Posted on 12/09/2008 8:44:29 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Morality is whatever we define it as under religion, too. It just depends on who wrote the holy book. But looking through history, we see a trend that societies founded on compassion and sympathy tend to be the most lasting, supporting Darwin's claim. This is why countries founded using the general morality of Christianity have dominated, despite some moral hiccups, for almost 2,000 years. It's why countries based on Islam faded to third-world status, only to be artificially resurrected due to an accident of geography (oil).
Rev. Darwin light the match we call Evolution. He failed to put out the fire we call Eugenics.
Samuel colt failed to stop those who murdered with his invention. Would you like to play liberal and blame him, or would you like to be conservative and blame those who actually commit the wrong?
And I'm supposed to accept as authoritative a quote from a leftist radical Catholic conscientious objector who believes no war is justifiable?
“Morality is whatever we define it as under religion, too.” [excerpt]Which is why Christ was so hard on the religious people of his day.
“It just depends on who wrote the holy book.” [excerpt]And the holy book written by Charles Darwin inherited corruption from its author.
“Samuel colt failed to stop those who murdered with his invention.” [excerpt]Strawman or bait-n-switch. (Not sure which, maybe both)
“And I'm supposed to accept as authoritative a quote from a leftist radical Catholic conscientious objector who believes no war is justifiable?” [excerpt]
He was, and justifiably. Notice that they didn't exactly inherit the Earth either.
And the holy book written by Charles Darwin inherited corruption from its author.
Projection at its finest. It is not a holy book, it is a scientific work. Anyone who treats it as such is not working within science, and the whole issue becomes one of philosophy.
Samuel Colt's invention made it physically easier to kill a man. Charles Darwin's ideology made it morally easier to kill a man.
Note that in both you say make it easier to kill a man. It is a tool, to be used for good or bad. Christianity is such a tool too and has been used to kill many. Justification was found in it to do things that the founder of Christianity would have disagreed with. That doesn't necessarily make Christianity bad since that's Christianity misused by bad people, just as the Colt, just as natural selection.
Why don't you identify this leftist radical Catholic conscientious objector who believes no war is justifiable by name?
You quoted him. I would assume you know the identities of those you quote. Or am I wrong in assuming such?
But isn't that true throughout science? Chemical bonds form through the actions of the same electrons physicists study, for example--I've even heard it argued that physics includes chemistry. And biology in turn is dependent on chemical reactions. Science operates by dividing continuums into separate areas that can be studied on their own; otherwise, we're left with "It's all one, man." Are all these divisions disingenuous?
When I read these discussions, I often imagine an announcer’s voice intoning, “Welcome to another round of...Dense? or Dishonest?” The game show in which we try to figure out whether creationists are really as obtuse as they act sometimes, or whether they’re just pretending in order to make some kind of point.
No. I think it's time for a review: In a response to someone pointing out that movement in the earth's crust of 0.25 inches a year works out to 50 miles in am million years, you asserted (168) that "you are proposing a process that is assumed (not observed) simply because the geological layers are out-of-order."
That sounded to me like you were saying that the the movement of the earth's crust had not been observed. So I asked you if that's what you meant, and you replied (214) something about an earthquake. That sounded like you were saying the only observed movement of the earth's crust had been during earthquakes--otherwise, why bring them up in response to my question? So I asked you if that's what you meant, and you replied by asking me the question at the top here.
Maybe instead of playing silly word games, you can just answer the questions. Do you think we have observed the movement of the earth's crust apart from earthquakes?
BWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH!And the holy book written by Charles Darwin inherited corruption from its author.“It is not a holy book, it is a scientific work.” [excerpt]
“Anyone who treats it as such [holy book] is not working within science, and the whole issue becomes one of philosophy.” [excerpt]You mean like public schools!
If you cannot tell the difference between giving a man a gun, and telling him it is not morally wrong to kill someone, you are one messed up dude!Samuel Colt's invention made it physically easier to kill a man.“Note that in both you say make it easier to kill a man. It is a tool, to be used for good or bad.” [excerpt]
Charles Darwin's ideology made it morally easier to kill a man.
I've quoted several people, which one are you talking about?Why don't you identify this leftist radical Catholic conscientious objector who believes no war is justifiable by name?“You quoted him. I would assume you know the identities of those you quote. Or am I wrong in assuming such? ” [excerpt]
Some of our greatest scientists were theologians. Copernicus had a doctorate in canon law and was on his way to becoming a bishop, but got sidetracked with astronomy. Kepler was a theology student. Yeah, they just "speculated about science."
Of course Stalin was also educated in a seminary and learned his terror state tactics from one of his priest teachers, so I wouldn't harp too much on the effects of religious training.
If you cannot tell the difference between giving a man a gun, and telling him it is not morally wrong to kill someone, you are one messed up dude!
I can tell that a man is not responsible for what others do with his creation. I take it you condemn Christ equally for those who murdered in his name.
I've quoted several people, which one are you talking about?
Maybe check your post that I was replying to?
“Of course Stalin was also educated in a seminary and learned his terror state tactics from one of his priest teachers, so I wouldn't harp too much on the effects of religious training.” [excerpt]I was only pointing out that seminary training does not qualify one as an authority on science.
“I can tell that a man is not responsible for what others do with his creation. I take it you condemn Christ equally for those who murdered in his name.” [excerpt]And just where did Christ say you're all just a bunch of animals, so its A-OK to go kill each other?
“Maybe check your post that I was replying to?” [excerpt]That would be 276, and the author of the excerpt would be George Barry O'Toole. (whoever that is)
Numerous evolution textbooks do implicate the former. Ehrlich's for instance. Haldane, of the Haldane-Oparin method of generating life from goo, was the co-founder of the modern synthesis of evolution. He was also a eugenist and a stalinist.
Indeed, and there are very many examples of evolution books and articles that extend evolution into the inorganic realm and even to the realm of ideas, sociology, religion and history. So, it's simply not true to assert, as evolutionists like to do, that evolution has nothing to do with all that, when so many books and articles written by evolutionists themselves say otherwise. Evolutionists have a habit of disclaiming what they wrote and said in the past, as if that stuff never existed.
Evolutionary biologists are supposed to be authorities on the theory of evolution. And yet Eugenics was supported and driven by famous evolutionary biologists. Don't you think Julian Huxley knew what Darwinism was? Or Fisher? Or other Darwin medalists? When you have so many experts of Darwinism promoting eugenics, the question that arises is not whether they collectively misunderstood or misapplied Darwinism, but whether you know what you are talking about.
In any case, these people were the founders of the modern theory of evolution. Haldane, Huxley and Fisher were all members of eugenic societies. If these people were dangerously deluded kooks or pseudo-scientists, then it implies the modern theory of evolution was formulated by incompetents.
Because evolution is not a scientific theory. It is an ideology. As such, the effects and consequences of it on society merit investigation. Much like one would investigate the pernicious effects of Marxism. liberalism or atheism.
True, and another liberal lie is the idea that science has to somehow remain sterile or objective when science freely sticks it’s nose into religion, history and all those things you point out, ALL the time.
Yet another double standard.
Numerous evolution textbooks do implicate the former. Ehrlich's for instance. Haldane, of the Haldane-Oparin method of generating life from goo, was the co-founder of the modern synthesis of evolution. He was also a eugenist and a stalinist.
An actual and valid inconvenient truth!
And by your logic we should dismiss the works of Copernicus and Kepler.
And just where did Christ say you're all just a bunch of animals, so its A-OK to go kill each other?
And where did Darwin say that? Oh yeah, he didn't, in fact arguing against it. Other evil people thought up the second part. We can go to Romans 1 for Christ's "kill the homosexuals" speech, but I can take his works in context and as a whole and know he doesn't want people out there murdering homosexuals. You don't do the same for Darwin because you have an ideological agenda against him.
You need to learn to eat the meat and spit out the bones.
Then quit handing me a pile of bones.
And you are apparently claiming that any observed movement of the earth's crust can be extrapolated into support for the Lewis 'Overthrust'.
"That sounded to me like you were saying that the the movement of the earth's crust had not been observed. So I asked you if that's what you meant, and you replied (214) something about an earthquake. That sounded like you were saying the only observed movement of the earth's crust had been during earthquakes--otherwise, why bring them up in response to my question? So I asked you if that's what you meant, and you replied by asking me the question at the top here."
And you appear to have confirmed that you believe that any observed movement of the earth's crust can be extrapolated into support for the Lewis 'Overthrust'.
"Maybe instead of playing silly word games, you can just answer the questions. Do you think we have observed the movement of the earth's crust apart from earthquakes?"
Go ahead and play silly word games if you want, but you have provided no evidence that any observed movement of the earth's crust can be extrapolated into support for the Lewis 'Overthrust'.
but whether you know what you are talking about.
For questions of what Darwinism is about, I'd suggest going to the source, Darwin. There you can find a clear negative on the subject of applying eugenics in human society. Or do you think people should take Ferdinand II of Aragon's view of Christian brotherly love over the words of Christ?
“And where did Darwin say that? Oh yeah, he didn't, in fact arguing against it. Other evil people thought up the second part.” [excerpt]Yeah, other evil people, some having the last name of Darwin.
This must be the only case in history of the descendants differing in opinion from the man.
Of course, under Darwinian Evolution, the concept of evil is nothing more than a chemical process in the brain.
Does that make it any less valid? Actually, Darwin didn't work on the concept of evil, but on sympathy and compassion (cornerstones of Christianity, BTW) being conducive to a strong society, and eugenics being in opposition to those concepts.
While he may not have promoted Eugenics directly, he was racist and he did lay the groundwork on which Eugenics was built.
And Christ laid the groundwork for all the murders committed in the name of Christianity. Blame Christ, or those who misuse his work? You decide, but remember your decision applies to Darwin.
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.