Posted on 01/15/2008 4:32:43 PM PST by wagglebee
Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
Thanks for giving more evidence that evolution deniers are stuck on stupid.
This from a man whose “museum” teaches that it is OK to have sex with your sister if she’s the only date you can find.
I draw a very clear distinction between evolution (a debatable scientific theory) and Darwinism (a political movement with eugenic atheism at its core).
“Thanks for giving more evidence that evolution deniers are stuck on stupid.”
LOL! As if any more evidence was needed. Racist! Hitler! It’s getting to where you can’t tell the libtards from the cretards without a program.
Col 3:11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
Christianity clearly teaches that all are equal before God. I guess someone who wanted racism needed something to justify it and found it in Darwinism.
That doesn’t equate to what you wrote. That’s intentional misrepresentation on your part. The meaning is clear, you should be able to see it.
Did Cain marry his sister? Ken Ham rather strongly implies he did. I’m not aware of any such declaration in the Bible, and yet Ken Ham says it would be OK.
My question to Ken ham is whether it is OK to make up stuff that isn’t in the Bible and then lecture other people’s children about why it is OK.
That has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. That’s as blatant an attempt at topic changing as I’ve seen yet.
If you want to discuss the topic, why don’t you start a thread about it?
bump
Ken Ham gave a talk at our church once. If I recall correctly, he does believe that Adam and Eve’s kids had to marry each other. Who else would they marry, I suppose. The earliest humans lived hundreds of years and were more pure, not yet prone to genetic disorders, etc., so at first they were allowed to marry close relatives. The prohibitions against incest did not occur until later in the Bible. At least according to Ham. I disagree with a lot of what he teaches. I’m just reporting what I remember about that particular issue.
Interesting.
For the record, I’ve always accepted natural selection as fact. I found the subject fascinating in school. But, yes, as the article points out, it’s obvious that eugenicists and racists of all kinds derive their theories from the theory of evolution. The Holocaust and euthanasia is what happens when natural selection is used (or misused) as a guide for life, without a belief in Natural Law or a moral guide.
Still, if people like Hitler truly wanted to live according to Darwin’s theory alone, they would never exterminate people nor frown upon intermarriage between groups. In survival of the fittest, variety is important. When the environment changes, the very traits that were a disadvantage in the previous environment can be an asset in the new environment.
"Physical, mental, and moral peculiarities go with blood and not with language. In the United States the negroes have spoken English for generations; but no one on that ground would call them Englishmen, or expect them to differ physically, mentally, or morally from other negroes." -- Thomas Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog" [Erik Trinkaus, Pat Shipman, The Neandertals pp 46-47]
That’s like saying holocaust museums teach that it’s OK to exterminate Jews.
I no longer have the slightest interest in debated creation vs. evolution. I have NEVER seen anyone who is firmly on one side or the other change their mind on the subject, nor do I see any real value on debating something that either did or did not happen but cannot be concretely proven either way.
That being said, it is an historical FACT that the Darwin family used evolutionary theories to develop racist eugenics. I see evolution as one facet of Darwinism, but it is the eugenics aspect of Darwinism that is far more dangerous and destructive. It is without question that Hitler and Sanger were believers in eugenics in exactly the way that Galton and Leonard Darwin intended and while Galton and Darwin may not have openly called for the death of those they considered "inferior," it was a logical and predictable result.
The thread is about whether Ken Ham can even read, much less draw moral conclusions.
He does seem willing to read things into the Bible that aren’t there, and teach his fantasies to other people’s children as Biblical truth.
Well, I suppose that makes sense, since racism was invented in the mid 19th century. Before that, everybody just smiled on their brother and learned to love one another. [/S]
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.