Here is how the Temple of Darwin viewed the close proximity of the anthropormophic apes and the "savage" races back in Darwin's day (and to some extent they still do, as evidenced by some of the comments made by Darwin's modern followers):
Posted on 09/30/2009 11:46:34 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Anti-Defamation League, the country's leading group dedicated to fighting anti-Semitism, is rightly sensitive to the offense of trivializing the Holocaust. Why, then, has the ADL said nothing in protest against the Darwinian biologist and bestselling atheist author Richard Dawkins and his comparison of Darwin doubters to Holocaust deniers?...
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.beliefnet.com ...
It would be absurd for me to argue that tpanther is not Christian because he is not Catholic, yet that is the analog of your (and his) argument.
Just nevermind he’s done exactly that, with his “cult” spew to me and metmom about every 4th or so post.
Choose.
The question was: “It is Christ who is the judge as to who is, or is not, a Christian. Do you deny that?”
Some are, some aren’t.
“Just nevermind he’s done exactly that, with his “cult” spew to me and metmom about every 4th or so post.”
It is my goal to increase my frequency to 1 in every 2 posts.
Which ones aren’t?
“(blah, blah, blah)”
Gotcha!
Source?
Here is how the Temple of Darwin viewed the close proximity of the anthropormophic apes and the "savage" races back in Darwin's day (and to some extent they still do, as evidenced by some of the comments made by Darwin's modern followers):
“Darwin and his cohorts were no benign, altuiristic bunch of humanitarians.
A bad man can make good sounding statements, but the bad things he says reveal what he’s really all about. It really pretty much contaminates the batch for the rest of what he says. It makes all the good sounding stuff ring hollow.”
—How much can someone really be asked to *not* be a product of their times? Darwin was incredibly forward thinking for his time. He wrote letter after letter denouncing, in the strongest language you’ll ever see him use, the treatment that many aboriginal people were receiving, and especially slavery and gave money to missionaries to help improve their treatment. He was nearly thrown off the Beagle for standing up to his captain’s racist statements. While in South America he even jumped in and intervened between a slave-master and his slave who was being brutally whipped; IMO, that’s what he’s “really about”.
You’ll be very very hard pressed to find someone in the mid 19th century that’s not “bad” if you’re going to hold them to modern standards.
Take Abraham Lincoln for example (rather appropriate both because he was born on the same day as Darwin, and he’s a hero of racial equality).
He actually had this to say: “Negro equality! Fudge! How long, in the Government of a God great enough to make and rule the universe, shall there continue knaves to vend, and fools to quip, so low a piece of demagogism as this.”
But does that make Lincoln a “bad man”? I certainly disagree whole-heartily with that statement, but I’m going to judge Lincoln by, in part, by the environment he’s in. (If people 150 years from now find stuff I’ve read, I hope they give me the same benefit.)
Again, how much can we ask of someone?
source?
“I am pleasantly surprised by your “no” answer”
because I also used to believe the universe was billions of years old and evolved and didn’t have a problem with it but I also never had a problem if the other side was true. I just followed the evidence. The atheists aren’t willing to do that though I must also admit that I’m not terribly thrilled by AIG and ICR, either.
“Athiests could just as easily believe in the seeding of life on earth from extra-terrestrial sources, without the need for evolution.”
but the assumption for ET comes from evolution.
No, I don’t think you do.
If you want to delve further into some of the aspects of this issue, then, fine, let’s do it. But don’t expect that you can demand answers from me that are pleasing to you, and do not think that you can dictate the entire course of the discussion.
Choose.
The question was, “It is Christ who is the judge as to who is, or is not, a Christian. Do you deny that?”
It is impossible to escape the racist, eugenicist tendency of Darwin's ideas...even if he himself didn't have the intestinal fortitude to follow his own ideas to their logical conclusion.
I’m sorry—should I be referring to “blah, blah, blah” or to one of your other less repetitious posts?
I presented you with a contradiction—will you address it?
That's up to Christ to decide, dontcha think?
Still trying to play the Master Inquisitor.
I presented you with a question - will you address it?
re: Darwin’s stance on slavery and the “less favored” races:
http://www.discovery.org/a/9171
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-reader-darwins-racism/
“Yeah right, Darwin spends a whole paragraph giving all the reasons why we should exterminate the less fortunate among us...”
—I’m still wondering what part of the paragraph you disagree with.
Soure for what, common historical knowledge? Or maybe not so common. Check any non-biased source that deals with the crusades.
Or is there a part of that you dispute? Is that what you want the source on?
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.