Scientists find evolution of life

EurekAlert ^ | 10/30/03

[gore3000]

Are you sure about Darwin?

Yes, definitely. The following shows not only his atheism but his deceitfullness about it:

"P.S. Would you advise me to tell Murray [his publisher] that my book is not more un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, &c, &c., and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.

Or had I better say nothing to Murray, and assume that he cannot object to this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs sharp counter to Genesis."
From: Daniel J. Boorstein, The Discoverers, page 475.

[CobaltBlue]

Dear gore3000 -

I am sorry that you interpreted what I said as an insult. No insult was intended.

My intention was simply to ask you to tell me what you think about the things I mentioned.

You suggested that I read things linked on your profile.

In retrospect, I can see how my stating that I was reluctant to read things on creationist websites due to problems with spyware could be interpreted as an insult to those websites, but I really don't see how it could be intepreted as an insult to you, personally. I certainly did not intend to imply that you were personally responsible for things that other people put on their websites.

If I can point something out - you said you thought I should know what you think because we post on the same threads - yet, despite the fact that I have pointed out many times that I am female (married, mother of teenaged boys) you never picked up on that fact, and think I am a "he." So, maybe you can understand that I haven't picked up on things you've said.

At any rate, please do not accuse me of insulting you. It was certainly not my intention.

[Jim Robinson]

No one is compelling you to participate on these threads or even on this forum. If you don't like what other posters are saying on these threads, why don't you just stay off of them?

[AndrewC]

If you don't like what other posters are saying on these threads, why don't you just stay off of them?

Does that mean you are not interested in diversity of opinion?

[Jim Robinson]

Nope. Means if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

[AndrewC]

Nope. Means if you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Then why should anyone get run off?

[gore3000]

No one is compelling you to participate on these threads or even on this forum. If you don't like what other posters are saying on these threads, why don't you just stay off of them?

Excuse me, this is a forum which supposedly accepts different views. This is a forum which is about discussing issues not about abusing people as your own statements verify:

Please: NO profanity, NO personal attacks, NO racism or violence in posts.

Are you saying that only atheists should participate in these threads? I am trying to engage in a scientific discussion arguing the facts not the people. I am being abused for my opinions - which are conservative Christian opinions. Why is such being allowed? Why am I being abused and when I complain about it I am the one that gets threatened not the abusers?

As to why I stay in them there is one very simple reason - I am a conservative and atheism and materialism and evolution are joined together in a fight to destroy freedom in this country. I am trying to do my small part in trying to prevent that.

[Jim Robinson]

Look, the whole problem here is the fact that the posters on both (or all three sides or whatever) of this "debate" end up calling each other names and or getting into all sorts of personal attacks, etc. The feuds are deep and long running and the abuse comes from all involved.

It's usually impossible for the moderators to determine who started it or who's to blame, etc, because the feuds go way back and there really are no clean hands here. Yet, the abuse reports continue rolling in and you're all asking us to do something about it.

What can we do about it? We are not miracle workers. We can't read minds or hearts. You're asking the impossible of us. And we really do not have the time or the desire to babysit these threads anyway.

I've personally long given up on trying to moderate these threads. Y'all can play whatever types of games you wish and then when the abuse reports (or pings to me or the moderators) get too numerous, I simply move the thread to the backroom. And if it continues to get out of hand beyond that point, I simply delete the thread. That usually takes care of the problem.

At one time I did not even allow this type of debate on FR because it's impossible to please all the players. If you guys can't solve the problem amongst yourselves, well, I guess we can always go back to that policy.

The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway.

[Jim Robinson]

Actually, these threads have very little or even nothing to do with the purpose of FR. And, by the way, sounds like you're making the same error in assumption as some of our liberal trolls make when they get banned. FR is not a liberal debating society. Nor is it a free speech forum.

[DoctorMichael]

".....The theory of evolution really has no bearing on what I'm trying to accomplish with FR anyway....."

BUMP!

[gore3000]

Look, the whole problem here is the fact that the posters on both (or all three sides or whatever) of this "debate" end up calling each other names and or getting into all sorts of personal attacks, etc. The feuds are deep and long running and the abuse comes from all involved.

No, it does not. I showed exactly where it started - at post# 301 and quickly - even after I tried to defuse the situation - Vade Retro joined in and then longshadow who had not had anything to say on this thread and miraculously showed up to throw more gasoline into the fire. I have seen plenty of threads destroyed here by such tactics and I contacted your moderator who claimed that he wanted to see who was starting these flame wars when I showed him exactly who was starting them he said bad boy to the inciter and dressed me down for pointing the facts to him. He thus further inflamed the situation and aided in the degeneration of this thread. If he had taken off the posts starting it as well as my own trying to avert it, the problem would have been ended and an example would have been given that such was not to be allowed.

Dales is clearly biased and part of the problem not part of the solution.

[gore3000]

And, by the way, sounds like you're making the same error in assumption as some of our liberal trolls make when they get banned.

You are calling me a liberal??????????????

So tell me, how many liberals are against evolution? Tell me that the NEA, and the atheists which are fighting together with the evolutionists to keep opposing ideas out of the schools are not liberals. Show me one single liberal post from my over two years of posting on FR.

[Jim Robinson]

There is a point where further discourse is not worth the effort. We have reached that point. Good day sir.

Jim out.

[Virginia-American]

You quoting Darwin to show his atheism:

"Would you advise me to tell Murray [his publisher] that my book is not more un-orthodox than the subject makes inevitable. That I do not discuss the origin of man. That I do not bring in any discussion about Genesis, &c, &c., and only give facts, and such conclusions from them as seem to me fair.

...this much unorthodoxy, which in fact is not more than any Geological Treatise which runs sharp counter to Genesis."

Sounds to me that he's saying his theory contradicts a literal reading of Genesis; I don't see anything to support the claim he was atheist. Westminster Abbey's web site said agnostic; I'd give them the benefit of the doubt.

Also note that geology had already cast grave doubt on Genesis; try as they might, they couldn't find any evidence for the Flood. This had happened something like 30 years before the Origin.

[VadeRetro]

No, it does not. I showed exactly where it started - at post# 301 and quickly - even after I tried to defuse the situation - Vade Retro joined in

Now, now! Nothing at all in 301 is an attack on you personally or even your posts. It shows a genuine curiosity as to what you do believe concerning the origin of species, given that you never mention specifically what you do believe, only what you don't. She speculates that you are what amounts to an Old-Earth Creationist or OEC. (She doesn't use the word.) I can see where she gets the idea. This is a thing which many people freely admit to being. Hugh Ross's ReasonsToBelieve.org represents a lot of them.

My 323 presents an alternate speculation. That would make you a Young-Earth Creationist or YEC, a thing which many people admit to being, a tiny few of same being affiliated with DesignedUniverse.com where you are a player. True, the post speculates that you are for tactical reasons keeping quiet about your personal theories, but that's pretty obvious anyway. You have at one time or other attacked radiometric dating, the geologic column, the Big Bang theory, paleontology, ... I forget. Cobalt probably didn't know all that when she guessed you're an OEC.

[HalfFull]

What can we do about it? We are not miracle workers. We can't read minds or hearts. You're asking the impossible of us.

It is easy....the initiator of insults on any particular thread gets banned for two weeks, then a month, and third offense permanent. Would clear up personal attacks in record time.

[dighton]

Here's a frozen lake. What are these people doing, and why?

Baiting lutefisk and clubbing baby møøses, because they are nasti persons.

[gore3000]

if the quote in post# 361 does not convince you of Darwin's atheism and deceitfullness about it, perhaps the following two quotes will:

I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for if so, the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother, and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.
From: Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. The note to the text above says: "These recollections were confided to her son Francis and recorded by him soon after the death of Charles Darwin (Cambridge MSS). An expurgated version may be found in Emma Darwin, Letters I, 40.

....................

Last night Dicey and Litchfield were talking about J. Stuart Mill's never experessing his religious convictions, as he was urged to do by his father. Both agreed strongly that if he had done so, he would never have influenced the present age in the manner in which he has done. His books would not have been text books at Oxford, to take a weaker instance. Lyell is most firmly convinced that he has shaken the faith in the deluge far more efficiently by never having said a word against the Bible, than if he had acted otherwise. ...

I have lately read Morley's Life of Voltaire and he insists strongly that direct attacks on Christianity (even when written with the wonderful vigor of Voltaire) produce little permanent effect; real good seems only to follow the slow and silent side attacks.
From: Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, page 387. The note to the text above says: (Unexpurgated) Autobiography, Oct 21, 22, 24, 1973, Cambridge MSS.

[PatrickHenry]

Post 266

[Stultis]

I doubt that either even owned a microscope. Darwin did not either.

While classifying the barnacles he collected during the Beagle voyage, Darwin discovered that the taxonomy of Cirripedia was in disarray. He decided to set this right. It was a project that he thought would take a year or so. Instead he spent eight years at it. The result was a series of monographs on the entire systematics (taxonomy, anatomy, life history, etc) of barnacles, living and fossil. This work is still cited today as a standard scientific reference. (Admittedly taxonomic references are often longer lived than other scientific works, but it is still astonishing for a scientific reference to remain relevant after more than 160 years.)

In conducting his research Darwin dissected thousands upon thousands of barnacles UNDER HIS MICROSCOPE and made innumerable original discoveries about these creatures (in addition to constructing a comprehensive scheme of classification which modern scientists still use).