Posted on 06/14/2009 5:38:00 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
INTREP
==So, this shooting is blamed on evolution?
If you read the article at all, you obviously didn’t read it very carefully...otherwise, you wouldn’t allow yourself to make such obviously erroneous statements....unless, of course, as an Evo you view honesty as nothing more than an illusion generated by chance plus survival.
I am sorry that your faith is so shallow that it is threatened by a theory.
When you want to make a serious argument, let me know.
Well, Darwinists of today never go over the question that Darwin’s theory would implicitly ask: do we have a common ancestor or did we have a yet higher and better ancestor who went astray and mated with apes yielding our current “multicultural” kind?
Communists and Nazis completely agree on our “multiculturality”, by the way. For some reason Nazi self hate stopped short of submitting to their own laws of killing their own “impure”. Communist self hate stops short of commiting themselves to the wilderness they claim they survive best. Nazism is also more homosexual in inclination yet forbade it allegedly. Communists’ humaneness also allows for homosexual behavior yet has little concern for the human condition of those submiting to the behavior. Communist self-sufficiency and progressist themes also contradict their goals of honoring the “savage man” theory origins of ours (notwithstanding that he can be savage yet enjoy fruits of modernity in humane ways etc.)
In any case, quick quoters of Darwin in Darwin’s favor are hypocriticaly quick to also unsubscribe their own lives from it. The ideologue again avoids first hand litteracy and avoids the conflict of interest issues. The “meat-o-logies” of this flesh above that (Nazis), or this flesh for that flesh (equalitarianists) often avoid hard questions of prudent policy and care for the improvement of the health and healing of the sick, including themselves. It’s ridculous but modernity is but a thin artificial convenience hiding strangely well our inherent recent primitiveness from memory. It’s all repressed subconsciously yet there and never healed, ready to spring out any minute into orgies of genocide at the hands of day dreamers whose power wielding abilities allow them to stay aloof or imagining with very live lives.
Darwood’s materialist creation myth isn’t even a theory. It is, as E. Mayr points out, nothing more than a long argument, completely devoid of observable, repeatable data...hatched by a med-school dropout, turned clergy dropout, turned amateur naturalist...who had a religious axe to grind which amounted to nothing more than “God didn’t do it.”
I never see evolutionists make up inane arguments like these to support their ideas. Pathetic!
“I show how Darwin himself in The Descent of Man provided the rationale for what became the eugenics movement”
—The eugenics movement wasn’t at all popular until the early 20th century. The reason is that the true rationale didn’t exist until the discovery of Mendelism. As Davenport put it in 1911:
“Formerly, when we believed that factors blend, a characteristic in the germ plasm of a single individual among thousands seemed not worth considering: it would soon be lost in the melting pot. But now we know that unit characters do not blend”
So if one is looking for someone to blame, don’t forget Mendel.
“True, Darwin does goes (sic) on to indicate that we can’t follow the dictates of “hard reason” in such cases without undermining our “sympathy… the noblest part of our nature.” But such misgivings represented a lame objection at best.”
—“Lame”? Apparently the Discovery Institute is now publishing articles in defense of Social Darwinism. The author of this article is much more of a Social Darwinist than Darwin.
Darwin didn’t think such compassion was lame. Darwin donated money throughout his life to aid missionary work which aided the poor and contributed to abolitionist organizations. I guess that was all “lame” of him.
he’s a one trick pony desperately searching for approval from his mutual admiration society.
“Darwood’s materialist creation myth isn’t even a theory. It is, as E. Mayr points out, nothing more than a long argument, completely devoid of observable, repeatable data...”
—Mayr was quoting Darwin, who in Origin called the book “one long argument” because it incorporates observed data from myriad fields of science (biogeography, comparative anatomy, embryology, taxonomy, paleontology, etc) and explains it all under a single theory.
“who had a religious axe to grind which amounted to nothing more than “God didn’t do it.”
—A religious axe to grind? What evidence is there of that? He was married to a Christian, had his children go to church, donated money to missionaries, even donated money to have churches built, and the reason he waited so long to publish his theory was probably out of fear of offending anyone. As I’ve said before, psychology and mind reading are not your strong suit.
Though his rantings are garbage Freud's ideas have become ingrained in the thinking of evolutionary psychology.
Seems to me you could make an equally strong—or equally ludicrous—case that Brunner was advocating that people reproduce after their own kinds. He must have been strongly influenced by the Bible.
Back then Barbarians had more luxurious lives, however. So there was some usage of religion needed by some for the sole sake of not looking Barbarian. Now modernity has allowed such people to discard religion as being “antiquated” in their goal of looking less barbaric. Additional Faustian deals with such as Darwin and other vulgarized “sciences” have yielded their poor results of temporary empowerments.
What is Christianity? What were the Crusades’ intent? Christianity is not sectarian against those letting it be, but certainly will shake dust from under its foot when crossing hostile illiterate groups. Jesus did not employ force but nor submited to it, God forbid, for it is the same. He also forbade Himself and others the testing of God: life is not some game, but something to undertake in its earnestness, even if it is meant to be met temporarily in flesh. Thus He did not fling himself down a cliff when tempted by the Devil, nor did He come down from the cross as when taunted to use divine powers. In fact He avoided being part of such barbarity and descent into participation or life in lawlessness, illiteracy or repent to His tormentors.
Before His crucifiction He also gave the disciples blessings to carry money, weapons and legal documentation, and other enforcement means for their own self defense, knowing all along that they still did not understand what He was doing.
Christianity is definitely a defended faith in all aspects, a language of variables (whereas the OT is lived by physical example of such application of variables) and motivating in litteracy of all such things. It does not impose a music to its followers, save for its formative church stages, but ultimately seeks to inspire music from its “followers”/leaders.
In short, survival of the fittest. Sounds like Darwinism not creationism.
Carroll H., is that you?
==I have an Uncle who is a certified lunatic.
Must be a Darwiniac.
Hitler believed that through selective breeding that a “kind” could change somewhat and improve, but that speciation was not possible. He makes this clear in both his public writings and in his more private utterances.
In short, precisely what most Creationists agree with.
I put together a post explaining this here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2259552/posts?page=43#43
Nope, your flavor.
Creationists are the definition of sanity, everybody knows that d:op
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.