GarthP2000

Party on, Wayne! Party on, Garth!

Speaking of BIZARRE. <_< ... So many points, so little time. 1) "The divergence of the two is so profound, that if you didn’t know they were both capitalists you in fact wouldn’t think they were." That's one of the nice things about capitalism, and that it leaves room for both atheists and religious people. Altho' there were also Christian Communists/Socialists back during the late 19th/early 20th centuries as well (one famous Christian socialist was the author of the original Pledge of Allegiance, ... but I digress. ;) ) And apparently Spencer (him being an atheist, along with thousands and thousands of other atheists), didn't go the Communist route, which kinda undermines the atheism being the basis for Communism argument. 2) "If in fact it had not been for Adam Smith, and those who held moral values, the current economic capitalistic society of today, might not have been anything like we have now. Labor laws, anti-trust legislation and social programs combined with capitalism by the government ensured that Herbert Spencer’s brand of evolutionary atheism did not take root." ... which further spouts the discredited conservative party line that atheists lack moral values. Discredited I say? Yup, as there have been a good number of atheists throughout history who have embraced and championed for the same labor laws, anti-trust legislation and social programs that have been combined with capitalism, much of which a good number of conservative Christian politicians have been *against* over the many years. Ie., it just shows that there were and are a mixture of religious/atheist activists in those areas, and where no one group can make exclusive moral claim to any of them. Oh by the way, interesting that you make claim of Smith, a 'deist', for the religious side. Many conservative Christians, both back then and now, would say that deists are "atheists who go to church". Many accusations have been made about deists (and many of their ideas re: Christianity) being atheists in one form or another. But now, when it suits your purposes, you don't mind accepting a deist into your 'moral, religious camp', ... until its safe to call them atheists again, I imagine. <_< 3) "Communism is atheism by definition. Since Charles Darwin’s theories are the only ones still touted today, it remains communism only underlying ideology." This one is so ridiculous, it isn't even funny! No Virginia, Communism _isn't_ atheism by definition. o Communism is an economic philosophy (albeit a bad one) dealing mainly with common ownership of property, period. o Atheism is a non-belief in god(s) or spirit beings, period. Economic philosophies do not deal with the existance or non-existance of gods, and vica-versa. Whatever and however atheism was used by Communist leaders for their own purposes was incidental at _best_. Ie., you didn't need to be an atheist to be a Communist. (See my point above) And now, for the coup-de-grace (parts in bold mine): 4) "In conclusion, wether Darwin’s or Spencer’s version of evolutionary atheism, both versions over history have shown a propensity to remove ethical and moral codes in relation to society False. This has been true in economics, politics, scientific research, social program awareness and more (False). (This is also true of Communistic brand of evolutionary atheism, wether Darwinian or not. (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot) (False. See above) In fact, modern day Darwinian evolutionists have been so concerned about it, that people like Richard Dawkins have felt compelled to make lame arguments explaining how ethical considerations are available through evolutionary fairy tales. (False) No one can make a rational argument that a body of flesh which Darwinians at times explain as a machine, can have automatically ethical and moral components built into their “machine”. (False. ethics and morals are things that are taught) THE UPSHOT OF THE MATTER IS THAT ALL FORMS OF EVOLUTIONARY ATHEISM WORK LIKE A VACUUM; WITH NO SAFETY NET OR FAIL SAFE FEATURES THAT HAVE MORAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS. (And False again) This is why modern day Darwinism is so dangerous." There is so much presumed and assumed bulls**t here (Yes, I'm insulting the idea, BECAUSE it is so), that it is comical on its face, and I've pointed out where. A more realistic understanding of what evolution is all about (and how it doesn't deal with ethics/morals, or the lack thereof), and a genuine knowing of (and even face-to-face get togethers with) atheists bring to light how barbarically ridiculous this ((cough)) 'paper' is. Perhaps the _only_ school where this would NOT get an 'F' grade, or be thrown out of class, would be a staunchly conservative religious school. I'd be willing to bet that you couldn't hope to get that published by any reputable university. You might know something about economics, and that part about Spencer was the most intelligent sounding part of the paper. But after that, it was all downhill from there. And all based upon a rendering that shows no historical proof as to why its claim about the (supposed) atheism/evolution relationship is made, but one that stays doggedly loyal to the author's belief system. ... And that's as far as it goes. You say that Darwinism is so DANGEROUS. Yeah, well, Darwinism has been taught, spoken, believed, accepted, and shown on TV, ..... and I have *yet* to see any of the so-called DANGEROUS results come to pass as a direct result of this, the moral parts included. And before you jump in and point out all the morally questionable things that have been happening in our society as your proof, allow me to point out that a lot of those morally questionable things have been done by many of the same religious (and anti-Darwinist) people you say are so moral, ... from Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ted Haggart, all the way on down. ... Now, wouldn't that count as a false prophecy? :unsure: Enjoy! ;)

From one 'peice of chit' to another (Yes Virginia, I am a 'peice of chit' in my own right. Just ask anyone here at the ol' Cafe, and many of them will readily agree. ;) ) There are plenty of my points that you have missed, either by mistake or deliberately. (Only you know for sure.) But in any event, you can take this to the bank. I don't dodge, avoid, back away, play pee-a-boo, or any of the other false crap that you said I do. One thing that I do here, and that is state directly what I think and what I hold to be true. <--- Read that again, s-l-o-w-l-y if you have to. Now, I might be right, and I might be wrong (Newsflash! I have been shown to be wrong from time to time here on this board, even in my most argumentative state! BUT, one has to prove that I'm wrong, not simply just make the claim that I am. Example of this: Raf set me straight a few years back on what actually constitutes plagarism, in regards to VPW's writings. And he took the time and effort to show me why.) But I sure as hell don't dodge, back away, or avoid points that are made, and this thread ought to make it obvious to you. So spare me the 'cat's milk' argument. It's condescending, and it isn't very becoming of you. Oh, and my posts aren't petty either. Just because you don't want to give them any thought doesn't make them petty. P.S., Ann Coulter is a celebrity BECAUSE of her combative style, particularly amongst her conservative supporters. Just thought you'd like to know. Cheers! :B)

That's one helluva indictment against religious people, doncha think? ;) (I made that one up)

<_< Thought you were gonna let this go. ... Apparently not. ... I didn't think so. One thing you might want to do as regards your dear Ann Coulter is to step back and realize that her side of the story isn't all pure as the driven snow, and I'm not talking about putting '1' in the wrong place either. ... Ie., she's a pundit/commentator/celebrity like anyone else in her field (ie., Rush Limbaugh/Shawn Hannity/Neil Boortz/Micheal Moore/Bill Mahar/Lou Dobbs/etc./etc.). And ONLY a a pundit/commentator/celebrity. ... Period. ... End of story. ... Thats it. By the way, you didn't show me proof with your two links. Your 'wiki.cotch.net' link didn't give what Darwin said in his own words. It gave some else's writings on what they thought Darwin portrayed, writings which Coulter twists and contorts to her own ends. Ie., in this respect, Media Matters was very correct. They gave valid criticism of Coulter's content and tactics, ... a criticism that (apparently) Coulter supporters like you cannot stand. Ie., her opinions re: evolutionists and atheists just don't hold up under scrutiny, especially when you get to _actually_ know evolutionary biologists and where they are coming from, and the same goes for atheists. ... Period. ... No more than that. Ie., the rantings about evolution breeding Nazism or atheism breeding Communism (or opinions similar to this) is bunk. Desperate, fear-mongering bunk based on deliberate ignorance. ..... The same kind of bunk that John Calvin was famous for. (Think about that for a moment, will ya?) I could (and have) google the phrase "Ann Coulter's lies" and come up with a whole slew of resources (including the ones you came up with) skewering her reputation apart. ... Now you and I could go back and forth on and on and on ad nauseum with this stuff, but (beyond this post) I feel that would be a waste of time. But I am serious when I suggest to you that you step back, and re-evaluate how important you hold Ann Coulter and her opinions. Is she really as infallible as you seemingly portray her? Is just about any and all criticisms about what she writes/says nothing more than heinous attacks by the e-v-i-l Left (insert boos and hisses by upright and moral people here <_< )? Is what she says really THE valid standard of what constitutes Treason? (woman screams and faints in the background) ..... Hell, all we need now is a wrestling ring surrounded by a cage, and we have ourselves a WWF certified event! :wacko: Oh, by the way, speaking of The Media (insert more boos and hisses here), ..... Ann Coulter is part and parcel of that media. ... Reality is a b**ch, ain't it? Anywho, just had to respond to your I-will-let-it-go-but-not-really response. Caio. P.S., Oopsie! I forgot something. That *one* error where Media Matters gets it wrong in the "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." quote (thus inspiring your contention that the whole Media is lying about Ann Coulter wholesale) is more than offset by Coulter's statement immediately following: "This is why there is a mass panic on the left whenever someone mentions the vast and accumulating evidence against evolution." There is a word that defines such statements: Propaganda. The way it's stated seems to portray this monolithic panic by all on The Left whenever this (supposed) accumulating evidence is brought up. If anything, what is misinterpreted as 'panic' are evolutionary scientists and biologists demanding evidence that goes beyond, and even challenges the biblical/creationist account. Conclusive or consistant evidence, (instead of the crap people like Dr. Hovind keeps coming up with), particularly if it is to be taught in our public schools. THAT is what Coulter sees as 'panic'. ... And it's flawed. Ie., a lie! Coulter is just as fast and loose with her info in a lot of other places as well. So in this respect, she FAR outdoes Media Matters in the lying department. NOW I'm done.

You misunderstand my question, WTH. My question dealt with how some folks who have this near-rabid anti-Jewish mindset, use it as an excuse in a lot of what they say in thier complaints against Isreal, or the Jewish people. Isreal isn't the only one who has a powerful lobby defending them. Gun owners, the insurance industry, the tobacco industry, the Religious Reich, Hollywood, the music industry, etc., etc. also have lobbies at least as powerful as the 'pro-Isreal' lobby. So you might want to keep that in mind.

And this debunks the Holocaust, ..... how? And how do we know that a lot of this info re: Isreal isn't at least partly driven by the centuries-old, rabid hatred/fear of the Jewish people, a hatred/fear that seemed to have become almost, ... necessary for some people's existance. <_<

I don't know about absolving, but you could always try the Cleanse. ....... Remember the Cleanse? ((running and ducking))

I came across a message board that (mainly) talks about the show '24', and I came across this thread that talks about lines that 'should have been said' that would have given it added humor or color, all posted by a number of different posters. *Note: Unless you have been (more or less) a long time fan of 24, a lot of these lines aren't going to make sense. That being said, here are a few that got my chuckle bone: 1) Season 1, Ep 24 David Palmer is walking away from Sherry. Sherry: David! *David stops, then leaves the room.* David, you just don't walk away from me! Secret Service Agent 1: He just did, ma'am. Secret Service Agent 2: Oohhh, you just got burned, ma'am 2) Jack: All I've ever done is what people like you have asked me too... (Secretary of Defense) Heller: Well, while were at it, can you get me a cup of coffee? Jack: Damnit...sugar?...cream? Heller: Both please. 3) Jack: I brought you to the CTU to be safe, Kim. You're defeating my purpose. Kim: Dad, 3 years ago I got chased by a Mountain lion. 4 1/2 years ago I got taken hostage and almost shot. Working undercover with terrorists is probably the safest thing I've done in years. 4) Ramon: My brother died because of you. Because of YOU! Jack: Excuse me but who shot him? 5) Jack: Right now, terrorists are plotting to assassinate a presidintial canidate, my wife and dau..... Tony: JACK!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU HAVE SAID THAT EVERY HOUR FOR 23 HOURS STRAIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!! EHOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6) *Jack's cellphone rings* *Jack says, "Thank you! Yes!" and hangs up* Jack: I have very good news. Chapelle: What? I'm saved? I don't have to be killed?! Jack: No. I just saved a crapload of money on car insurance by switching to Geico. 7) Jack: Lauren, I haven't slepped in over 24 hours. I've killed two people since midnight. So I think that maybe... maybe you should be a little more afraid of me than you are right now. Lauren: Well I'm not. *she leaves before Jack can react* Jack: Son of a *****! 8) Michelle: ...I will shoot you. Guy: No, you won't. *Michelle starts to pull trigerr* Guy: ...or maybe you will! *guy runs up the hotel stairs crying* 9) Palmer: Jack, Saunders called me with another demand. Jack: What is it? Palmer: This isn't an easy one Jack, so I'll be as blunt as I can be. He wants Ryan Chappelle dead. Jack: I'm sorry, I don't understand. Palmer: It gets even worse. He also wants you to decapitate Kim with a hacksaw like you did to Marshall Goren. Jack: What?! Palmer: Nah I'm just f****n with ya. 10) "What, is this some kind of a joke?" "It's no joke, Ryan. THIS is a joke...Two men were in a bar..." Here is the URL where I got it from. ... See if you can think of any of your own. DAMN IT!! P.S., Here is another one I just can't help but to post: 11) *Jack and Chase are in a car; Jack's driving, Chase is in the Passenger Seat* Chase: So, I talked to my doctor today. He recommended this thing. *Jack takes a sharp turn* Jack: What thing? *a flying duck hits the car and sticks to the window shield* Duck: Aflac. Chase: If you're tortured by terrorists and you're forced to burn your hand to death, they can help you out. *Jack makes a quick U-Turn to try to get the duck off the car, but fails* Jack: Who does? Duck: Aflac! Chase: It even covers all your costs, you know, to heal from your torturing. Jack: Chase, WHAT DOES?! *The car comes to a sudden halt, and the duck is thrown off the windshield* Duck: AFLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC! Narrator: Aflac. Ask about it at work. *duck breaks through the CTU window and lands on Chloe's desk* Chloe: Argh! Why does the world keep throwing things at me?! Duck: Aflac!

Sky4it, In addition to Bramble's excellent response (thank you Bramble . Keep them crystels cookin'!), I will add my own here. I imagine his feelings would be hurt by those who say that they don't believe in him, etc., etc. *I* would be upset, or at the very least annoyed, at someone who doesn't believe (in) me or calls me a liar. ... I wouldn't however, be so _unjust_ and _unrighteous_ as to cause them exeeding or fatal harm (such as throwing them into some 'lake of fire') because of such. And the argument of "we need laws in order to have an orderly society" in this context fails to address that point also.Besides, if someone doesn't 'believe (in) me' or my existance, all I have to do is look in the mirror and *taa-daaa*, I'm still here in the world of existance. God should be as secure in his existance. Awwww. That's sweet of you to say. But that (as Bramble pointed out) is irrelevent, as there can be cold Creationist God believers, as well as warm and considerate evolutionary atheists. Besides, hacking on people is considered very rude, and isn't very healthy. And when did I 'blame God for TWI and VPW'? :unsure: I blame VPW and TWI for VPW and TWI. Oh sure. I imagine that's what Darwin was thinking as he was putting together his theory of evolution. "This is just the excuse I need for man to do what he wants, with no regard to consequences. ... MUWHAHAhahahahaha! " ... :blink: Way ahead of ya, pal. And the dots that I'm finding from your presentation would make for a really interesting Rorschach ink spot test. ;) My closet is way to dusty and dark to do any praying in for my taste, so I think I'll pass.

Sky4it, I read what you said. It is often stated and believed that those who don't believe in God, and openly state their disbeliefs are known as 'blasphemers' (among other non-savory items). One place where you apply the 'blasphemer' label on Dawkins is when you said "People mistake death and the wrath of God as tho God is something that Dawkins describes." Overall in all of your posts about Dawkins, you describe him in such a way that the 'blasphemer' label can apply. It's evident that you just don't like the guy. Which is OK. One thing you could do to help avoid misunderstandings in the future is to clear up your spelling typos and write more clearly. There were various times where I was unsure as to what you meant or were trying to say. In any event, I stand by what I say. So lets let it go at that, ok?

So does that mean that we have to shift all the Christmas stuff/celebrations/TV specials/Christmas muzack back 3 1/2 months? That would mean that we'd start seeing Christmas shopping ads as far back as late June!! :ph34r:

What is it with you and Calvin's sex life? :unsure: In any event, as far as I know, Calvin married once but his wife died during childbirth. After that (I think) he never married again. Yeah, yeah, I know. Not the tittilating stuff you were looking for perhaps. ((shrugs)) I do know what I'm gonna get you for Christmas tho'. And that's this: ;) P.S., no, I don't believe an apology is due for my (supposed) 'misusage' of your blasphemy statement. Not worth an apology anyway, as it was just a disagreement of definition, and that ain't nuthin' to get worked up about anyway. ... Just move on to the next thing in life. Peace.

sky4it, First off, my 'Coultergeist' comment was indeed a jab in Ann's direction, and for a good number of valid reasons which I don't particularly feel like going into at the moment. Suffice it to say that to interpret it as 'slander' is the sign of someone who takes our good Ms. Coulter far more seriously than she deserves. And there are a lot of people (both Democrat and Republican) who agree with me on this than you might initially be aware, and they have even more good reasons for doing so than you might want to admit to w/o getting upset about it (like you're apparently doing now). For further sources on our own Greasespot on this, feel free to drop by the Politicks and Tacks section. (Oh by the way, no, I haven't wasted my money on an Ann Coultergeist (oopsie! there I go again) doll) In any event, you can go right ahead believing that evolution was responsible for Hitler and the holocaust all you wish. I gave you reasons why it doesn't, and you continue to zoom right past them w/o so much as a considering glance. ((shrugs)) What-ev-ah. Meanwhile, the original question to Oak has been buried, and I imagine that he has now lost all interest in it. ....... Ain't Greasespot grande? Peace!

Sky4it, The reason why the point of view that evolution leads to nazism/racism is libelous is because the premise itself is _indeed_ an out and out LIE. Neither Darwin nor evolution is responsible, no not even in part, for Hitler's madness and bigotry, no matter how many of your '100s and 100s of sources' say so. History has documented that Hitler's main motivations were 1) his near rabid loyalty to Germany, and 2) his insane hatred of the Jewish people. ... Period. ... That's it. Whatever evolutionary arguments that he utilized was subservient to that, and totally irrelevent to what evolution itself is all about. ... you want to get irate about that dismissal of your evolution = nazism/racism rant, ... tough! And if evolution is indeed directly responsible for/relates to Nazism/racism, then it would be a logical requirement that most, if not all, evolutionists would be Neo-nazis and/or racists. ... But reality dicates that they are not. Ergo, the flaw in your (and Richard Weikert's, and Michael Behe's, and Ann Coultergeist's, and even Dr. Kennedy's) rendering of evolution. Ie., all they have is a desperate and malevolent diatribe tantrum against evolution, and for no better reason than that it has the mitigated gaul of saying that the Genesis account isn't scientific nor accurate. Deal with it. Oh, and as to your point about Dawkins' 'blasphemy against God' (which shows that you are getting upset about this), the very fact that he states that he doesn't believe in God does amount to blasphemy I wager. And yes it IS 'all right', because there is always going to be someone who doesn't believe in your God. Ie., which amounts to blasphemy against your religion. And that IS part and parcel of the freedom of religion that you and I enjoy. ... And it has nothing to do with libel/slander, which is the blatant and deliberate lying/mischaracterization about someone else, ... which is NOT an integral part of our freedoms. Cheers!

I'm even drooling, ... fer crying out loud!

... I await your sources.

Oh please. I have _yet_ to encounter any ID people who utilize the 'aliens from another universe' premise as the intelligent creators of our universe. And all the ID folks I've ever ran into, read about, or seen invariably come back to, or have slip out, their Judeao-Christian (or closely related) origins and beliefs. ... They just hide it better. Which is dishonest IMO.

Wordwolf, I've heard of that term. It's called 'Brights', and Dawkins didn't make it up. I for one, think that its a totally ridiculous term for many reasons, (one being that it makes us unbelievers sound like a freekin' laundry detergent ). And there are many atheists who think the same thing I do. I'm glad of that too. Even on its face, it looks to be a very early line of thinking as per the evolutionary theory. The term 'Lamarckianism' itself sounds soo ... 19th century. ... which of course has nothing to do with evolution. I'd agree that Dawkins goes to the 'extreme' edge from time to time, but (if you can get past his somewhat derisive adjectives about religion that he does include, derisive comments that doesn't even begin to approach the derisive comments used by many religious believers to describe us atheists <_< ) he does bring up valid points re: religion. Especially in regards to the fact that largely in society, one is not allowed to criticize religion or its teachings. Criticize, openly challenge and hold up to scrutiny, condemn specific concepts/teachings that one holds to be harmful, ... that sort of thing. Oh we do that when it comes to 'cults' and like small, fringe groups, but not when it comes to mainstream, socially accepted beliefs, ... and I can bring up at least a dozen concepts that are in sore need of criticizing. Even taking their over-the-top comments into account, that is one big thing that Dawkins and Sam Harris rightfully point out, often that 'more polite' (read: afraid) atheists (like Gould perhaps?) are more hesitant to do. And yes, Gould is right in that religious people are capable of, and do exhibit independent, intelligent thought. However, I think Dawkins maintains that it is the religious concepts, in and of themselves, that run counter to that. (I mean, when you are told to believe in something without any supporting evidence, especially from an authoritive "Obey the Word of the Lord!" standpoint, you tell me how in the dickens can that be considered compatable with independent, intelligent thought, hmmmm?) And frankly, I have to wonder if its the non-ad hominum parts that focus on the validity (or not) of religious concepts of Dawkins' presentation that really is part of what a lot of people consider to be 'extreme', hmmm? ;) I'm fairly confident of the same thing directed against me for the same reason. And its part and parcel of any debate, my friend (even the polite ones), a factor that anybody who posts what they believe on any public board needs to be prepared for. If you don't want to go "digging into the subject here", fine by me. But I hope you know that there is no deliberate discrimination against you simply because points are raised that 'select against your preference'.

Keep in mind, Wordwolf, that Darwin's version/understanding of evolution has (if you'll pardon the term) evolved to what we have now, ... and will continue to evolve as more information becomes available. One thing for sure, is that, for whatever amount of blind faith is individually exhibited in Darwinism/evolution, it doesn't come anywhere near the systematic level of blind faith involved in religion, a concept itself that is based upon that kind of faith, the kind of faith that demands belief w/o scrutiny or open challenge. As the biblical verse itself which plainly states, "For we walk by faith, not by sight." And sorry, but you can't tag that one onto evolution, no matter how hard you try, because science requires 'sight', ie., evidence. And there is more to evolutionary science than even the examples that you posted, Wordwolf. I seriously don't think that the giraffe's neck simply came about by generation after generation of neck-stretching. I'm not a biologist myself, but I think that there is more to it than that. You know, I wonder how much force of argument would be a part of Creationist thought if you take away the Bible from being treated like it was some scientific authority. What would they have left? Because for all their protestations to the contrary about claiming to rely upon science to prove Creationism, it all seems to come back to keeping the content of Genesis sacrosanct from two things: 1) scrutiny and challenge, and 2) treating its contents as less than The Final Authoritative Word of God. Almost like its a line that shalt not be crossed under any circumstances. (Keep in mind that I was once a Bible believer myself, so I have some familiarity of the landscape, as it were. ;) ) Ie., loyalty to the 'integrity' of the Scriptures makes for a very poor argument/basis for challenging what has been shown to be a valid theory (evolution), particularly if you are going to come at it from the scientific angle.

This whole thing is squirrely. . . . . ((crickets chirping))

:P

Sky4it, ((Gad! This is getting old! )) Again, he is making observations based on a lot of things that he has learned before, and even if he did believe the racially skewed versions that you seem so insistant on claiming, the concept of evolution has nothing to do with the immoral racial judgements that various people make, even if they invoke evolution as a means of justifying them. Because if that were not the case, it would obligate everybody who believes that evolution is true to be a racist. You simply cannot get around that premise! ... Deal with it. And you are correct, .... in that it is your _a_s_sumption_. ;) ((Garth looks at Sky4it's peice of paper: . . Nope, no line. No connection. Sorry! Uhh no, I believe I already noted above what caused it. (Hint: It's related to people who like bagels and lochs (sp?), things kosher, and Lewis Black! :B) ) I already explained as to why linking Darwin's racist viewpoint to evolution is a strawman argument, particularly when you consider that such views were embraced by most of the rest of his society. And I have already noted where I think Darwin is flawed in his arguments, so no, I'm not 'going easy on him'. But, as a matter of fact, such racist viewpoints as to racial inferiority/superiority had their roots well before Darwin was a gleam in his daddy's eye. Now his views are flawed largely due to this, but that doesn't sink his entire presentation, and it sure doesn't sink the concept/theory of evolution itself. Otherwise that would open up the gates for Christianity for being racist as well, it having been used to argue for the (supposed) inferiority of Blacks and for slavery. <-- Think about that for a moment, ok? ... Would you be as willing to accept that point as well? If not, then you have no call for trying to link evolution with racism. No call whatsoever!

Sky4it, Then the worst that Darwin did was to include flawed reasoning into his evolutionary theories -- flawed reasonings which were born from individuals that he learned from who were not evolutionists nor atheists, as the majority of Christian churches during that time also embraced and taught the (supposed) inferiority of blacks. This is historically true. Also keep note that, as evolutionary science progressed, such racist based reasonings were weeded out of evolutionary biology early on to the point where none of such reasonings remain today. Oh, and your even weaker association of Nazism/Communism with atheists/evolutionists as a means of causely relating the two groups is filled with even more ridiculous assumptions, all based on the illogical flaw of rendering judgement upon the whole group based on the acts of various famous individuals in said group. It would be like me rendering all Christians as black-hating racists because there were/are certain few Christians who are black-hating racists. ... No doubt you would be offended at such a brainless and dishonest mischaracterization, would you not? So Joseph Stalin/V.I. Lenin/Karl Marx implemented atheist concepts into their philosophy of Communism. So atheism should take the rap for that? ... So Adolph Hitler implemented evolutionary concepts into his philosophy of Nazism. So the theory of evolution should take the rap for that? ..... Do you have any idea how desperate that ((cough)) 'reasoning' ((gag)) is? Weikart's material is also flawed, as all it contains is his unfounded (and opinionated) rendering of evolution being the causal source of Hitler's philosophy, a point itself which is erroneous, as Hitler's philosophy was squarely based on his hatred of the Jewish people and his rabid loyalty to the 'Fatherland of Germany'. Whatever evolutionary material he used (read: twisted) to prop up that mentality up was incidental at best; the same being true of a lot of other German (<-- Hark! A clue here!) philosophers in the late 1800's/early 1900's as they were largely of the same Germany-is-superior mindset. Thus their all-too-convenient usage (twistage) of the theory of evolution for their purposes. Not that unlike the various slaveowners (who were largely religious) of the South who used the Bible to justify slavery, and the (supposed) inferiority of the blacks. (See what I said about this in my first paragraph above.) For your information, evolution (like many other sciences/disciplines, ... ie., math, geology, biology, astronomy, etc.) is value-neutral, and does nothing to de-value the sanctity of human life, ... a sanctity which theists weren't all too eager to embrace themselves on many occasions, particularly when it came to the sanctity of the lives of heretics (as you have clearly seen by an all-too-religious Calvin! ;) ) So, because of this, you can show me all the material you want, and none of it would successfully show that evolution itself is based on/requires racism at its heart, of this I am certain. Ie., thus your material is irrelevent. ... And frankly, it would only serve to show the Creationist/theist side as being horribly desperate in defending its faith. So I suggest that you don't waste your time. Nice try, chief, ... but no cigar. And frankly, I expected better. <_< P.S., and your point re: Jupiter can also be applied to Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and the asteroid fields. ... Which does nothing to strengthen your argument, as they didn't stop the asteroids/meteors/comets that did hit Earth from doing so, and often with catastrophic results.

Sky4it, Several things in your latest post I'd like to address: Funny, as I haven't heard about said discoveries about Jupiter that should alarm the atheists. So those would be ... ? Yeah well, so are a lot of other people. Which is a non-issue really. I'll make it a point to look thru that book, and see what you are referring to. Now there is one helluva straw man argument if ever I saw one. And one based on some serious flaws. First off, Descent of Man doesn't deal with racism, nor does the evolutionary theory embrace or ligitimize racism in any way. That argument you bring up is a desperate one based on a libelous and ridiculous foundation, one that is completely (and deliberately I might add) ignorant of what evolution is really all about. Consider this then. If evolution is so damned racist (as you say), then why aren't the majority of evolutionary biologists part of groups like the KKK, or the American Nazi Party, or discriminate against black people? Hell, one of those famous evolutionary biologists (I forget his name offhand) is black himself! :o Go figure! The vast majority of evolutionary biologists are non-racist in both thought and temperament. Charles Darwin himself didn't believe that one race was inferior to another, and didn't even include the consideration of human races in his evolutionary writings. No doubt there were/are those who are racial bigots who also accept evolution as factual, and then *twist* it to meet their own expectations. ... It is just as twisted to then take that and presume that it is because of evolution itself that supports such bigotry. Ie., you'll have to do a helluva lot better than that to make your argument.