Posted on 05/26/2017 8:46:18 AM PDT by fishtank
What is this supposed to mean? Are you one of those liberals who claims that G-d didn't really command Israel to exterminate the Canaanites and `Amaleqites because that would make him a "big meanie?"
People whose reaction to the idea of G-d is calls of "bigotry!" should really be on a Communist site somewhere.
Oh, so you're one of "those."
"Traditional values" in themselves mean nothing. Anything can be "traditional" in one context or another. Americans are traditionally Protestant. Irish are traditionally Catholic. Greeks are traditionally Orthodox. And Arabs are traditionally moslem. Are all these various traditional beliefs simultaneously true?
The point is not "traditional values" per se, but observance of G-d's Laws. Without submission to G-d morality is merely another human conceit.
Conservatives who signal against Darwin are nuts.
You'd make a good neo-Confederate.
“Considering that you missed the whole point of the article by regurgitating the sick worldview it attacks, you’ve provided a very good example”
So you are one of those. The world would be a utopia if darwin never existed just as it would be a utopia if Columbus never discovered the new world. The article blames Darwin for many of the “isms” that drive liberals. The article rejects the concept that there can be differences between races even though such differences are physically obvious and others have been proven scientifically. Its common knowledge that slavery pre-dated Darwin by thousands of years. People didnt need Darwin’s theory to justify their oppression of others.
But they need G-d to have a valid moral/ethical code. Anything less than the One True G-d and His Authentic Laws is just hang-ups.
Genesis rules. Charles Darwin, on the other hand, s . . .
Well, you get the idea.
Conservatives don’t read Darwin?
“But they need G-d to have a valid moral/ethical code. Anything less than the One True G-d and His Authentic Laws is just hang-ups.”
Every group interprets their god or gods will to justify their conquests, and have done so well before monotheism. They all think their god is moral and ethical while the other guy’s is bogus.
And yet. For the first century after Darwin it was Creationist Christians who gave racists a pseudoscientific rationalization by promoting the theory that non-white races had been created as "the beasts of the field"
Cite your source for that claim.
Charles Carroll, William Bell Riley, Billy Sunday
“And yet. For the first century after Darwin it was Creationist Christians...”
Hmm, which mainstream Christian churches espoused the doctrines you are talking about? Or should we just tar all Christians with a brush based on some fringe kooks that called themselves Christians?
“who gave racists a pseudoscientific rationalization”
Pulling Bible verses out of context isn’t really “pseudoscientific”, by the way.
And poor old Lamarck lost the “consensus science” battle to Darwin at the time, but has been proven ALSO CORRECT with the science of epigenetics. Environment DIRECTLY affects genes. In some ways, Lamarck is more right than Darwin. There are plenty of examples which don’t fit Darwin’s theory, creatures evolving suicidally in an environment not suited.
But put pony embryos into a horse’s womb and they come out extra large ponies. Genes respond immediately to an environment too. How you eat or breathe will spark a predisposition to a disease or not.
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.