[andysandmikesmom]

These last few posts have been way over my head, and my intelligence, as I am really having a hard time understanding what all of you are discussing...but I have latched onto one statement made by Betty Boop and repeated by Freedumb2003 "At bottom, the problem I have with Darwinist theory is the way in which it has been appropriated by other thinkers."....When Freedumb2003 brought up the example of how Jim Jones quoted the Bible, and yet correctly asserts, can this then invalidate the Bible?, he makes a tremendous point...

This hit especially home to me, because you see, Jim Jones, actually had his Temple, in Redwood Valley California, just down the road from my aunt and uncle...who for themselves saw the destructive nature of Jim Jones temple, and how he perverted the Bible for his own use, and saw many of their neighbors and those who followed Jones from their previous location, misled...no one in their full senses should blame this whole situation on the Bible, what Jones did was a horrible and terrible perversion of the Bible, for his own selfish use...

So, I just dont see how Darwin, can be held accountable for how anyone else used his writings...it makes no sense...people often write of things which they believe to be true, should they then be held accountable for anyone who might try to twist and pervert those writings to suit their own purpose?...I dont think so...I think its important to actually read what Darwin did say, to be firm in what in what he said, and then should someone else try to pervert the meanings in those writings for his own purpose, the informed reader can see those perversions for what they are...

If I write something, based on my observations, and then form my own conclusions, and then someone else reads it, and then uses what I say, but tilts it, whether a little or
a lot, to suit their own purpose, am I then responsible for how that reader perverted what I said?..I dont think so...

Darwin said what he said, he wrote what he wrote...if others chose to take that, and used it to suit their own purpose, how is that Darwins fault?

[freedumb2003]

Thanks for picking up on that.

Sometimes I feel I am all alone out here. Coyoteman and Ichemon keep the facts going, but I am trying to battle the 100% Logical Fallacy strategy that is embraced by the CRIDers.

As always, what happens is when I challenge them, they don't answer or just use ad hominem responses.

This is even beyond the facts -- it is about a blatant attempt by those who would attempt to defend the indefensible (CRID, attacks on TTOE) by using a web of pure lies. I even had someone say the other day that Strawman arguments are NOT lies, just "an attempt at obfuscation which isn't lying." (I can provide the link but I have to comb back through the pages of posts to find it).

Folks, you can't make this stuff up.

[betty boop]

So, I just dont see how Darwin, can be held accountable for how anyone else used his writings...it makes no sense...people often write of things which they believe to be true, should they then be held accountable for anyone who might try to twist and pervert those writings to suit their own purpose?...I dont think so.

Neither do I! Thanks for writing, andysandmikesmom!