Sky, even your New Testament speaks of the unbelievers who do that which is right, while the believers do not. I can't remember the exact verse and wording - if you'd like I'll find it for you. But the point is, don't be so sure that your Wicans can't have as many reedmable qualities as your bible believing Christians. Even your Bible says that isn't so.
Or perhaps you need to define "redeeming qualities"?
Gee Abi, I thought you read everything I posted. Just kidding. :)
I already mentioned to sky about the parable of the Good Samaritan -- if that is what you were thinking of.
Having seen many Bible believing Christians( 20 yrs TWI) with out redeemable qualities, and others of different faiths and no faith with redeemable qualities, I don't believe Christianity makes better quality people. I think their view of other religions as inferior actually makes them less admirable and more dangerous to say, families and communities, than those with more respect toward others with different beliefs, because seeing others as inferior leads to treating them as inferiors.
Christianity 101 may teach that Christianity is the superior religion and all who participate in other religions do not have as much redeemable qualities(not sure what those are), but obviously I don't believe that, or I would still be a Christian.
Yeah and thats a tragedy too Bramble. What your saying isn't all together without merit. I can say that I have met some Christians in my life, that are terrific examples. Of course, i have seen church goers of which you speak that aren't. I suppose a good example is one of my son's friends dad who recently went to jail for abusing young girls. He was a church goer but , I am not sure that that in particular is a reflection on those of faith. I mean there have been other Republicans who are bible talkers who have had there lives exposed too in recent years. I suppose one has to look on in on a case by case basis. As a general rule this stuff shouldnt be happening and its certainly doesn't reflect on what the Bible tells people to do.
Not surprisingly the same was said in the First century about those of Jewish faith by the Apostle Paul. That there character didnt measure up and Paul said , "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Romans 2:24 Of course if it is as bad as you indictate, Ie(there is no difference) then in all likihood I dont think we would be far away from the events described in Romans 11: 17-26, wherein as it says in verse 26 "and so shall all Israel be saved" Still, Jesus described the last days as very much like they are today and told us "He that shall endure to the end the same shall be saved. Matt:24:13
Nice to see you stop in and post here in the basement. Thanks
Abigail: Or perhaps you need to define "redeeming qualities"?
Yeah I am not sure that, that was the word I was looking for, I guess I was shooting for something that indicated that Christians should have lifes that lead by example or qualities one might want to emulate.
I kind of wrote that last paragraph to Bramble of my previous post with some of your comments in mind also.
usaid: Sky, even your New Testament speaks of the unbelievers who do that which is right, while the believers do not. I can't remember the exact verse and wording - if you'd like I'll find it for you. But the point is, don't be so sure that your Wicans can't have as many reedmable qualities as your bible believing Christians. Even your Bible says that isn't so.
Yeah, and in your first sentence, I think you and I discussed that before. My particular take on Christianity is that the cross of Jesus is the power of God , so I like to keep it close to me. It certainly is disturbing to me Abigail, if in fact people say that Christians don't have any higher moral charachter than say anyone else. (Because it certianly isnt what the Bible has in mind) I mean its even more disturbing if when they say that, if it is true. Which is why if it is true, we could be seeing some of the things like Romans 11:17-26 where all Israel is saved. While I find it disturbing, it certainly isnt surprising. I mean Jesus himself said that "for as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the son of man be. " Matt; 24:37 Ie(people will be behaving like they did in Noah's day)
HEY ABIGAIL not to change the subject but I was thinking about people of Jewish faith in relation to the Calvin thread and wanted to make one point to you. I mean Jewish Rabbis? They would absolutely shred Calvin and I want to tell you why. Let's see God gave Israel over a 1,000 laws, statutes and ordinances and Calvin comes along and gives everyone an UNCONDITIONAL PASS OF ELECTION. Jewish Rabbis? They are going to think that is hilarious. Remember when I told you I thought that all the old test stuff really boils down to just a handful of simple concepts. At least to me Abi, that makes sense.
Gee Abi, I thought you read everything I posted. Just kidding. :)
I already mentioned to sky about the parable of the Good Samaritan -- if that is what you were thinking of.
Most of them, but I miss one now and again. Actually I was thinking of something from the Epistles. Something about when the Gentiles do by nature that which is good . . .
Yeah, and in your first sentence, I think you and I discussed that before. My particular take on Christianity is that the cross of Jesus is the power of God , so I like to keep it close to me. It certainly is disturbing to me Abigail, if in fact people say that Christians don't have any higher moral charachter than say anyone else. (Because it certianly isnt what the Bible has in mind) I mean its even more disturbing if when they say that, if it is true. Which is why if it is true, we could be seeing some of the things like Romans 11:17-26 where all Israel is saved. While I find it disturbing, it certainly isnt surprising. I mean Jesus himself said that "for as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the son of man be. " Matt; 24:37 Ie(people will be behaving like they did in Noah's day)
Well I guess first you have to define Christian, because even most Christians don't seem to agree on a definition for that word. But yeah, I think there are really great people in all walks of life and there are really bad people in all walks of life. So I'd have to say there are definitly Christians who do not have a higher moral charcter than some Wiccans, Jews, Athiests, Muslems, etc. etc.
Branding yourself with a particular label does not make you of higher moral character. Nor does it make you of a lower moral character. How you live your life does that. I think that is a lot of what Jesus taught on!!
HEY ABIGAIL[ not to change the subject but I was thinking about people of Jewish faith in relation to the Calvin thread and wanted to make one point to you. I mean Jewish Rabbis? They would absolutely shred Calvin and I want to tell you why. Let's see God gave Israel over a 1,000 laws, statutes and ordinances and Calvin comes along and gives everyone an UNCONDITIONAL PASS OF ELECTION. Jewish Rabbis? They are going to think that is hilarious. Remember when I told you I thought that all the old test stuff really boils down to just a handful of simple concepts. At least to me Abi, that makes sense.
Hey sorry if you read this earlier it was Romans 11 (not 10 but I edited it)
Well Sky, if you ask two Rabb's a question, you are bound to get three or four answers. Of course, the Jewish people make no pretense of being in agreement on any one topic - lol lol.
But, I don't think the Rabbis would get to up in arms about Calvin. First, most don't believe in the NT at all, so in a sense, anyone who claims that just because they believe in Jesus gives them any kinda pass or gives them any kind of moral high ground - well it isn't going to fly.
The Jewish people, though, they don't think everyone has to follow all of the laws. Judaism teaches that the Jewish people are supposed to follow the laws. The Gentiles are only bound to the Noahic laws because their anscestors never made a committment to the rest of the laws.
The Noahic laws are: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal.
And really, when you get right down to it, those same seven laws plus the 10 commandments are the basis for the 613 Jewish laws, which by and large exist to make sure the other 17 don't accidently get broken. :)
Garth: Its probably a good idea you didnt respond to my other post to you. I really dont much feel like whipping out my Dawkins and Darwin stuff.
Sky4it,
**Ding Ding Ding** Give that man a kewpie doll! Correct answer! :)
One thing that Geneva was NOT under Calvin. And that was permissive. Not by a _long_ shot! :ph34r:
Haven't met too many Wiccans now, have you?
Look Garth, I know that there are people they call Evolutionary Creationists (See I get out) When I mention athiests or evolutionists, I never get to excited about the terminology. I mean if there is a Christian Evolutionary Creationists in the bag I grab, well when you squeeze the bag they just kinda pop out of there anyway. LMAO Thats right Garth, I get out.
yeah I aware that the 16th century Calvinist was a little different than todays, I was speaking more in the current day one I identified.
Well I met a whole slew of new agers one time at a lake. I am sure there must of been a Wicca in there someplace. There was actually this one chick, standing on a dock on one foot flapping her arms with her eyes closed. (I think she was meditating) ( I kid you not) Thumbed through some of there books at Barnes and Noble. Certainly didnt look like healthy stuff to me.
Abigail, I'll post back to you tomorrow, its late.
Look Garth, I know that there are people they call Evolutionary Creationists (See I get out) When I mention athiests or evolutionists, I never get to excited about the terminology. I mean if there is a Christian Evolutionary Creationists in the bag I grab, well when you squeeze the bag they just kinda pop out of there anyway. LMAO Thats right Garth, I get out.
Dude, this makes the (I think) 3rd time that you responded to me on a question/remark I did NOT make. A suggestion: Keep track of not only what you respond to, but _who_. Ok?
Garth: Its probably a good idea you didnt respond to my other post to you. I really dont much feel like whipping out my Dawkins and Darwin stuff.
I must have either forgot to respond to that other post, or I didn't feel it neccessary to. In any event, you might find Dawkins material difficult to understand, but, on the contrary, I find it quite plain and clear what he means. Perhaps its because you view him to 'insult your God' that clouds the issue for you. ... Face it my friend, apparently atheist's writings and material are a sore spot for you. Another suggestion if I may: Learn to deal with it, 'cause we aren't going to go away.
So knock yourself out in 'pulling out your Dawkins and Darwin stuff'.
P.S., I don't think that there are 'Evolutionary Creationists'. You must have your terms mixed up. And what does "See I get out" mean?
There are those Christian 101 doctrines that brand everyone not a Christian(or not the right kind of Christian) as inherently evil and inferior...and since the believers of that doctrine do not associate with those people, it is easy to believe that they are inferior etc.
To each his own. In my view, that is a fundamentally flawed doctrine that leads to bad things in society.
Fairly accurate information on other religions can be found on the internet.
I was responding to your comment on my garden variety athiest, and someone had mentioned that evolutionists and athiests are not always the same. Thanks to wordwolf for clearing up that, because I know there is a group that reconcile creation and evolution, and thats what they call em. I shall try to pick up the S/N better from now on. Other than that priniciple, most athiests are evolutionists. There may be a few athiests that believe in the bear flatulence theory or cosmic explosions, but not many.
Garth usaid: I must have either forgot to respond to that other post, or I didn't feel it neccessary to. In any event, you might find Dawkins material difficult to understand, but, on the contrary, I find it quite plain and clear what he means. Perhaps its because you view him to 'insult your God' that clouds the issue for you. ... Face it my friend, apparently atheist's writings and material are a sore spot for you. Another suggestion if I may: Learn to deal with it, 'cause we aren't going to go away.
I don't find Dawkins difficult. He is uneccesarily verbose. I wouldn't say the writings are a sore spot for me, I would say that I feel sorry for those that believe them. I reckon they are not going to go away too Garth. Discoveries about the planet Jupiter, have certainly alarmed athiests in recent days however.
Dawkins concept of "cummulative selection" is illogical in the way that he derived it and makes no sense. It is a faulty arguement. It is in the book the Blind Watchmaker. If you have the book I could show you why.
Speaking of racism, there is more racism in Charles Darwin's book Descent of Man than any person could possibly pull out of the Little Rascals because some people overused and misused the names from those characters. I am somewhat surprised that Darwin's books have been able to survive considering the terminology and things he says in that book.
Several things in your latest post I'd like to address:
Discoveries about the planet Jupiter, have certainly alarmed athiests in recent days however.
Funny, as I haven't heard about said discoveries about Jupiter that should alarm the atheists. So those would be ... ?
I don't find Dawkins difficult. He is uneccesarily verbose.
Yeah well, so are a lot of other people. Which is a non-issue really.
Dawkins concept of "cummulative selection" is illogical in the way that he derived it and makes no sense. It is a faulty arguement. It is in the book the Blind Watchmaker. If you have the book I could show you why.
I'll make it a point to look thru that book, and see what you are referring to.
Speaking of racism, there is more racism in Charles Darwin's book Descent of Man than any person could possibly pull out of the Little Rascals because some people overused and misused the names from those characters. I am somewhat surprised that Darwin's books have been able to survive considering the terminology and things he says in that book.
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.
Jupiter, acts as a shield from meteors and astroids which protect the earth from these things. In addition, the exact placement of Jupiter, acts as a gravitational pull to keep earth in place. Thus evolutionary arguments which say life could arise out of a 1 out of trillion/trillion zillion computations, are now facing long shot odds that cannot be computed because of Jupiters status. :)
Regarding Racism and Evolution:
1) You might want to read Richard Wiekerts book, from Darwin to Hitler.
2) The ideology of Darwin, places race in different classes. I mean look up Darwin's pal Ernst Haeckel's Drawings, Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte, where he depicts 6 human species and 6 simians, where he places what he (Haeckel) thinks is the lowest human class next to the simians. Of course, Haekel, places Caucasians at the top of the chart! (Did he mean something by this???) The quack Haeckel, also faked embryonic drawings to prove his Darwin pal's theory. This is how evolution got it's start as a "science."
3) The biggest mass murders of the 20th Century were all were Darwinian thinkers. Communists (and athiest) Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and Nazi Germany (despite what Dawkins says). (Oh yeah, Jeffery Dalmer was an evolutionist too) Was Stalin a racist? Maybe we should ask some ethnic groups of non-causian status that he almost wiped out.
4) Ok I will give you a couple of quotes by Darwin in Descent of Man:
Chapter "On the Races"
a) Page 146 my book : Quote by Darwin, " The inferior vitality of mulattoes, is spoken of in a trustworthy work, as a well known phenomenon; and this although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races"
Dawin just said at least these two things:
I)Darwin said that marriage (Darwin calls it interbreeding) of blacks and whites creates a subject of "inferior vitality" This is racism by Darwin.
II) Darwin also attributed to them "lessened fertitlity" This is racism by Darwin.
Here is another racist comment by Darwin same book in the chapter of "On the Affinities and Geneologies of Man.
a) page 134 of my book
Quote by Darwin" At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world......... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be made wider, for it will intervene between man and a more civilized state, as we may hope, even then the Caucasions (Darwins just said that Caucasions are more civilized as he does in all his writings) instead of, as now, beween the negro, or Australian and the gorilla." End Quote by Charles Darwin
When Dawin talks about the Australian he is talking about Aborigines. Darwin puts them and blacks in the class of the ?. It's so blantantly racist I dont even want to say it.
I got more Garth too if you want. These comments by Darwin are racist.
Abigail: sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, they are playing football today.
u said: Branding yourself with a particular label does not make you of higher moral character. Nor does it make you of a lower moral character. How you live your life does that. I think that is a lot of what Jesus taught on!!
Maybe I can copyright that statement send it to all the churches and things will get better? I think that you summed up my thoughts precisely on the topic, in a way that only you could. Thanks
U said: But, I don't think the Rabbis would get to up in arms about Calvin. First, most don't believe in the NT at all, so in a sense, anyone who claims that just because they believe in Jesus gives them any kinda pass or gives them any kind of moral high ground - well it isn't going to fly.
Darn! Well at least if they read it and Calvin, I do think they might laugh a little.
Usaid: The Jewish people, though, they don't think everyone has to follow all of the laws. Judaism teaches that the Jewish people are supposed to follow the laws. The Gentiles are only bound to the Noahic laws because their anscestors never made a committment to the rest of the laws.
The Noahic laws are: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal.
And really, when you get right down to it, those same seven laws plus the 10 commandments are the basis for the 613 Jewish laws, which by and large exist to make sure the other 17 don't accidently get broken.
Thanks for telling me that. I did not know that. My take is some of the old testament law was done away in NT thinking because it isnt well understood. Like "not bearing false witness" which brings conotations that some one doesnt just do it but bears it around. Only 613? I thought someone told me there were over a 1,000.
Anyway I thought I would tell you a story of mine with a synagogue. When my daughter was 5 she had cancer (Luikiemia) She is cured and doing fine today. The oncologist was a Jewish guy, one of the best people I have ever met, a real fine man. One day I was sitting in the lobby, and I thought to ask him a question. I was thinking to myself, maybe people in the Synagogue actually believe in Jesus but why should they tell anyone? So I asked him. He told me that if you want to get an answer on that, you need to go talk to a Rabbi and ask them three times. So I went to the synagogue and met a young woman who was a Jewish Rabbi and asked her if it was possible they believed in Jesus. She told me no, they don't because the lion has not laid down with the lamb yet. The next time I saw the oncologist doctor, he told me , you know maybe you should check out a UU church. Anyway I thought you might find that story amusing.
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.
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
I think it does. Dawin refers to "savages" and the "civilized" I mean who do you think Darwin was referring to when he was talking about savages? He also talks about cranial sizes of people. You think that Richard Weikert's book is hocu pocus? Have you read it or do you have as much knowledge about that as I do about Wicans? You dont think the Darwin statements I quoted are racist? oh ok they have cleaned up there act, well I guess thats good.
u said: 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.
But thats not my assumption Garth. My assumption is that in the absence of a true God society, where people have the right to practice there faith, this leads individuals to conduct they would not otherwise ascribe too.
U said: ... So Adolph Hitler implemented evolutionary concepts into his philosophy of Nazism. So the theory of evolution should take the rap for that?
In fact, evolutionary athiesm was the ideology that caused it. (Even if you say well they misinterpeted Darwin.) I mean does the Bible get a break for the Christian Crusades? If you dont want to believe Weikert, look at some of the historical facts. ( I dont stink at history that much) Fritz Krupp a known millionaire(industrialist) (Fritz Krupp was accused by newspapers in 1902 for homosexual and pedophile crimes ) (see the book Hitlers Scientists) , funded large populations of the biological sciences in Germany. As an amatuer biologist he was involved with scientists who "expounded hierarchical evolution in populations." The German scientific rendering of Darwin became Germany" "Racial Hygiene" ideology. They were in fact putting Darwin into practice. I am not saying Garth THATS THATS WHAT EVERYONE IS DOING TO DAY. This is however what the Germans did and yes, Darwin's hat should take some of the rap for that.
u said: Weikart's material is also flawed
I think its pretty solid, and he doesn't make shaky arguements.
u said: 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.
Well, I am not horribly desperate to defend my faith, as you suggest. In fact, I only mentioned it too you because I thought you might like it. I will however take your suggestion and NOT MENTION IT AGAIN. You said,"thus your material is irrelevent., Well I suppose I could draw two points on a peice of paper and start to connect the dots but err uh egads but I don't want to err uh oops insult you either so never mind.
BTW Garth, you said: 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,
At least do one thing for me, and not tell me its not a straw man argument, which I think is absurd. Darwin has a whole chapter on races and many quotes which at least today would be considered racist. I mean I think you owe me at least a apology/take back on that one. Why? Because you said it yourself when you said "Darwin had flawed theories in his evolutionary reasoning" I suppose i have to accept that, but why does Darwin get an easy out and and have to have apologists?
Jupiter, acts as a shield from meteors and astroids which protect the earth from these things. In addition, the exact placement of Jupiter, acts as a gravitational pull to keep earth in place. Thus evolutionary arguments which say life could arise out of a 1 out of trillion computation, are not facing long shot odds that cannot be computed because of Jupiters status. :)
Please supply the wacky sourse you got this from.
FYI, There are meoteor showers that happen in our atmosphere every year and then random meteors light up the sky across the planet all the time.
And there is something called aN asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. This is where the majority of the asteroids in our solar system reside. For the solar-systemically challenged that would put the majority of the astroids closer to earth than Jupiter is.
I cant remember where I read it, after this weekend I don't know if I wanna go look for it either. Actually, I think I saw it on television by a scientist doing an interview on a show. I do not remember his name.
BTW Lindy what difffence does it make? Everything I cite or say on the topic, all of my stuff is "your material is irrelevent." Maybe we should go get Richard Dawkins and see if he can walk on water or part the Red Sea, instead of him explaining how a seal got out of the ocean developed paws and became a bear.
I think it does. Dawin refers to "savages" and the "civilized" I mean who do you think Darwin was referring to when he was talking about savages? He also talks about cranial sizes of people.
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.
My assumption is that in the absence of a true God society, where people have the right to practice there faith, this leads individuals to conduct they would not otherwise ascribe too.
And you are correct, .... in that it is your _a_s_sumption_. ;)
Well I suppose I could draw two points on a peice of paper and start to connect the dots but err uh egads but I don't want to err uh oops insult you either so never mind.
((Garth looks at Sky4it's peice of paper:
. .
Nope, no line. No connection. Sorry!
U said: ... So Adolph Hitler implemented evolutionary concepts into his philosophy of Nazism. So the theory of evolution should take the rap for that?
In fact, evolutionary athiesm was the ideology that caused it. ... They were in fact putting Darwin into practice. ... This is however what the Germans did and yes, Darwin's hat should take some of the rap for that.
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) )
At least do one thing for me, and not tell me its not a straw man argument, which I think is absurd. Darwin has a whole chapter on races and many quotes which at least today would be considered racist. I mean I think you owe me at least a apology/take back on that one. Why? Because you said it yourself when you said "Darwin had flawed theories in his evolutionary reasoning" I suppose i have to accept that, but why does Darwin get an easy out and and have to have apologists?
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!
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
47
26
11
16
Popular Days
Sep 8
52
Sep 9
21
Sep 10
18
Sep 14
10
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 47 posts
GarthP2000 26 posts
Bramble 11 posts
Larry N Moore 16 posts
Popular Days
Sep 8 2007
52 posts
Sep 9 2007
21 posts
Sep 10 2007
18 posts
Sep 14 2007
10 posts
Larry N Moore
Gee Abi, I thought you read everything I posted. Just kidding. :)
I already mentioned to sky about the parable of the Good Samaritan -- if that is what you were thinking of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Yeah and thats a tragedy too Bramble. What your saying isn't all together without merit. I can say that I have met some Christians in my life, that are terrific examples. Of course, i have seen church goers of which you speak that aren't. I suppose a good example is one of my son's friends dad who recently went to jail for abusing young girls. He was a church goer but , I am not sure that that in particular is a reflection on those of faith. I mean there have been other Republicans who are bible talkers who have had there lives exposed too in recent years. I suppose one has to look on in on a case by case basis. As a general rule this stuff shouldnt be happening and its certainly doesn't reflect on what the Bible tells people to do.
Not surprisingly the same was said in the First century about those of Jewish faith by the Apostle Paul. That there character didnt measure up and Paul said , "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles. Romans 2:24 Of course if it is as bad as you indictate, Ie(there is no difference) then in all likihood I dont think we would be far away from the events described in Romans 11: 17-26, wherein as it says in verse 26 "and so shall all Israel be saved" Still, Jesus described the last days as very much like they are today and told us "He that shall endure to the end the same shall be saved. Matt:24:13
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail:
Nice to see you stop in and post here in the basement.
Thanks
Abigail: Or perhaps you need to define "redeeming qualities"?
Yeah I am not sure that, that was the word I was looking for, I guess I was shooting for something that indicated that Christians should have lifes that lead by example or qualities one might want to emulate.
I kind of wrote that last paragraph to Bramble of my previous post with some of your comments in mind also.
usaid: Sky, even your New Testament speaks of the unbelievers who do that which is right, while the believers do not. I can't remember the exact verse and wording - if you'd like I'll find it for you. But the point is, don't be so sure that your Wicans can't have as many reedmable qualities as your bible believing Christians. Even your Bible says that isn't so.
Yeah, and in your first sentence, I think you and I discussed that before. My particular take on Christianity is that the cross of Jesus is the power of God , so I like to keep it close to me. It certainly is disturbing to me Abigail, if in fact people say that Christians don't have any higher moral charachter than say anyone else. (Because it certianly isnt what the Bible has in mind) I mean its even more disturbing if when they say that, if it is true. Which is why if it is true, we could be seeing some of the things like Romans 11:17-26 where all Israel is saved. While I find it disturbing, it certainly isnt surprising. I mean Jesus himself said that "for as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the son of man be. " Matt; 24:37 Ie(people will be behaving like they did in Noah's day)
HEY ABIGAIL not to change the subject but I was thinking about people of Jewish faith in relation to the Calvin thread and wanted to make one point to you. I mean Jewish Rabbis? They would absolutely shred Calvin and I want to tell you why. Let's see God gave Israel over a 1,000 laws, statutes and ordinances and Calvin comes along and gives everyone an UNCONDITIONAL PASS OF ELECTION. Jewish Rabbis? They are going to think that is hilarious. Remember when I told you I thought that all the old test stuff really boils down to just a handful of simple concepts. At least to me Abi, that makes sense.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Most of them, but I miss one now and again. Actually I was thinking of something from the Epistles. Something about when the Gentiles do by nature that which is good . . .
maybe I'll have to dig a NT out and find it. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Larry N Moore
Yep. You're right. Now that you mention it I remember that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abi: I think Romans 2:14-15 was the one you were talking about.
say i had to edit my last message it was Roman 11 I was talking abt, later abi
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
**Ding Ding Ding** Give that man a kewpie doll! Correct answer! :)One thing that Geneva was NOT under Calvin. And that was permissive. Not by a _long_ shot! :ph34r:
Haven't met too many Wiccans now, have you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth: Its probably a good idea you didnt respond to my other post to you. I really dont much feel like whipping out my Dawkins and Darwin stuff.
Look Garth, I know that there are people they call Evolutionary Creationists (See I get out) When I mention athiests or evolutionists, I never get to excited about the terminology. I mean if there is a Christian Evolutionary Creationists in the bag I grab, well when you squeeze the bag they just kinda pop out of there anyway. LMAO Thats right Garth, I get out.
yeah I aware that the 16th century Calvinist was a little different than todays, I was speaking more in the current day one I identified.
Well I met a whole slew of new agers one time at a lake. I am sure there must of been a Wicca in there someplace. There was actually this one chick, standing on a dock on one foot flapping her arms with her eyes closed. (I think she was meditating) ( I kid you not) Thumbed through some of there books at Barnes and Noble. Certainly didnt look like healthy stuff to me.
Abigail, I'll post back to you tomorrow, its late.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Sky4it,
Dude, this makes the (I think) 3rd time that you responded to me on a question/remark I did NOT make.I must have either forgot to respond to that other post, or I didn't feel it neccessary to. In any event, you might find Dawkins material difficult to understand, but, on the contrary, I find it quite plain and clear what he means. Perhaps its because you view him to 'insult your God' that clouds the issue for you. ... Face it my friend, apparently atheist's writings and material are a sore spot for you. Another suggestion if I may: Learn to deal with it, 'cause we aren't going to go away.
So knock yourself out in 'pulling out your Dawkins and Darwin stuff'.
P.S., I don't think that there are 'Evolutionary Creationists'. You must have your terms mixed up. And what does "See I get out" mean?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I think that those who say that God Almighty was the "first cause" that started a process of evolution that began the process
that resulted in us being here today could sensibly referred to as "Evolutionary Creationists."
They'd believe there's have been no creation without God, nor anything TO evolve, and without God, there'd be no
evolutionary process at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Wolf,
You are right. I stand corrected. It's just that I've never heard that specific term before.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
There are those Christian 101 doctrines that brand everyone not a Christian(or not the right kind of Christian) as inherently evil and inferior...and since the believers of that doctrine do not associate with those people, it is easy to believe that they are inferior etc.
To each his own. In my view, that is a fundamentally flawed doctrine that leads to bad things in society.
Fairly accurate information on other religions can be found on the internet.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth:
I was responding to your comment on my garden variety athiest, and someone had mentioned that evolutionists and athiests are not always the same. Thanks to wordwolf for clearing up that, because I know there is a group that reconcile creation and evolution, and thats what they call em. I shall try to pick up the S/N better from now on. Other than that priniciple, most athiests are evolutionists. There may be a few athiests that believe in the bear flatulence theory or cosmic explosions, but not many.
Garth usaid: I must have either forgot to respond to that other post, or I didn't feel it neccessary to. In any event, you might find Dawkins material difficult to understand, but, on the contrary, I find it quite plain and clear what he means. Perhaps its because you view him to 'insult your God' that clouds the issue for you. ... Face it my friend, apparently atheist's writings and material are a sore spot for you. Another suggestion if I may: Learn to deal with it, 'cause we aren't going to go away.
I don't find Dawkins difficult. He is uneccesarily verbose. I wouldn't say the writings are a sore spot for me, I would say that I feel sorry for those that believe them. I reckon they are not going to go away too Garth. Discoveries about the planet Jupiter, have certainly alarmed athiests in recent days however.
Dawkins concept of "cummulative selection" is illogical in the way that he derived it and makes no sense. It is a faulty arguement. It is in the book the Blind Watchmaker. If you have the book I could show you why.
Speaking of racism, there is more racism in Charles Darwin's book Descent of Man than any person could possibly pull out of the Little Rascals because some people overused and misused the names from those characters. I am somewhat surprised that Darwin's books have been able to survive considering the terminology and things he says in that book.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth:
Jupiter, acts as a shield from meteors and astroids which protect the earth from these things. In addition, the exact placement of Jupiter, acts as a gravitational pull to keep earth in place. Thus evolutionary arguments which say life could arise out of a 1 out of trillion/trillion zillion computations, are now facing long shot odds that cannot be computed because of Jupiters status. :)
Regarding Racism and Evolution:
1) You might want to read Richard Wiekerts book, from Darwin to Hitler.
2) The ideology of Darwin, places race in different classes. I mean look up Darwin's pal Ernst Haeckel's Drawings, Naturliche Schopfungsgeschichte, where he depicts 6 human species and 6 simians, where he places what he (Haeckel) thinks is the lowest human class next to the simians. Of course, Haekel, places Caucasians at the top of the chart! (Did he mean something by this???) The quack Haeckel, also faked embryonic drawings to prove his Darwin pal's theory. This is how evolution got it's start as a "science."
3) The biggest mass murders of the 20th Century were all were Darwinian thinkers. Communists (and athiest) Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot and Nazi Germany (despite what Dawkins says). (Oh yeah, Jeffery Dalmer was an evolutionist too) Was Stalin a racist? Maybe we should ask some ethnic groups of non-causian status that he almost wiped out.
4) Ok I will give you a couple of quotes by Darwin in Descent of Man:
Chapter "On the Races"
a) Page 146 my book : Quote by Darwin, " The inferior vitality of mulattoes, is spoken of in a trustworthy work, as a well known phenomenon; and this although a different consideration from their lessened fertility, may perhaps be advanced as a proof of the specific distinctness of the parent races"
Dawin just said at least these two things:
I)Darwin said that marriage (Darwin calls it interbreeding) of blacks and whites creates a subject of "inferior vitality" This is racism by Darwin.
II) Darwin also attributed to them "lessened fertitlity" This is racism by Darwin.
Here is another racist comment by Darwin same book in the chapter of "On the Affinities and Geneologies of Man.
a) page 134 of my book
Quote by Darwin" At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world......... The break between man and his nearest allies will then be made wider, for it will intervene between man and a more civilized state, as we may hope, even then the Caucasions (Darwins just said that Caucasions are more civilized as he does in all his writings) instead of, as now, beween the negro, or Australian and the gorilla." End Quote by Charles Darwin
When Dawin talks about the Australian he is talking about Aborigines. Darwin puts them and blacks in the class of the ?. It's so blantantly racist I dont even want to say it.
I got more Garth too if you want. These comments by Darwin are racist.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Abigail and Garth:
Garth see above post.
Abigail: sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, they are playing football today.
u said: Branding yourself with a particular label does not make you of higher moral character. Nor does it make you of a lower moral character. How you live your life does that. I think that is a lot of what Jesus taught on!!
Maybe I can copyright that statement send it to all the churches and things will get better? I think that you summed up my thoughts precisely on the topic, in a way that only you could.
Thanks
U said: But, I don't think the Rabbis would get to up in arms about Calvin. First, most don't believe in the NT at all, so in a sense, anyone who claims that just because they believe in Jesus gives them any kinda pass or gives them any kind of moral high ground - well it isn't going to fly.
Darn! Well at least if they read it and Calvin, I do think they might laugh a little.
Usaid: The Jewish people, though, they don't think everyone has to follow all of the laws. Judaism teaches that the Jewish people are supposed to follow the laws. The Gentiles are only bound to the Noahic laws because their anscestors never made a committment to the rest of the laws.
The Noahic laws are: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal.
And really, when you get right down to it, those same seven laws plus the 10 commandments are the basis for the 613 Jewish laws, which by and large exist to make sure the other 17 don't accidently get broken.
Thanks for telling me that. I did not know that. My take is some of the old testament law was done away in NT thinking because it isnt well understood. Like "not bearing false witness" which brings conotations that some one doesnt just do it but bears it around. Only 613? I thought someone told me there were over a 1,000.
Anyway I thought I would tell you a story of mine with a synagogue. When my daughter was 5 she had cancer (Luikiemia) She is cured and doing fine today. The oncologist was a Jewish guy, one of the best people I have ever met, a real fine man. One day I was sitting in the lobby, and I thought to ask him a question. I was thinking to myself, maybe people in the Synagogue actually believe in Jesus but why should they tell anyone? So I asked him. He told me that if you want to get an answer on that, you need to go talk to a Rabbi and ask them three times. So I went to the synagogue and met a young woman who was a Jewish Rabbi and asked her if it was possible they believed in Jesus. She told me no, they don't because the lion has not laid down with the lamb yet. The next time I saw the oncologist doctor, he told me , you know maybe you should check out a UU church. Anyway I thought you might find that story amusing.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Garth:
U said:
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
I think it does. Dawin refers to "savages" and the "civilized" I mean who do you think Darwin was referring to when he was talking about savages? He also talks about cranial sizes of people. You think that Richard Weikert's book is hocu pocus? Have you read it or do you have as much knowledge about that as I do about Wicans? You dont think the Darwin statements I quoted are racist? oh ok they have cleaned up there act, well I guess thats good.
u said: 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.
But thats not my assumption Garth. My assumption is that in the absence of a true God society, where people have the right to practice there faith, this leads individuals to conduct they would not otherwise ascribe too.
U said: ... So Adolph Hitler implemented evolutionary concepts into his philosophy of Nazism. So the theory of evolution should take the rap for that?
In fact, evolutionary athiesm was the ideology that caused it. (Even if you say well they misinterpeted Darwin.) I mean does the Bible get a break for the Christian Crusades? If you dont want to believe Weikert, look at some of the historical facts. ( I dont stink at history that much) Fritz Krupp a known millionaire(industrialist) (Fritz Krupp was accused by newspapers in 1902 for homosexual and pedophile crimes ) (see the book Hitlers Scientists) , funded large populations of the biological sciences in Germany. As an amatuer biologist he was involved with scientists who "expounded hierarchical evolution in populations." The German scientific rendering of Darwin became Germany" "Racial Hygiene" ideology. They were in fact putting Darwin into practice. I am not saying Garth THATS THATS WHAT EVERYONE IS DOING TO DAY. This is however what the Germans did and yes, Darwin's hat should take some of the rap for that.
u said: Weikart's material is also flawed
I think its pretty solid, and he doesn't make shaky arguements.
u said: 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.
Well, I am not horribly desperate to defend my faith, as you suggest. In fact, I only mentioned it too you because I thought you might like it. I will however take your suggestion and NOT MENTION IT AGAIN. You said,"thus your material is irrelevent., Well I suppose I could draw two points on a peice of paper and start to connect the dots but err uh egads but I don't want to err uh oops insult you either so never mind.
BTW Garth, you said: 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,
At least do one thing for me, and not tell me its not a straw man argument, which I think is absurd. Darwin has a whole chapter on races and many quotes which at least today would be considered racist. I mean I think you owe me at least a apology/take back on that one. Why? Because you said it yourself when you said "Darwin had flawed theories in his evolutionary reasoning" I suppose i have to accept that, but why does Darwin get an easy out and and have to have apologists?
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Please supply the wacky sourse you got this from.
FYI, There are meoteor showers that happen in our atmosphere every year and then random meteors light up the sky across the planet all the time.
And there is something called aN asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. This is where the majority of the asteroids in our solar system reside. For the solar-systemically challenged that would put the majority of the astroids closer to earth than Jupiter is.
Heck of a job there Jupiter.
You're fired!
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Lindy:
I cant remember where I read it, after this weekend I don't know if I wanna go look for it either.
Actually, I think I saw it on television by a scientist doing an interview on a show. I do not remember his name.
BTW Lindy what difffence does it make? Everything I cite or say on the topic, all of my stuff is "your material is irrelevent." Maybe we should go get Richard Dawkins and see if he can walk on water or part the Red Sea, instead of him explaining how a seal got out of the ocean developed paws and became a bear.
Edited by sky4itLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
googled Jupiter meteor shield:
1st hit: http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2443.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Lindy Garth see above;
Thanks Bramble, looks like somebody is challenging what I heard , anyway I appreciate it. But at least it proves the point that I did hear it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
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!
Edited by GarthP2000Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.