Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do you HATE Evolution? Black Student Throws a Fit in Florida Evolution Class
Cure Socialism ^ | March 22, 2012 | Jonathon Moseley

Posted on 03/22/2012 7:44:32 AM PDT by Moseley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-322 next last
To: tacticalogic
It's also possible somebody convinced her she should hate evolution because Darwin was a white guy.

Oh pul-eeze....

Talk about a "straw man argument!"

101 posted on 03/22/2012 4:11:12 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
Being attracted to a particular characteristic in a mate is ITSELF an evolutionarily-significant characteristic, which may tend to be passed to offspring.

Absolutely false. This is simply you ASSUMING THE CONCLUSION -- which is a fundamental error of evolutionists.

You assume that the selection of a mate has a purpose in terms in terms of the type of offspring that will result, and that use your assumption to try to justify your erroneous conclusion.

A human being can (usually does) choose a mate based on how that mate makes THEM feel, without the slightest interest in any factor (conciously or subconsiciously) affecting their offspring.

A woman may marry a man simply because he makes her laugh. You will then want to concoct some strained assumption that laughter has some evolutionary benefit. No, that is circular reasoning trying to assume the end point and then use that to get you from her to there. Marrying someone who makes you laugh may have NO value other than FEELING GOOD RIGHT NOW in the present, without any long-term benefit, intended or accidental. In fact, a man who makes a woman laugh may be impractical, lazy, distracted from getting work done, always focused on jokes instead of providing for his family, having fun while procrastinating, etc. In other words a BAD provider for the children.

Similarly, animals may "choose" a mate for no other reason than phsyical proximity. In Alaska there may be an owl in mating season. In Maine is an owl whose mating with the Alaska owl would produce an evolutionary superior result. However, the Alaska owl is going to "choose" the owl in the next tree over, NOT the preferable choice living in Maine. The "choice" may be nothing more than whatever animal recognizably of the same species is CLOSEST. In fact, I would dare say that this the case 90%+ of the time.

Ever try to get a cat to eat? One would think it would make sense for a cat to eat when there is food. It may always be the same food. But whether the cat eats or not may have nothing to do with SELECTING the food, but just whatever mood the cat is in. So "selecting" a mate may be nothing more than whichever cat of the opposite sex is nearby when the finicky cat gets in the right mood.

Especially for animals with large RANGING territories, the very idea of "selection" is a fallacy. Whatever specimen happens to be somewhere nearby when the mood strikes may be all the "selection" that is going on. Following the scents, there is more "selection" derived from whether the wind is blowing from the East or the wind is blowing from the West than any evolutionary characteristic.

And any evolutionary pressure that might still exist is wiped out, erased, and overwhelmed where there is a significant amount of randomness such as which way the wind blows.

So the assumption that any choice of mate serves an evolutionary function is simply ASSUMING evolution as true in order to try to prove evolution.
102 posted on 03/22/2012 4:16:01 PM PDT by Moseley (http://www.curesocialism.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Strawman you say? They’re teaching things like “Critical Race Theory”, and you’re telling me that it’s just not possible someone convinced her of that. Only your assumptions and your conclusions can possibly be valid.


103 posted on 03/22/2012 4:24:06 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What mechanism do you propose accomplishes evolution?

What evidence do you have that the teacher was doing anything OTHER THAN explaining the scientific principles behind a phenomena that you purportedly accept?

Would there be any way to teach the scientific principles of evolution without presenting a “Darwinist” argument?

Could you do so?

You don't think death threats are the least bit irrational in response to presentation of a theory you purport to accept?

104 posted on 03/22/2012 4:45:27 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; YHAOS; Moseley; spirited irish; metmom; exDemMom
They’re teaching things like “Critical Race Theory”, and you’re telling me that it’s just not possible someone convinced her of that.

To that, my riposte:

If she's bright enuf to understand what a swindle Darwinism is, then maybe she's bright enuf to understand what a swindle “Critical Race Theory” is.

Whatever the case, you do not know this young lady from a hole in the ground. And so I believe it is extremely ill-advised of you to impute motives to her.

But such a thing — if you do it — falls squarely into the "straw man argument" category.

Sorry. Try again. But please do not further abuse this young lady. It seems to me, she has far more common sense than you have.

105 posted on 03/22/2012 5:00:46 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
A woman may marry a man simply because he makes her laugh. You will then want to concoct some strained assumption that laughter has some evolutionary benefit. No, that is circular reasoning trying to assume the end point and then use that to get you from her to there. Marrying someone who makes you laugh may have NO value other than FEELING GOOD RIGHT NOW in the present, without any long-term benefit, intended or accidental. In fact, a man who makes a woman laugh may be impractical, lazy, distracted from getting work done, always focused on jokes instead of providing for his family, having fun while procrastinating, etc. In other words a BAD provider for the children.

Right. And if this was two hundred years ago, a woman selecting a bad provider just because he was funny would likely have resulted in her and her offspring starving to death. Today, not so much.

Natural selection only operates in an environment where non-optimum characteristics tend to result in death.

106 posted on 03/22/2012 5:04:27 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; YHAOS; Moseley; spirited irish; metmom; ...
Would there be any way to teach the scientific principles of evolution without presenting a “Darwinist” argument?.... Could you do so?

Certainly! I would simply refer you to Genesis 1 and 2.

These books do not purport to be "scientific" texts. But it seems to me that all of science — indeed, all of human rationality — is absolutely premised on them.

Whatever the case, read these texts — with an open mind and an open heart.

Maybe if you do, you will learn something new and valuable about cosmic and terrestrial evolution....

107 posted on 03/22/2012 5:06:03 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Whatever the case, you do not know this young lady from a hole in the ground. And so I believe it is extremely ill-advised of you to impute motives to her.

Seems you've already done as much to the instructor and everyone else in the class.

108 posted on 03/22/2012 5:21:15 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

That would be a big zero.

Genesis 1 and 2 is no more an instruction on the scientific principles of evolution than it is an instruction on the scientific principles of nuclear fusion.

What do you think the mechanism of this evolution you say you believe in is?

Is it natural selection of genetic variation?

Would explaining the mechanism you say you believe in be a Darwinist argument?


109 posted on 03/22/2012 8:57:05 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

I hope she was expelled from the college and charged with assault or whatever charges apply. No one there seemed very afraid; they were laughing at her. But, there should be consequences for that kind of behavior.


110 posted on 03/22/2012 8:58:35 PM PDT by Tired of Taxes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

Next....


111 posted on 03/22/2012 8:59:32 PM PDT by metmom ( For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Seems you've already done as much to the instructor and everyone else in the class.

Well, as to the instructor, it seems reasonable to infer that he was a Darwinist giving instruction to his "pupils" with regard to Darwinist theory. As for the rest of the class, I cannot characterize them. If they're students, however, they are probably at the mercy of the instructor....

All I know is that one person in that room objected to the "instruction": the young lady who has so far drawn a considerable amount of scorn on this thread.

But certainly not from me.

I don't have impute any motive to the young lady at all to simply recognize that she may have been the only person in the room at the time who was troubled by the instruction. And it seems to me she had good logical grounds on which to object....

FWIW.

112 posted on 03/22/2012 9:04:52 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: xzins
When arguing they are little different than a rock, then they also argue they can be crushed.

So very true, dear brother in Christ! Evidently they are not thinking clearly.

113 posted on 03/22/2012 9:06:02 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Truly, they are up to their eyeballs in "epistemic difficulties!"

But this problem rarely seems to catch the attention of Darwinists — and other professional atheists. Matter is king; random processes somehow cause matter to create "order" — but it's an order that cannot even be thought about really, since in Darwin's theory there is no (non-random) criterion by which the resulting order itself can be evaluated.

Indeed. Their reasoning gets twisted like a pretzel as they try to eliminate final cause (which suggests first cause) - without which it makes no sense to discuss purpose or function in nature. And of course biological systems are characterized by just that: purpose or function.

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

114 posted on 03/22/2012 9:12:19 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

‘Every woman alive is capable of behaving that way if she feels deeply threatened and rejected in the core of who she is.’

I beg to differ. I have NEVER known a woman that acted that way or ever would act that way. Ive known women that have been humiliated by their husbands and left alone to pick up the pieces but they handled themselves with dignity and respect.

A women that finds her self worth in others especially in men may act that way when rejected. A woman that finds her self worth in God would not.


115 posted on 03/22/2012 9:12:37 PM PDT by christianhomeschoolmommaof3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Genesis 1 and 2 is no more an instruction on the scientific principles of evolution than it is an instruction on the scientific principles of nuclear fusion.

Oh pul-eeze, allmendream, will you stop torturing me with nonense like this? I never said Genesis was an instruction manual on "scientific principles." My claim is that it gives us humans the very CONTEXT in which scientific principles can arise in the first place.

What do you think the mechanism of this evolution you say you believe in is?

I do not believe evolution involves any concept of "mechanism" whatsoever, at least not at the level of first principles. The creative Word of God is not a "mechanism."

Would explaining the mechanism you say you believe in be a Darwinist argument?

Obviously not — on the basis of my own statements, above.

116 posted on 03/22/2012 9:13:08 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
And yet what kind of a science can biology be, if it refuses to ask the most essential question that ostensibly belongs to a science of Life (biology = study of Life): What is Life itself?

Oh so very true.

It's quite easy to find publications in Biology cataloging what life looks like - but precious few that discuss what life "is", e.g. Rosen.

Thank you so much for all your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!

117 posted on 03/22/2012 9:24:30 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Perhaps if such folks could be disabused of the widely prevailing notion nowadays that faith and reason, science and philosophy (including theology, the "queen of metaphysics") are necessarily mutually-exclusive, basic intellectual sanity could be restored. They are not mutually-exclusive: This notion posits a false dichotomy. What they are instead, are complementary knowledge domains — which have been mutually assisting one another for some seven millennia by now.

That would be very helpful to everyone!

Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

118 posted on 03/22/2012 9:36:09 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
This woman is mentally ill and could have snapped in an Accounting 101 class

Not according to some posters here.

This is one of the sickest FR threads I can remember.

Hint to Freepers: Don't defend a hate-filled racist who is issuing death threats while she is having a mental breakdown. People will suspect that you are just as crazy as she is.

119 posted on 03/22/2012 10:57:34 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; YHAOS; tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; Moseley; metmom; exDemMom

betty: This I suppose would be news to those people who hold human history in so much contempt

Spirited: But then time (unfolding story of history) itself is one of their primary enemies.

God the Father called all things into existence, set celestial bodies in motion and time began to tick away the days and the story of history to unfold. Its’ unfolding had one end and no other: the Kingdom of God.

Thus history itself is therefore an enemy. How to escape? By turning time back upon itself. By uncreating history/reality/mankind(Darwinism), Nietzsche’s eternal return, reincarnation.


120 posted on 03/23/2012 2:01:36 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; YHAOS; tacticalogic; Alamo-Girl; Matchett-PI; Moseley; metmom; exDemMom

” 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?


121 posted on 03/23/2012 4:29:05 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay; Alamo-Girl; betty boop

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.


122 posted on 03/23/2012 5:44:35 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
No, that is what ignorant creationists teach about evolution - it is not at all a precept of evolutionary biology that there is only ONE trait that is “Superior” and all others are “Inferior”. Some traits are selected for by the environment and/or mate selection - other traits are selected against by the environment and/or mate selection. Add to that the fact that mate selection tends to be associative - and you find that short people tend to prefer short mates - tall people tend to prefer tall mates - dark haired people tend to prefer dark haired mates, etc, etc, etc. People tend to mate associatively for incisor length as well - although I have NEVER said to myself “Have you checked out the incisors on THAT babe?”. So it is not the case that only ONE trait is perceived by potential mates to be superior in all cases. A short blond male may prefer a short blond female over a tall brunette. I am tall and dark haired and I prefer a tall brunette (in general) to a short blond. That being the case, how could one say that mate selection determined one female to be superior and the other as a candidate for removal of those characteristics from the human race?

You are veering back and forth between what is observed apart from evolution and what is supposedly required by evolution.

You are assuming your conclusion, that a person's choice of mates DOES have an evolutionary purpose, rather than simply a PERSONAL PREFERENCE. You cannot shake yourself out of that assumption.

If God created diversity, than God would create A DIVERSITY OF DESIRES so that some men would desire certain types of women, and other men would desire other types of women, so that THERE IS SOMEONE FOR EVERYONE.

But you are trapped by force of habit in your assumption that mate selection must serve a UTILITARIAN purpose -- rather than just pleasing the individual in the short term. Evolution depends upon the idea that mate selection -- natural selection -- has a utilitarian dynamic. That is an unproven assumption. But one you have adopted very deeply.

I do prefer brunettes. I have seen many beautiful blondes, some of whom I personally am attracted to, but I am more attracted to brunettes than blondes. Maybe that is just my personal taste. Maybe there is no evolutionary or utilitarian meaning to that whatsoever.

If God made some women red heads, but no one was attracted to women with red hair, and as an iron rule "[ALL] Gentlemen prefer blondes" (which isn't true), then there would be no one desiring the red haired women. All men would prefer blondes, and no one would want the red heads. On the contrary, everyone likes different things. One man might melt at the sight of a brunette, while another one would crawl on his hands and knees for the chance to marry a red head.

Again, the topic is that the teaching of evolution in a public college (you can quibble about whether it is being taught perfectly or correctly) has made this female believe she is -- as she is being taught -- inferior, and destined by the march of progress for the trash bin of human evolution. She rants about hating evolution and asking the teacher how evolution kills black people.

Yes, her emotional tirade is bad behavior and is unacceptable behavior in class. But her question - though speaking from deep emotional hurt, feeling de-valued and cornered as worthless -- is quite poignant: DOES THIS MEAN THAT EVOLUTION KILLS OFF BLACK PEOPLE, PREFERRING WHITES AS SUPERIOR CHOICES FOR MATING. If even Black males (the cliche goes) would rather mate with a White woman than mate with her as a Black woman, then DOESN'T IT FOLLOW (IN HER UNDERSTANDING) THAT THE TEACHER IS TEACHING THE EVOLUTIONARY EXTINCTION OF BLACK PEOPLE IN PREFERENCE TO WHITE PEOPLE? NO doubt she has been burned by Black men she liked dating White women instead, SO SHE TAKES IT PERSONALLY.


123 posted on 03/23/2012 5:52:39 AM PDT by Moseley (http://www.curesocialism.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
The only information I've seen about what the instructor was teaching was that it was about the mating behavior of peacocks. Can you please tell me why that is objectionable?

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.

124 posted on 03/23/2012 6:19:22 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
What kind of evolution is “The creative Word of God”? Was it spoken in the beginning and now whispered? In other words - is the “creative Word of God” still changing living things? So every time a bacteria adapts to a cold environment it is tuning in to the “creative Word of God”?

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.

125 posted on 03/23/2012 6:52:17 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
I am basing it on scientific data upon mate selection.

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.

126 posted on 03/23/2012 6:59:51 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: xzins; HamiltonJay; betty boop
This article is conjecture about what bothered her about the peacock discussion.

It is not about the behavior of the young lady.

Indeed. She obviously went "postal" or had a psychotic break in response to either what the professor said - or she thought he said.

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?

127 posted on 03/23/2012 7:08:45 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Moseley

God created evolution.


128 posted on 03/23/2012 7:13:28 AM PDT by Andy from Chapel Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Her behavior has nothing to do with the discussion.


129 posted on 03/23/2012 7:17:38 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Moseley
You make it sound like ToE is responsible for the fact that being hateful, vindictive, rude and obnoxious generally tends to make it more difficult to find someone who wants to spend their life with you.

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.

130 posted on 03/23/2012 7:25:22 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Her behavior has nothing to do with the discussion.

Her behaviour has everything to do with the comments made about her.

131 posted on 03/23/2012 7:32:40 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Dear allmendream, haven't you in the past professed yourself to be a Christian? (I could be misremembering.)

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!

132 posted on 03/23/2012 8:55:35 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

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.


133 posted on 03/23/2012 8:57:59 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Pray Continued Victory for our Troops Still in Afghan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I am a Christian and I do believe in the Creative word of God AND evolution; as do millions of other Christians.

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?

134 posted on 03/23/2012 9:13:03 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; xzins; HamiltonJay; Moseley
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?

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!

135 posted on 03/23/2012 9:32:00 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
You have a rather backwards view of our Constitution.

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.

136 posted on 03/23/2012 9:47:53 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; Moseley
We don't know what actually set the young lady off. Though her reaction seems disproportionate, I wouldn't necessarily call it irrational.

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 F’ers would die.”

That’s 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.

137 posted on 03/23/2012 9:51:02 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl
Let me try this — a general explication of the creative Word of God in terms of Aristotelian causal language.

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....

138 posted on 03/23/2012 9:59:11 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: MD Expat in PA; Moseley; Alamo-Girl
I have a feeling I know what set her off....

Oh. And what would that be?

139 posted on 03/23/2012 10:01:11 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: xzins
The illustration kicking off that discussion is, as is every illustration, not the point.

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.

140 posted on 03/23/2012 10:08:07 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Darwin didn't have to know what the inheritable material was to know that living things pass on their inheritance.

Darwin didn't have to know that the inheritable material was subject to molecular change to know that there was such a thing as variation that was subject to selection.

So how could one describe the change in DNA of an adapting bacterial population, that to you is them listening to the “creative Word of God”, without making reference to genetic inheritance, variation, and natural selection of that variation?

I was created by God, from dust, and to dust I will return. I was also created via a cellular process involving DNA. Describing the physical mechanism whereby this was accomplished no more removes God as my creator than describing the physical mechanism whereby species can (and do) change means that God was not their creator; just as describing how stars form through nuclear fusion and gravity doesn't remove God as their creator.

Was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?

To you it seems that the “creative Word of God” is necessarily a miraculous mechanism indescribable by physical means or scientific theory. Our main point of contention it seems is that I fully believe the “creative Word of God” is not necessarily miraculous and IS describable (demonstrably in several cases I have outlined) by physical means.

141 posted on 03/23/2012 10:14:57 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Oh. And what would that be?

Watch the video and it will give you some clues.

Warning - NSFW, NSFC, NSFW (Not safe for Whitey)

Holder’s People

142 posted on 03/23/2012 10:16:23 AM PDT by MD Expat in PA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl; Moseley
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.

And yet in America, "involuntary servitude" did not extend to Caucasians (unless they were convicted criminals). It was reserved for "inferior races" — mainly blacks, though it was tried with American Indians as well. (The latter did not make "good slaves"; they had "ingrained" habits of "shiftlessness" and of constantly wandering off....)

You can try to whitewash this situation all day long; but it is a fact that many persons of that generation did indeed regard black people as "less than human." And thus fit to be slaves. The slave states would not have been able to compete with the Northern states for power and position in Washington if a huge sector of their population (the slaves) was ineligible to be counted for apportionment purposes. But they could only be counted at three-fifths strength. That right there is clear evidence to me that they were considered as "inferior" to other persons. Not to mention the fact that these three-fifths persons were not even regarded as citizens.

allmendream, you seem always so "doctrinaire," so "by the book" in your comments, as if the surface appearance of, say, a statement is all you need to know. But you need to look deeper than the surface to truly understand what's going on. Otherwise your understanding will be quite shallow....

For instance, everything you wrote in the above italics is "technically correct" — but "correct" only as far as it goes. It stops short of recognizing the actual human dimension of involuntary servitude and all the sheer human suffering it engendered. And to suggest that the three-fifths of a person language was adopted to ensure that black slaves got fair representation in Washington is really pretty risible.

JMHO FWIW

143 posted on 03/23/2012 10:35:02 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl
To you it seems that the “creative Word of God” is necessarily a miraculous mechanism indescribable by physical means or scientific theory. Our main point of contention it seems is that I fully believe the “creative Word of God” is not necessarily miraculous and IS describable (demonstrably in several cases I have outlined) by physical means.

Yep. It's pretty miraculous all right! It positively does not reduce to any physical description whatsoever. :^)

You're right about our "main point of contention." I certainly don't agree with you here: "'The creative Word of God' is not necessarily miraculous and IS describable (demonstrably in several cases I have outlined) by physical means."

All you can "demonstrate" by such physical means is a "reduction" of God to the "size" of allmendream and his personal preferences....

144 posted on 03/23/2012 10:49:04 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

How does describing something physically reduce the Word of God in creation?

Do I understand you correctly?


145 posted on 03/23/2012 10:56:25 AM PDT by FourtySeven (47)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I didn't say that the 3/5ths provision was adopted to ensure that black slaves got fair representation in Washington - I said that the provision was adopted so that the representatives did not get unfair and disproportionate power based upon their supposed representation of their slave constituents.

Do you see or understand the difference?

146 posted on 03/23/2012 11:25:33 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
So was my creation “from dust” less literal than the creation of Adam “from dust”?

If I can demonstrate that I was also formed through cellular processes involving DNA does that reduce God in any way shape or form?

Is it possible that I was BOTH created by God - AND created through physical means that God put into place?

If I can demonstrate the physical means - does that - in your mind - reduce the role of God?

If so I understand your reflexive rejection of the scientific method, scientific theory, and the teaching of science.

Heck, you think death threats and raving loonyness is a RATIONAL response to the presentation of a scientific theory!

That right there is pretty funny!!!

147 posted on 03/23/2012 11:29:31 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: FourtySeven; Alamo-Girl; allmendream
How does describing something physically reduce the Word of God in creation?

It doesn't.

Just to point out that physical — i.e., scientific — descriptions pertain only to physical phenomena. Neither God nor His Word are physical phenomena.

148 posted on 03/23/2012 11:42:26 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; Alamo-Girl
...I understand your reflexive rejection of the scientific method, scientific theory, and the teaching of science.

I do not "reflexively reject" any of these things. I just don't want to see dogma taught as science.

You wrote:

Is it possible that I was BOTH created by God — AND created through physical means that God put into place?

I think it is more correct to say you were created by God ONLY — and then incarnated in a physical body in due course — this is NOT a second creation, so the word "BOTH" has no relevance here — by means of the natural laws which He laid down in the Beginning.

God used "dust" to manifest the physical Adam in Genesis 2. The "spiritual Adam" — man as non-physical, immaterial soul — was CREATED "unmanifest" in Genesis 1.

The idea of "dust" signifies the material basis of physical life. It has nothing to do with the created soul, which is immaterial and which must precede physical incarnation.

149 posted on 03/23/2012 11:59:01 AM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Do you see or understand the difference?

Yes I do. And yet, the slaves were never their "constituents" in the first place.

Your argument suggests you believe that in the interest of preventing unfair and disproportionate power in the hands of representatives, it is entirely just to regard a certain class of people of a state as less than fully human; i.e., as three-fifths folks, not 100-percent folks. And surprise surprise! These three-fifths folks were all black people; i.e., slaves.

I have long regarded this provision of the federal Constitution as its Achilles' Heel. We as a whole people have paid dearly for it over two centuries by now. Plus it is the sort of reasoning that gins the rhetorical engines of race pimps like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson....

150 posted on 03/23/2012 12:17:34 PM PDT by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-322 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson