

What is the common objective variable that we can use to pit faith and science together? What is the measuring stick that can be applied to both fairly? In my view, no such measure exists, so it's fallacious to claim that science will always win against faith. You're measuring faith by the standards of science, which is based on hard facts, but the value of faith is not measured by solid evidence.

Well, you can't defeat hard facts. Geocentrism, a solid firmament holding back 'the waters above', bats being birds and the existence of unicorns all proved to be embarrassing problems that required re-interpretations of parts of the bible, which in turn reduces credibility.

Woah, woah. Hold it. These "problems" were not in the Bible. Unicorns exist only in the King James Version, which is a translation of the Bible, and it is what took liberties to change certain details like that. We do not reinterpret the Bible to remove unicorns because unicorns were never in there until we put it there.

The creation story of Genesis is just the lastest example, by stating that it is literal you are forcing people to chose between scientific facts and biblical 'facts' which have been knocked down, one-by-one as scientific knowledge has increased.

When did I say that it was literal? I was arguing the opposite point. :doh:

Evolution is proven, with hard, testable evidence, there for all to try and disprove. It takes ignorance or denial to not accept it.

Evolution is not falsifiable. It's self-proving. We can't travel back in time and show whether or not life did, in fact, originate from a single-celled organism. Same with evolutionary behavioral study. When we claim that a certain behavior is good for a species, how do we justify that claim?

Well, if it must have been good for their species, otherwise the behavior would have died out through natural selection.

It uses itself as proof for itself.

I do not deny that evolution exists. However, I am currently neutral when it comes to the claim that humans evolved from lower species.

Pushing Creationism as a scientific fact will result in intelligent, educated people losing respect for religious teaching and will ultimately weaken Christianity.

Science teaches scientific theories, there is a strict set of criteria that allow a body of knowledge to be considered a theory. It has to make testable predictions, it has to be supported by repeated experiments and observation etc, as below:


  • It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
  • It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
  • It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
  • It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
  • It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations.
I know how science works. I use these principles often in my studies in psychology, although some don't consider psychology a science.

The Biblical Creation story does not fit these criteria. It is not a scientific theory therefore it can't be taught in science classes, period.

You just pretty much reworded the main point of the post you're replying to. The creation story does not fit the criteria because it was never meant to be used for scientific purposes. The Christians of today have started interpreting it that way, but this says nothing about the original intent of the author.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nails74

Regular Member
Jan 13, 2012
341
5
✟15,563.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Human morality is a process. In a way, it has evolved along with us. In this day and age we are all born (with few exceptions) with a similar sense of right and wrong because if this was not the case, we would not exist, as a species.
We had to evolve it so that we would not wipe ourselves out? Seems as though we would have wiped ourselves out while waiting for those chemical processes to evolve.

A community that holds activities such as rape, theft, and murder up as praiseworthy, or even acceptable, will not be with us for very long.
Are you saying that those things are wrong? On what basis?
 
Upvote 0

ThinkFreeDom

Newbie
Jun 19, 2012
399
7
The Mediterranean Coast of Spain.
✟15,589.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
I'm simply asking what is the basis for your morality. I would actually agree with your statement about innate morality.

However, in your random chance world, how do you account for the vast majority of people throughout history being born with the same sense of right and wrong?
What has random chance got to do with it?

It is this simple. Societies which allow indiscriminate killing don't last very long, so indiscriminate killing becomes taboo, or the society dies. Therefore all surviving societies have a taboo against indiscriminate killing. That is social evolution.

As for Darwinian Natural Selection it works like this: if you have no innate compunction about killing anyone who gets in your way, you will be killed or ostracized by your society, preventing you from passing on your aggresive, murderous traits. This is the reason why only a tiny minority of people today murder others.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThinkFreeDom

Newbie
Jun 19, 2012
399
7
The Mediterranean Coast of Spain.
✟15,589.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
What is the common objective variable that we can use to pit faith and science together? What is the measuring stick that can be applied to both fairly? In my view, no such measure exists, so it's fallacious to claim that science will always win against faith. You're measuring faith by the standards of science, which is based on hard facts, but the value of faith is not measured by solid evidence.
Exactly! Science is about facts and faith is about belief. Their is no measure because we would be comparing apples and oranges. That is exactly why Creationism/ID has no place in a science class.
Woah, woah. Hold it. These "problems" were not in the Bible. Unicorns exist only in the King James Version, which is a translation of the Bible, and it is what took liberties to change certain details like that. We do not reinterpret the Bible to remove unicorns because unicorns were never in there until we put it there.
Ok, lets let the unicorns go. What about the firmament? That is one of the first scientific absurdities that strikes someone who reads the bible for the first time. No scientific evidence has ever been found to show that there was once a solid firmament or that the 'waters above' have ever existed. The idea seems absurd and unless you are perpared to see Genesis as allegorical your faith in the bible will be shaken.
Evolution is not falsifiable. It's self-proving. We can't travel back in time and show whether or not life did, in fact, originate from a single-celled organism. Same with evolutionary behavioral study. When we claim that a certain behavior is good for a species, how do we justify that claim?
I was talking about falsifiable predictions. For example the theory predicted that if chimps, gorillas and humans had come from a common ancestor we should share much of our DNA. That prediction was falsifiable becuase we could test the DNA and prove the prediction to be false. In the end it proved to be true.

Well, if it must have been good for their species, otherwise the behavior would have died out through natural selection.

It uses itself as proof for itself.

I do not deny that evolution exists. However, I am currently neutral when it comes to the claim that humans evolved from lower species.

I know how science works. I use these principles often in my studies in psychology, although some don't consider psychology a science.

You just pretty much reworded the main point of the post you're replying to. The creation story does not fit the criteria because it was never meant to be used for scientific purposes. The Christians of today have started interpreting it that way, but this says nothing about the original intent of the author.
We basically agree. I am repeating what I said because the same assertions come up again and again from different people.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
And in which age are you directing your inquiry? 3,000 B.C.? The Dark Ages? Right at this very moment?

Obviously we are not all born with the same sense of right and wrong. Human morality is a process. In a way, it has evolved along with us. In this day and age we are all born (with few exceptions) with a similar sense of right and wrong because if this was not the case, we would not exist, as a species. A community that holds activities such as rape, theft, and murder up as praiseworthy, or even acceptable, will not be with us for very long.

Natural selection in another form.

C. S. Lewis actually gave a reasonable account of the development of morality independent of religion, in a book "The Abolition of Man." It's similar to this. His concept was that morality was an ongoing tradition that was adjusted over time. Individual items would be critiqued based on other, higher priority items, or experience that a traditional provision tended to cause results that most people consider bad. The technical term (which he didn't use) is "reflective equilibrium." See Reflective Equilibrium (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

His position was that this process occurred across cultures and religions, with similar results. The book includes an appendix which was intended to show similar standards from many periods and cultures. This is probably a bit of an oversimplification, since it's clear that cultures do vary, sometimes in significant ways. Yet I think he's right that they do influence each other, and that in the long run there is a general human moral community.
 
Upvote 0

Tomas de Torquemada

Active Member
Jul 3, 2012
383
10
✟600.00
Faith
Catholic
Rape is a very effective genetic strategy, particularly against outside communities.


Thinking about genes in black and white is sort of counterproductive. From an evolutionary perspective, you have a sliding scale of genetic similiarity. Obviously, you want higher empathy with your progeny, less with than your ethny, less still with other ethnys, etc. So strategies like perpetual war against "nice" neighbors, soft polygamy (like the moderns) or hard polygamy (like the ancients), slavery and rape are all very effective strategies, provided you use them against other ethnys.

As I've said on other occasions, even atheists don't want to think too seriously about the implications of evolution.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

beastmaster

Newbie
Jun 29, 2012
74
0
✟15,187.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Rape is a very effective genetic strategy, particularly against outside communities.


Thinking about genes in black and white is sort of counterproductive. From an evolutionary perspective, you have a sliding scale of genetic similiarity. Obviously, you want higher empathy with your progeny, less with than your ethny, less still with other ethnys, etc. So strategies like perpetual war against "nice" neighbors, soft polygamy (like the moderns) or hard polygamy (like the ancients), slavery and rape are all very effective strategies, provided you use them against other ethnys.

As I've said on other occasions, even atheists don't want to think too seriously about the implications of evolution.

Right (except for maybe the last sentence). Luckily we've realized (for the most part) over the centuries that the best way to get along with other groups of people is to agree not to rape and murder each other. Emotions and empathy aside, it's a pragmatic and mutually beneficial position to take. It can be compared to mutually assured destruction as a deterrent to nuclear warfare.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThinkFreeDom

Newbie
Jun 19, 2012
399
7
The Mediterranean Coast of Spain.
✟15,589.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Rape is a very effective genetic strategy, particularly against outside communities.
Thinking about genes in black and white is sort of counterproductive. From an evolutionary perspective, you have a sliding scale of genetic similiarity. Obviously, you want higher empathy with your progeny, less with than your ethny, less still with other ethnys, etc. So strategies like perpetual war against "nice" neighbors, soft polygamy (like the moderns) or hard polygamy (like the ancients), slavery and rape are all very effective strategies, provided you use them against other ethnys..
Exactly the point I made earlier. The downside to our evolved morality is that it is often limited to those we see as within our group. Those outside our group are simply seen as rivals. This can happen between racial, cultural and religious groups. A good example would be the Spanish Inquisition. Tomas Torquemada, your namesake, tortured and murdered thousands for what they believed, he felt justified in that because they were not Christians, therefore killing them was not murder, but in fact his moral duty.

This is exactly the same concept I mentioned a few posts back and it is an acknowledged flaw in human morality - outside of your group your moral code doesn't apply. We see the same thing again and again through human history, in the OT we see the treatment of Egyptians, Midianites, Amalekites etc. In more recent history we have the Spanish Inquisition, the Rape of Nanking and the Holocaust. Always the same moral flaw, they are not of us they are the other, so the same rules of morality don't apply. Religion helps to perpetuate those divisions. It makes it easier for us to kill each other and justify it, as do racial, cultural and political differences.

As I've said on other occasions, even atheists don't want to think too seriously about the implications of evolution.
You have said it, but you haven't backed it up. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that any respectable evolutionary biologists avoiding thinking seriously about the downsides to an evolved morality.

The evolutionary implications of rape and war have been extensively studied by evolutionary biologists and anthropologists, they don't state that they are atheists, as that is a private matter, but they certainly aren't creationists and there is no sign of them 'not wanting to think about the implications'. Craig Palmer and Randy Thornhill are good examples.
 
Upvote 0

Tomas de Torquemada

Active Member
Jul 3, 2012
383
10
✟600.00
Faith
Catholic
Exactly the point I made earlier. The downside to our evolved morality is that it is often limited to those we see as within our group. Those outside our group are simply seen as rivals. This can happen between racial, cultural and religious groups. A good example would be the Spanish Inquisition. Tomas Torquemada, your namesake, tortured and murdered thousands for what they believed, he felt justified in that because they were not Christians, therefore killing them was not murder, but in fact his moral duty.

This is exactly the same concept I mentioned a few posts back and it is an acknowledged flaw in human morality - outside of your group your moral code doesn't apply. We see the same thing again and again through human history, in the OT we see the treatment of Egyptians, Midianites, Amalekites etc. In more recent history we have the Spanish Inquisition, the Rape of Nanking and the Holocaust. Always the same moral flaw, they are not of us they are the other, so the same rules of morality don't apply. Religion helps to perpetuate those divisions. It makes it easier for us to kill each other and justify it, as do racial, cultural and political differences.

You have said it, but you haven't backed it up. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that any respectable evolutionary biologists avoiding thinking seriously about the downsides to an evolved morality.

The evolutionary implications of rape and war have been extensively studied by evolutionary biologists and anthropologists, they don't state that they are atheists, as that is a private matter, but they certainly aren't creationists and there is no sign of them 'not wanting to think about the implications'. Craig Palmer and Randy Thornhill are good examples.


You certainly don't give me any reason to act in a genetically sub-optimum way.
 
Upvote 0

beastmaster

Newbie
Jun 29, 2012
74
0
✟15,187.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Mutually beneficial isn't maximally beneficial. Genes are selfish. Rape and pillage, so long as its outside of your ethny, is genetically maximizing. Especially if you couple it with polygamy.

Sure, as long as there is no backlash by the victims or other repercussions for the perpetrators. It doesn't take much imagination or any particular research to infer that people eventually realized that they were just as susceptible to being raped and pillaged by their neighbors as the other way around. A society of war and retaliation is just not practically sustainable or maximally beneficial.
 
Upvote 0

Tomas de Torquemada

Active Member
Jul 3, 2012
383
10
✟600.00
Faith
Catholic
It doesn't take much imagination or any particular research to infer that people eventually realized that they were just as susceptible to being raped and pillaged by their neighbors as the other way around

That simply isn't true. Power is not equitably distributed amongst ethnys, and there are always groups weaker that you can inflict violence upon, with little prospect of being retaliated back. Rome was able to rape the sabine women, and then defeat their retaliation. The Apache and the Hopi, so on so forth.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Cuddles333

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2011
1,103
162
65
Denver
✟30,312.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Originally Posted by Cuddles222
Naturalistic Evolution is not a scientific theory, it is a Philosophy. The same with Creationism/ID. Both are still Philosophies.


Only someone not familiar with the scientific method would draw that incorrect assumption.

Very comprehensive Wikipedia article of the topic:
Evolution as fact and theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. A theory is the highest acclimation an idea in science can earn. Evolution is a fact in the sense that it is overwhelmingly validated by the evidence.


I know what a scientific theory is, and Natural Evolution, so far, lacks evidence to confirm it as a scientific theory. It doesn't matter how many in the academic community claim differently. The truth is the truth. It remains a philosophy. I see Theistic Evolution more believable than Natural Evolution. Trillions upon trillions of years could be added to the Natural Evolutionary time-table and it still wouldn't be enough to fill in the thousands of gaps (steps) where only divine intervention could be concluded as having filled.
 
Upvote 0

beastmaster

Newbie
Jun 29, 2012
74
0
✟15,187.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Married
That simply isn't true. Power is not equitably distributed amongst ethnys, and there are always groups weaker that you can inflict violence upon, with little prospect of being retaliated back. Rome was able to rape the sabine women, and then defeat their retaliation. The Apache and the Hopi, so on so forth.


I'll try to make my point more comprehensively:
I wasn't suggesting that power is or has ever been equally distributed- history clearly attests to the fact that stronger groups have exploited weaker groups for millennia. However, history demonstrates just as clearly that the balance of power can shift dramatically given enough time. Even the Roman Empire throughout its history was not immune to fluctuations of power and its position in the world hierarchy- its hegemony lasted nearly 500 years before falling at the hands of the barbarians (reemerging as a shadow of its former self). Groups once at the bottom of the world strata can easily find themselves on top for a variety of reasons- people eventually took this as a lesson.

Consider a hypothetical scenario (a scenario that has no doubt been played out countless times in history) where one group faces no IMMEDIATE retaliation or backlash for rape and pillage of another group. From a nihilistic perspective, the stronger group is justified in raping and pillaging the weaker group- no argument there. However, 20 years down the line the former conquerors are themselves overtaken by a former fledgling group that has amassed power.

We weren't born into this world with the concept of civil liberties for all people- this is a secular idea that was almost two millennia in the making. Unfortunately, it took us a very long time to realize that the best way to co-exist with other groups in the long run is not to rape or pillage…. and some people still haven't gotten this.
 
Upvote 0

Harry3142

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2006
3,749
259
Ohio
✟20,229.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
ThinkFreeDom-

www.theologywebsite.com/etext/egypt/creation.shtml

This website gives us the egyptian creation epic. Those to whom Genesis 1:1-2:25 was written already have known this epic, and some would have accepted it as fact. It predates Genesis by centuries, and was a major part of the egyptian pantheistic religion.

Upon reading this epic we see that the people believed all the celestial objects, as well as the planet, the atmosphere, and the 'heavens' were gods or goddesses. Egyptian pantheism also gave every god and goddess physical form, and there were over 40 of them. Those who were not in the form of a celestial object, such as the sun, moon, and stars, were in the form of one of the other species of animals that the people were familiar with. Others had the forms of at least two or three animals combined, such as having the head of a jackal attached to the body of a human being.

So Genesis was written as a rebuttal. The sun, moon, and stars were described as simply objects which produced light in the sky. The atmosphere was simply the division between the planet and the 'heavens'. The other species of animals, both land and aquatic, were simply other animals rather than representations of gods and goddesses. By the time the reader had gone from Genesis 1:1 to 2:3, the only Being that could be seen as being a deity was also a Being who was seperate from all that he had created. It was a demythologization of all that they had learned previously.

The second creation story (Genesis 2:4-25) separated man from all the other species of animals, a teaching that was contrary to the egyptian creation epic. Whereas in the earlier story man had simply been created on the last day along with all the other animals and then 'dumped' on this planet, the Genesis story spoke of his being created in a unique way. God gave Adam the job of naming all the other species of animals, a symbol of authority at that time. Adam could also converse directly with God. Adam had a region where he could live comfortably, free of arduous labor. Even his spouse was created in a unique manner.

And both Adam and Eve had the power to deliberately disobey God by choosing their own pride over his wisdom, and thus attaining the knowledge of good and evil. This no other specie of animal has to this day. Only mankind has the notion of some actions' being seen as good while other actions are to be seen as evil as a part of his psyche.

And what about the temptation and the serpent? Those to whom this was written would have immediately recognized it. It was the egyptian story of Ra the sun god engaging Sebau the serpent-fiend in battle, only in this story it was used to describe how mankind developed the knowledge of good and evil. Even the forcing of the serpent to crawl on his belly was taken directly from Ra's defeat of Sebau, and then his hacking off his front legs and binding his hind legs together. What fundamentalists try to describe as a literal event was seen by those to whom it was written as the means whereby Genesis' author identified the point in time when mankind lost its innocence.
 
Upvote 0

aiki

Regular Member
Feb 16, 2007
10,874
4,348
Winnipeg
✟236,528.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Excessively literalistic interpretations of Genesis inevitably pit faith against science, in regard to scientific questions.
"Excessively literalistic"? There is nothing excessive about understanding that when the Bible speaks of six days of Creation it means six actual 24-hour periods. This view is easily defended from Scripture. It is when Christians allow human philosophy to stand as an authority over God's Word that such Christians must behave excessively in contorting the plain meaning of Scripture so that it conforms to naturalistic interpretations of science.

This is a battle that faith can't win and the result is lost credibility, especially among the more educated sections of the population who would be an asset to Christianity.
Hardly. This statement is mere propaganda for the Theory of Evolution. The fact is, creationists have pointed out a great many problems with the theory, not least of which is that a molecules-to-man process of development requires the regular addition of huge amounts of brand-new genetic information that the ToE has no means of supplying or accounting for.

Moreover the attempt to force Creationism into science classes has aroused the anger of some of the world's most eloquent scientists.
Well of course it has. Teaching Creationism threatens the massive influence of the Theory of Evolution upon society that these "eloquent scientists" have invested their lives in establishing.

I am thinking of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. Surely your faith would be better off without such powerful detractors?
No, not really. These sorts of critics serve in the end only to strengthen the faith.

Would it not be a better strategy to keep faith and science separate? To say nothing of faith and politics.
Why should faith and science exist separately? In fact, science cannot even get off the ground without the exercise of a certain amount of faith. There are many unproveable assumptions upon which science rests that scientists must take on faith as being true.

In addition these groups often present Christianity and science as mutually exclusive. Do you really want young Christians to have to make that choice?
The creationists I know do not make this sort of separation. In fact, they are avidly interested in the relationship between their faith and science. What the creationists I know oppose is the interpretation that is given to the facts of science by scientists who adhere to a naturalistic/atheistic philosophy.

The ID movement and the vocal anti-evolutionary stance of some sections of Evangelical Christianity seems to me to be a terrible miscalculation, that is damaging to all of Christianity. The press focuses on this radical fringe, making it loom much larger than it really is.
They are only "radical" to those with an opposing veiwpoint.

Do mainstream Christians see this? If they do why don't they do more to make the more reasonable voice of Christianity heard?
What you call the "more reasonable voice of Christianity" seems to me to be the voice of those who have severely compromised their faith.

Selah.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tomas de Torquemada

Active Member
Jul 3, 2012
383
10
✟600.00
Faith
Catholic
I'll try to make my point more comprehensively:
I wasn't suggesting that power is or has ever been equally distributed- history clearly attests to the fact that stronger groups have exploited weaker groups for millennia. However, history demonstrates just as clearly that the balance of power can shift dramatically given enough time. Even the Roman Empire throughout its history was not immune to fluctuations of power and its position in the world hierarchy- its hegemony lasted nearly 500 years before falling at the hands of the barbarians (reemerging as a shadow of its former self). Groups once at the bottom of the world strata can easily find themselves on top for a variety of reasons- people eventually took this as a lesson.

So... your arguement is the rape of the sabine women caused central asian nomads to migrate to western europe.

Thats some serious magical thinking. There is no karma. And there is no reason for future enemies to show mercy to you if you show mercy to others now.

Also, on MAD. MAD worked against the idea of a unilateral first strike. That is why the arms race occured; if there ever was a sufficient disparity in power, a unilateral first strike became the optimum solution.

EDIT:

Wait, are you argueing if the romans hadn't raped the sabine women, the barbarians would have said "Oh, I guess we don't need to flee demographic pressures on us from the east. Those romans are so nice!"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0