Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Can America Survive Evolutionary Humanism?
Mens News Daily ^ | June 19, 2007 | Linda Kimball

Posted on 06/20/2007 5:24:39 AM PDT by spirited irish

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-579 next last
To: Vaquero

What you’re ignoring. Discrediting the Bible because it was written by a *bunch of bronze age goat herders* (which by the way is not true) and then basing a whole theory on the writings of one man is inconsistent. If the Bible lacks credibility because it was authored by men, then anything else authored by men deserves the same consideration.

BTW, you should check up on who it was that wrote the books of the Bible. Perhaps you could then identify for us the goat-herders who wrote it because I’m coming up short on goat herder authors.


51 posted on 06/20/2007 7:15:14 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Nope, I think you read far too much into what I said. I *would* say that those philosophies did/do desire our destruction (whether they can or not depends on us), so why should I countenance a philosophy which underlies them and gave them a basis for their existence?

You can't very well maintain that the philosophy "gave them their basis for existence", while denying that your're claiming they would never have existed without it.

52 posted on 06/20/2007 7:16:22 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
No, (some) evolutionists just gas Jews for being, well, Jews.

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter."

-- that guy you're talking about (who also lauded Martin Luther as a great German for having translated the Bible)

Don't try to tie him to us. He's one of your'n.

53 posted on 06/20/2007 7:17:59 AM PDT by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative

Guess you’ve never heard of “metaphor”, hunh?


54 posted on 06/20/2007 7:20:27 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: ontap

They put their faith in a science that demonstrates that spontaneous generation is impossible and yet expect us to believe that somehow life came into existence out of some chemical soup, in defiance of spontaneous generation.

Spontaneous generation is impossible but life came from non-life.

That takes faith as well, to believe that something happened in direct contradiction to what evidence the scientific method provides and they teach.

OK.


55 posted on 06/20/2007 7:21:20 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
while denying that your're claiming they would never have existed without it.

And when did I claim either of those things?

56 posted on 06/20/2007 7:22:59 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
No, there's not. There's not a shred of actual evidence that would independently support macroevolution, if one didn't approach the matter from a preconceived evolutionary worldview. Evolution is a "spin", not a science.

So all those biologist and anthropologist and geneticists and paleontologists and geologists and anyone else who doesn't sign on to the Biblical account of creation are deliberately basing their entire body of work on nothing? That there is, as you claim, not a shred of factual evidence but instead its all made up? No lack of ego in that claim of your's, is there?

And so you're claiming there IS more evidence for Noah than evolution?

57 posted on 06/20/2007 7:24:18 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
And when did I claim either of those things?

Do you believe (or expect me to believe) that saying the philosophy is their basis for existence doesn't imply that they would not have existed without it?

58 posted on 06/20/2007 7:28:24 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
What is an abyss of naturalism? It is the hole that swallows up any meaningful statement of morality, meaning, or even in the final analysis, basis for belief in rationality. It is quite amusing to watch the naturalists prate about the bad ethics of creationists (some of the statements of creationists ARE quite bad), when naturalism reduces all ethics to personal choice. People without a worldview firmly rooted in the concept of an immanent and transcendent creator - God have "both feet planted firmly in the air" when it comes to meaning, morals, epistemology, and even their precious "laws of science." The last of these is particularly amusing to watch, as you try to help the dunderheads realize that there is no POSSIBLILTY of "laws of science" without the concept of transcendent absolutes. There is statistical probablility, and nothing more. Moreover, even that probabilility, given the expanse of the universe and the tiny bit of knowledge we have about it, is fairly shitty. These people remind me of little children who cover their eyes with their hands and then declare that you are not there because you are outside their field of vision.

The "abyss of naturalism" is the hole that eventually swallows science itself.

59 posted on 06/20/2007 7:33:18 AM PDT by DreamsofPolycarp (Libertarianism: u can run your life better than government can, and should be left alone to do it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So all those biologist and anthropologist and geneticists and paleontologists and geologists and anyone else who doesn't sign on to the Biblical account of creation are deliberately basing their entire body of work on nothing? That there is, as you claim, not a shred of factual evidence but instead its all made up? No lack of ego in that claim of your's, is there?

I'm saying that they're interpreting legitimate empirical observations THROUGH their preconceived philsophical system, to arrive at the conclusions necessary for their system to maintain its internal consistency.

Evolutionists, for instance, will point to genetics, and say, "There ya go", as if the mere existence of genetics was, in and of itself, proof of evolution. But it's not. Genetics is merely the empirical observation that organisms pass on heredity to their descendants, and the subsequent determination through empirical experimentation of the mechanism by which this takes place. However, the fact of heredity and intraspeciation is not, itself, proof for macroevolution, which is a whole 'nuther ballgame that relies on speculations not supported by either laboratory experimentation, nor from substantiating evidences from other fields (i.e. no fossil intermediates, no increase in information-carrying capacity through mutation, etc.)

And so you're claiming there IS more evidence for Noah than evolution?

Yes. In fact, the small populations of "kinds" present after the Noah event are a better explanation for the rapid speciation within kind that Is observed in the fossil records. Small populations interbreeding after being separated from each other geographically (so no intercourse between two populations) leads to greatly accelerated differentiation between populations, especially in species with short lifespans and/or frequent mating periods.

60 posted on 06/20/2007 7:36:12 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Do you believe (or expect me to believe) that saying the philosophy is their basis for existence doesn't imply that they would not have existed without it?

Look, show me where I said anything about them not existing without the philosophy of evolutionism in the first place. You can answer a simple question, right?

61 posted on 06/20/2007 7:39:10 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

lol


62 posted on 06/20/2007 7:40:08 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (When's MY turn? What crimes may I commit and recieve amnesty for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Evolutionists put their faith in a book written by a man on a long sea voyage with nothing better to do with his time.

Quote of the week (at least)!


63 posted on 06/20/2007 7:43:05 AM PDT by oakcon (Dulce et Decorum est pro Patria mori)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Look, show me where I said anything about them not existing without the philosophy of evolutionism in the first place. You can answer a simple question, right?

You claim it is their "basis for existence". How would they exist without it? You didn't say so explicitly, but it is a logical consequence of what you did say. If your statements will not bear examination of their logical consequences, what good are they?

64 posted on 06/20/2007 7:45:22 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
What is an abyss of naturalism?

Dunno, But it sure sounds impressive.

65 posted on 06/20/2007 7:48:40 AM PDT by Oztrich Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero

V..Evolution proponents (I include myself) know how life progressed from lesser to more complex forms, but the actual origin can only be speculated on.

As the essay reveals, there is NO SOURCE within evolutionism for absolutes. Yet your statement is a ‘declarative’ or absolute in that: Here is how it happened.

By it’s own Laws of Logic-—for which evolution has no source either, since by its nature evolution is anti-intellectual (no mind, no reason, etc)-—theories must be based on something which is testable. Since NO ONE has ever seen bacteria evolve into fish, or fish into proto-apes, the theory of evolution is based on wishful thinking.


66 posted on 06/20/2007 8:06:37 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus

Modern studies of DNA have shown that it is entirely consistent with a common descent for almost all life on earth, a prediction of evolutionary theory made before we even knew about genes and DNA. If every major “kind” of animal was a unique creation, why should this be? Why should humans share genetic material with earthworms? Oh, I know, I know, God’s ways are mysterious and beyond our understanding, and He could do things whatever way he desired. But that’s the kind of hand-waving explanation that can be used to explain away anything.


67 posted on 06/20/2007 8:06:48 AM PDT by -YYZ- (Strong like bull, smart like ox.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr; spirited irish; Alamo-Girl; hosepipe
How exactly, could any of these theories affect the survival of America?

Have you taken a look at Congress and the Courts recently?

68 posted on 06/20/2007 8:08:10 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
Yes. In fact, the small populations of "kinds" present after the Noah event are a better explanation for the rapid speciation within kind that Is observed in the fossil records. Small populations interbreeding after being separated from each other geographically (so no intercourse between two populations) leads to greatly accelerated differentiation between populations, especially in species with short lifespans and/or frequent mating periods.

Imagine. All those meteorologists with their preconcieved bias towards the water cycle. All those biologists with their preconceived notions about what happens to fish when you pollute all the worlds fresh water with salt. All those geologists with their preconceived notions on what it took to create the Grand Canyon. All living a lie.

69 posted on 06/20/2007 8:08:14 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur (Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

Great article, spirited irish! Thank you so much for posting it!


70 posted on 06/20/2007 8:08:48 AM PDT by betty boop ("Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." -- A. Einstein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gracesdad

gracesdad: “First, in order that materialist ethics be consistent with the idea that life evolved by chance and continues to evolve over time, ethics must be built on human social instincts that are in a continuous process of change over evolutionary time. “

And this is bad how?

Irish: Tell me, exactly whose ‘social instincts” (impulses, etc) shall morality be based upon? Already millions of people have suffered and died in regimes where the “social instincts” of Mao, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, etc have served as the ‘standard.” The Marquis de Sade had his own version of ‘social instincts’ as did Jeffrey Dahmer, the Columbine killers, etc.


71 posted on 06/20/2007 8:13:52 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
If every major “kind” of animal was a unique creation, why should this be? Why should humans share genetic material with earthworms? Oh, I know, I know, God’s ways are mysterious and beyond our understanding, and He could do things whatever way he desired.

How about we're all carbon based life forms living in the same environment, breathing the same air, drinking the same water, eating each other?

If DNA controls certain functions and describes certain physical characteristics, then it would make sense to use it in all species, much like certain code is used in computer programming. You don't make up new code for each program, you can use the same basic code and rearrange it to make it do what you wish.

It also makes sense that if organisms devour each other, they need to be similar enough so that the components can be metabolized. What good would it be if everything was so different that nothing could eat each other, but might even be poisonous?

Every kind of creature being a unique creation in that is was created and not evolved does not preclude using the same materials and code (DNA).

72 posted on 06/20/2007 8:21:00 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-

YYZ..Note that Darwin’s theory was about “Natural Selection”, and there’s nothing “natural” about what the eugenicists were trying to do. In fact, what they were trying to do was a lot closer to traditional animal husbandry and breeding techniques, concepts which predate the theory of evolution by several thousand years.

Irish...Naturalism, which is what evolutionism is a revamped version of, has ALWAYS been about eugenics, population control, aristocracy, state control of the means of wealth, slavery, etc. Why? Because if mankind is the creature of ‘nature’ (matter) then he must be in submission to his creator: nature (matter). Further, he has no more worth than any other animal, and when man’s worth is measured against other creatures, man comes out the loser.


73 posted on 06/20/2007 8:21:11 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Irish...Naturalism, which is what evolutionism is a revamped version of, has ALWAYS been about eugenics, population control, aristocracy, state control of the means of wealth, slavery, etc. Why? Because if mankind is the creature of ‘nature’ (matter) then he must be in submission to his creator: nature (matter). Further, he has no more worth than any other animal, and when man’s worth is measured against other creatures, man comes out the loser.

A quagmire of sophistry.

74 posted on 06/20/2007 8:28:49 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“Every kind of creature being a unique creation in that is was created and not evolved does not preclude using the same materials and code (DNA).”

No, but to my mind, and those of many people who have studied this subject much more than I have, a common descent is a much simpler explanation. And, as I have said, it is a prediction made by evolutionary theory before we even knew there were such things as genes or DNA, nevermind exactly how much of it was common between organisms.

Also, if God was being a good “coder” and re-used things so dilligently, why would He choose to implement the exact same functions in multiple different ways in different species? No, if God was our “designer”, then he gives every appearance of having been a rather poor and sloppy one.


75 posted on 06/20/2007 8:47:09 AM PDT by -YYZ- (Strong like bull, smart like ox.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
He choose to implement the exact same functions in multiple different ways in different species? No, if God was our “designer”, then he gives every appearance of having been a rather poor and sloppy one.

That presumes on the part of the person sitting in judgment of the designer that they know better and more about how the object should have been designed just by looking at it than the designer did knowing vastly more.

Have we reached the place in knowledge of genetics that we can with certainty that we know all the possible functions of every last bit if genetic material that exists? We may have some grasp of what genes control physical features but what controls emotions, thought, will, decision making?

Defining the physical features and breaking it down to simply the mechanical only tells us about the physical mechanical part of the entity. It doesn't tell us what it really is and there's no way that I know of yet for scientists to say for certain that they plummed the depths of genetics and know all every possible function of eery bit of DNA in every creature.

Tell me then, what's the difference between a living body and a dead one? What makes a body suddenly cease functioning when it's structurally identical to the one minutes before it expired? And I'm not talking about long enough for decay to set in, that argument has been used before. I'm talking about a body that's alive one minute and dead the next.

76 posted on 06/20/2007 9:05:12 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

America has little tradition of Evolutionary Humanism. As such, it is going to continue to be a hard sell, especially while the salesmen of Evolutionary Humansim seem so odd to Americans. If they were more like real people they might make some progress, but that would mean selling out their Evolutionary Humanism program.


77 posted on 06/20/2007 9:08:25 AM PDT by RightWhale (Repeal the Treaty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DreamsofPolycarp

Could you explain what you mean by ‘transcendant absolutes’ please. Perhaps an example would help to clarify it for me. Thanx


78 posted on 06/20/2007 9:16:10 AM PDT by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

Indeed. Thanks for the ping!


79 posted on 06/20/2007 9:58:06 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
You claim it is their "basis for existence". How would they exist without it? You didn't say so explicitly, but it is a logical consequence of what you did say. If your statements will not bear examination of their logical consequences, what good are they?

If you can't be forthright about what you're actual qualm is, why should I take it seriously?

That being said, I would indeed say that, without evolutionary philosophy, much of modern Communism and Nazism wouldn't have been possible, at least not in the forms they took. Marxism relies upon the assumption that "progressive scientism" will bring about the "inevitable" establishment of a classless society, once the dialectical middleman is gotten through. This is viewed as being more or less the natural order of things, hence the aura of inevitability that shrouded foundational Marxist thought. Anything that hinders the establishment of this end result, at least in revolutionary Communism, is fair game for being eliminated as unfit, regressive, and retrograde. The philosophy that begat all this, and the resultant attempts to eliminate millions of kulaks, capitalists, and other reactionaries, is the notion that the world is constantly evolving, progressing upward, that change is inevitable, and that those who are unfit deserve to be removed from the equation by the "New Men" who are better fitted for the glorious classless society of the future. Hence, yes, there is an underlying evolutionary aspect to Marxist thought that in many ways mirrors the evolutionary theory of the natural world which later inspired Darwin to refine the theory in his On the Origin of Species, and it is doubtful that Marxism would have had this aspect in its dialectic had there not been intellectual injection from the evolutionary philosophy sweeping Europe at the time.

Likewise, it is doubtful that Nazism would have gotten the idea of exterminating "inferior" groups as unfit, or the rest of its overall eugenic programme, had not the idea appeared to be completely natural and wholesome per naturalistic evolution.

80 posted on 06/20/2007 10:00:33 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
If every major “kind” of animal was a unique creation, why should this be?

Uh, because they are all made from the same "stuff"?

What differentiates man from animal is the thinking, reasoning, rational soul, not the body. Both animals and humans have physical existence, so it is quite reasonable to surmise that a Creator would make both of them using the same genetic materials.

81 posted on 06/20/2007 10:04:14 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Imagine. All those meteorologists with their preconcieved bias towards the water cycle.

Nope, indeed, at every point in history except for the one-year period posited for the Flood, the water cycle has functioned exactly as we see it function now - something that the Bible alludes to itself in a number of places. Again, the existence of a water cycle does not preclude a solitary PAST event from having happened.

All those biologists with their preconceived notions about what happens to fish when you pollute all the worlds fresh water with salt.

Except that in the flood event, the waters being added by the rains and the opening up of the fountains of the deep would have themselves been fresh water, and this fresh water would have remained near the top in a deluged world due to the density differences between fresh and salt water and the relative difficult of obtaining verticle miscibility, thus maintaining a decent segregation between the fresh and salt waters.

All those geologists with their preconceived notions on what it took to create the Grand Canyon. All living a lie.

Preconceived notions which actually are spectacularly anti-uniformitarian in their assumptions. If the Colorado River really cut the Grand Canyon over millions of years, why hasn't ever other major river done the same in the same amount of time? And why so cleanly, with not nearly so much erosion as would be expected for millions of years of exposure to the elements?

82 posted on 06/20/2007 10:12:30 AM PDT by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

The first sentence is incorrect and the whole article is a strawman.

No mention of Modern Synthesis?


83 posted on 06/20/2007 10:16:32 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Biosemiotics is even better.

You're on your own with this one.

84 posted on 06/20/2007 10:24:02 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom

“What makes a body suddenly cease functioning when it’s structurally identical to the one minutes before it expired?”

I’m not a doctor or biologist, but I’ll take a stab at this. The heart stops pumping blood, which means that cells stop receiving the oxygen they need to live. Then the cells start to die. That’s why we can keep people “alive” with machines after their brains have largely stopped working, even to the point of not keeping normally autonomic functions like breathing and the heartbeat, operating on their own.


85 posted on 06/20/2007 10:31:48 AM PDT by -YYZ- (Strong like bull, smart like ox.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
If you can't be forthright about what you're actual qualm is, why should I take it seriously?

I wasn't aware the I had to explain the obvious logical implications of your own arguments to you first. My mistake.

That being said, I'm finding all of this being attributed to ToE just too much of a stretch to be taken seriously. Genocide and political purges were around well before Darwin. It seems that there is nothing too evil to attribute to Darwin, and nothing bad that has happen that can't be blamed on ToE and that accusation expected to be accepted without question.

86 posted on 06/20/2007 10:40:43 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]


87 posted on 06/20/2007 10:57:19 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Vaquero

>>What the creationists due is put their faith in a book that was written by bronze age dwellers of the middle east.


Evolutionists put their faith in a book written by a man on a long sea voyage with nothing better to do with his time.<<

Most Christians who take the Bible literally are also evangelicals and believe in a personal experience with God - its really God who gets the faith - at least that’s the way its supposed to work.

As for Darwin - his work was 150 years ago. Modern evolutionary theory didn’t even start until 1930. Darwinism is a philosophy and nobody really has faith in it. Scientists have faith in the exploration and fact checking of the scientific method, not Darwin. Nobody would look to a doctor or astronomer from 150 years ago for answers.

Even then this is two different types of faith.

One is faith in something we know cannot be proved and the other is faith in process of proving what we can and continuing to search. Very different uses of the same word.


88 posted on 06/20/2007 6:48:27 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

The real conundrum for secularists: is there another evolutionary step past evolutionism?


89 posted on 06/20/2007 6:50:02 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

>>In addition to original Darwinism, today there are two other versions of evolutionary theory<<

In the first sentence the author shows they have no idea what they are talking about. No scientist equates Darwinism with evolutionary theory - One is a philosophy from the 1800 and the other is modern science.

When you see someone talking about Darwinism as a current day thing you can bet they don’t know science.


90 posted on 06/20/2007 6:51:10 PM PDT by gondramB (Preach the Gospel at all times, and when necessary, use words)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
"Fred Thompson is Duncan Hunter without the training wheels intellect, experience, and voting record"

You're welcome, no charge. (honesty is the best policy)

91 posted on 06/20/2007 7:18:23 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
I'm saying that they're interpreting legitimate empirical observations THROUGH their preconceived philsophical system, to arrive at the conclusions necessary for their system to maintain its internal consistency.

Eugenics follows from Darwinism. Darwin thought anything and everything is germinal. So do the eugenists. For more info see my FR page.

92 posted on 06/20/2007 8:55:56 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (Euvolution v0.1.6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish
Humanism is a

Humanism is just another word for eugenics.

93 posted on 06/20/2007 8:57:26 PM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (Euvolution v0.1.6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

yes, and if the church would start to teach people to be patient and forgiving they would have Christ’s strength to deal with the onslaught of humanism. But it is not doing that...just basically teaching a whole lot of history which is not all that helpfull in dealing with the temptations of everyday life. I have found a very good christian teacher at fhu.com where a simple biblical be still exercise is actually helping many people to be free of the darkside that attacks us everyday in our doubts.


94 posted on 06/20/2007 9:06:12 PM PDT by fabian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MrB
When Communists in the last century took over a country, they “educated” the people. Not in the wonders of socialism or communism, but in EVOLUTION. This was to eliminate the idea that there was a CREATOR, a HIGHER POWER than the government.

Yes, and when Hitler was Chancellor of Germany he implemented a wide ranging highway project--the Autobahn. Clearly, if you support similar projects like the Interstate Highway System then you support the murder of Jews. Do you support the Interstate Highway System?

95 posted on 06/20/2007 9:30:18 PM PDT by burzum (None shall see me, though my battlecry may give me away -Minsc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

The crackpot ideology of transhumanism is far more dangerous than old-time humanism ever was. Christian humanism is possible, Christian transhumanism is not.


96 posted on 06/20/2007 11:01:19 PM PDT by Dumb_Ox (http://kevinjjones.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dumb_Ox
The crackpot ideology of transhumanism is far more dangerous than old-time humanism ever was.

Transhumanism is yet another word for eugenics. It was coined by Julian Huxley.

The doctrines of Humanist Manifesto I are almost exactly like those of Ernst Haeckel's Monistenbund (basically a mystical German-style raving atheism, with a lot of Darwinism and a little Goethe thrown in.) Haeckel's Monism influenced many scientists including Ernst Mach and Albert Einstein.

97 posted on 06/21/2007 1:36:00 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (Euvolution v0.1.7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
America has little tradition of Evolutionary Humanism.

Really? See my FR page.

98 posted on 06/21/2007 1:50:56 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (Euvolution v0.1.7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: burzum

Was the purpose of the Autobahn and the Interstate Highway System

to deny the existance of a Creator?

Your analogy fails.


99 posted on 06/21/2007 5:16:13 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus; tacticalogic

tactical—A quagmire of sophistry.

Irish—If you knew history and the genesis of present day evolutionary materialism, you’d know how amusing your response is. It was in fact, the Greek Sophists (Atominists)-—among other ancient Greek Atomists-—who were among the architects of what you believe to be ‘truth.’

Be that as it may, you’re attempting to refute by way of snide put-down. Shallow, shallow, shallow!

Considering that evolutionary materialism dispossesses man of soul, reason, mind, personhood, memory,free will, conscience, Laws of Logic (all of these things belong in the metaphysical realm), you display the gross hypocrisy and blatant stupidity of evolutionary materialism by your response. It’s because these things are not within the sense realm that EO Wilson bases his hilarious claim that if an individual believes he senses personhood or believes he has actually had an independant thought, the poor sap has actually experienced an epiphenomenon...or an illusion caused by the firing of synapses and ongoing chemical changes taking place within his cranium.

Because by the free will you supposedly do not possess, and by which you chose nevertheless to embrace an anti-intellectual (stupidity-inducing) worldview that you find yourself without a leg to stand on.


100 posted on 06/21/2007 6:04:42 AM PDT by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 551-579 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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