Posted on 03/22/2012 7:44:32 AM PDT by Moseley
” How to escape? By turning time back upon itself. By uncreating history/reality/mankind(Darwinism),...”
Spirited: I negelected to add that modern theories of evolution, i.e. Darwinism, assault time in a different way. They place time on an eternal escalator going ‘up, up, up.’
This way there can be neither stabilty nor tradition, let alone fixed truth-claims, moral absolutes, enduring principles, and natural law as there is only change-—change everlasting.
And what becomes of Jesus Christ, for imperial change bypasses Him as well?
I think it doesn’t even approach being worthless. This article is conjecture about what bothered her about the peacock discussion.
It is not about the behavior of the young lady.
So, the author’s theory is that the girl hated the notion that some are labeled inferior and that she might just be one of them. He used the classroom disturbance to launch a discussion of evolution’s teaching that some are superior and some are inferior.
It’s a reasonable discussion whether or not his theory about her behavior proves to be accurate. Her behavior was simply a launching pad for the discussion.
As far as the woman being treated scornfully, I don't think that has anything to do with the fact that she disageed with ToE, but with her means of expressing it. We have our disagreements, but if either of us expressed them in the manner and terms this woman did in the classroom I think we'd be justifiably banned/suspended and given a well deserved pounding by the forum membership for it.
You said, in answer to if you could teach the scientific principles of evolution (you JUST SAID you accepted evolution) without making a “Darwinist” argument - you said you could - and it would be Genesis 1 and 2.
So will you stop torturing ME with nonsense?
And yes, any actual explanation of evolution, it is obvious to you - is a “Darwinist” explanation - unless it is strictly limited to Genesis 1 and 2 - thus no scientific argument at all.
Apparently you also think the rational response to being presented with a scientific principle is to rant and rave and make death threats. She made them directly - usually they are the death threat of eternal death - i.e. if one accepts evolution (as a scientific principle to those of you in Rio Linda) they are going to hell.
People who are mates are not as genetically distinct as two strangers.
A rat raised with a mother given a lemon scent will respond better to a female with lemon scent.
This is not conjecture - it is fact - fact which -as with most of what evolutionary theory actually is - you are completely ignorant of.
It is most likely that she heard arguments like yours which made her both ignorant and crazy when the subject of evolution was being taught in a class she signed up for.
Actual scientific arguments about human evolution would have taught her that black skin is a beneficial adaptation for equatorial climates, and that there are plenty of men out there that are going to like black women, and that on an evolutionary basis - blacks seem to be doing just fine. Lots of diversity, a growing population, and plenty of mates to select from that will appreciate her particular brand of beauty.
It is not about the behavior of the young lady.
Perhaps she took the "inferior" remark personally - perhaps there was a recent break-up and that word was used as a sword against her or blacks in general?
God created evolution.
Her behavior has nothing to do with the discussion.
It sounds like the men she was dating found someone else more agreeable and she's looking for someone to blame for that and you're willing to go along with it as long as she's blaming Darwin.
Her behaviour has everything to do with the comments made about her.
If you are a Christian, then why do you seem to have so much difficulty with "the creative Word of God?"
Here's an interesting article that can help you grasp that concept: The Six Dawns. I hope you will read it.
Though I wonder whether this information can penetrate your obsessive belief that if something isn't "scientific," then it has no value other than to the morons who live in Rio Linda, to which group you clearly assign me.
Thanksalot!
The discussion is about the darwinism’s consignment of human beings to inferiority.
The illustration kicking off that discussion is, as is every illustration, not the point.
I find no contradiction between God using evolution as his creative mechanism involving life, just as God uses gravity and nuclear fusion to create stars and our Sun.
Would Genesis 1 and 2 be a good explanation for how God creates stars?
It certainly isn't a good explanation for how life changes over time in response to changing environments.
So is a bacteria tuning in to the “creative Word of God” every time it adapts to changing circumstances? Isn't there also a corresponding change in DNA?
How could one describe that change in DNA without it being a “Darwinist” argument?
Do you think it is possible to describe how that DNA changes without it being a “Darwinist” argument?
There are historical precedents that could make her fearful that she might be regarded as "inferior" for instance, the three-fifths of a person language of the federal Constitution (finally corrected by the 13th & 14th amendments); or the eugenic character of Darwinist Margaret Sanger's ambitions with respect to preventing "inferior people" from breeding the original raison d'être of her organization, Planned Parenthood. It seems that Sanger regarded black people as an "inferior people": She was a racist as well as a eugenicist....
Oh, and did I mention that Sanger was a thorough-going Darwinist?
We don't know what actually set the young lady off. Though her reaction seems disproportionate, I wouldn't necessarily call it irrational.
Thank you so much for your observations, dearest sister in Christ!
There was nothing in the 3/5ths provision that would make one race inferior to another. It established that those who were in a condition of involuntary servitude are not having their full interests recognized by the elected representatives of their state.
Nothing in the 13th or 14th Amendment “corrected” the notion that an elected representative of a ‘slave State’ did not fully represent the interests of someone in a condition of involuntary servitude - the 13th corrected that someone COULD be held in a condition of involuntary servitude - and the 14th established equal protection under the law.
It is usually liberals who hate and wish to denigrate our Constitution who make the argument that it said a black was less than fully human - and that is both incorrect - and a reprehensible smear on our foundational document.
Disproportionate but not irrational? Really? Really? Did you or Moseley even actually watch the video?
If you do be forewarned because every other word she uses is the F bomb in between threatening to kill her fellow students and the teacher and wishing all you White Mother Fers would die.
Thats way more than disproportionate in my book.
I have a feeling I know what set her off and it had nothing to do with Darwin, Evolution, Sanger or eugenics. I highly doubt she could even spell eugenics live alone know what it is.
The Son of God is the creative Word of God Logos Alpha and Omega that is to say, from the Beginning to the End. Thus we have First Cause (the Beginning) and Final Cause (the Purpose for which the Beginning was made), and Immanent Cause in between.
The Creation is something that unfolds in space and time that is, it evolves from a beginning to an end. Intervening causes are constrained or "entailed" by the Final Cause, for which the Beginning was made. Immanent Cause basically refers to the intervening "guides to the system" that were loaded into the system (so to speak) in the Beginning by God's Creative Word.
This is the causal context of the Creation, or of the Universe if you prefer. It is the context within which science (and everything else) happens.
This does not mean that God has to directly step in to effect change in, say, DNA (your example).
You ask me if it is possible to describe how DNA changes without resort to a Darwinist argument. But why use a "Darwinist" argument for anything having to do with DNA? Charles Darwin never even heard of DNA....
Oh. And what would that be?
Of course it's not the point. It is an illustration of the point (that's why it's called an "illustration"). The point being made is that she hates evolution to the point of threating to kill people for talking about it. And you should, too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.