| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
Any thoughts? LA Weekly May 18 - 24, 2001 Twisting Darwin Evolution, eugenics and racism, American style by Margaret Wertheim Alas, poor Darwin. Probably no scientist in history has been more hated than this mild-mannered Englishman. Last week saw yet another twist in the war on his theory of evolution when the state of Louisiana decided that this famous theory was racist. “Be it resolved that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, and does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others,” reads a resolution approved by the state’s House Education Committee on May 1. The bill’s sponsor, Louisiana state Representative Sharon Broome (a Democrat rather than the usual Republican), told the Baton Rouge Advocate that Darwin “teaches that some humans have evolved further than others” and that his theory “holds that people of color are savages.” According to Broome, this means that Darwin has “provided the main rationale for modern racism.” Take on board evolution, says the resolution’s sponsors, and Nazism, or something like it, will soon follow. The resolution is not a bill of law and has no legislative power over science education in the state, but sponsors are already saying their next step will be to press for evolution disclaimers in textbooks. There is nothing new about Christian-fundamentalist opposition to evolution, but calling it a racist theory and blaming it for the Nazis is certainly one of the more aggressive strategies to date. Sadly, it is not a claim that can be lightly dismissed. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a nonprofit organization devoted to fighting creationism in American schools, admits that this association is especially prevalent in America’s black communities. In the online journal Salon, Scott notes that “Every time I do an interview on a station with a predominantly black listenership, someone invariably calls in and asks, ‘Well why should our kids learn evolution? Evolution is just the source of racism.’” Darwin’s theory of evolution says nothing per se about the supposed inferiority or superiority of any race. Indeed, evolutionary theory has played a critical role in revealing how all races come from the same origin — that we are all children of the same mother, the proverbial “African Eve.” If anything, Darwin’s theory should be an argument for racial equality. But like all scientific theories, the ideas of evolution can be used to support particular ideologies. Unfortunately, those concepts have historically been co-opted in support of some extremely racist ones. It is all well and good to defend evolutionary theory, as champions of science have leapt to do over the past week; and those of us who care about science education must continue to fight creationists — ad infinitum, it seems. But we who care about science must also admit there is a dark side. Rather than trotting out bombastic babble about the “neutrality” and “purity” of science, we must face up to the ways in which scientific ideas get interwoven into sociopolitical agendas. Moreover, we must acknowledge that scientists often play a role in this process. The trouble began in the 1870s, when America witnessed the rise of an increasingly virulent eugenics movement, one that aimed to stamp out genetically “inferior” types while simultaneously increasing the proportion of “superior” types. Take the following statement from 1913: “The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population . . . The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity.” This was uttered not by some German proto-fascist but by U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt, who thereby echoed a sentiment held by millions of supposedly “enlightened” American citizens. Between the 1890s and the 1920s, American society resounded with eugenics dogma, an episode of history that is all too often swept under the carpet. Fact is, the Nazis did not invent the idea; they imported it from the home of the brave and land of the free. Spawned in the wake of the first great wave of nonwhite immigration, the movement was a response to the perceived loss of WASP hegemony and the mushrooming problems of an increasingly urban society — to wit, crime, poverty and social unrest. Eugenics reformers saw the protection and cleansing of the gene pool as the solution to all these “ills.” Scientists played a huge role in this movement. In Kenneth Ludmerer’s seminal history Genetics and American Society, he points out that nearly half of U.S. geneticists at the time were involved. A typical pronouncement came from professor H.S. Jennings of Johns Hopkins University, who declared that “To go to the root of the troubles, a better breed of men must be produced.” And just what did “better” mean? First and foremost, the eradication of all “criminal” types, as well as those who were mentally “defective.” But for many in the movement it also had racial connotations. The Nordic races were seen as the superior type; Mediterraneans, Slavs, Jews, Asians and, above all, Africans were seen as inferior. Such attitudes served to shape immigration policy, and by 1928 more than three-quarters of American colleges and universities were teaching eugenics courses. Repeatedly in eugenics literature one finds the notion of a racial ranking, with Caucasians routinely depicted as “higher” up some scale than non-Caucasians. The implication is that in some vital sense Caucasians are more evolved. In evolutionary theory, strictly speaking, no creature is higher or lower than any other, but this theory has given us the psychologically powerful trope of the tree of life. Here, simple creatures (such as bacteria) are depicted at the bottom, with more complex creatures (such as mammals) depicted at the top. Humans are at the very apex of this tree. In common discourse we routinely talk about mammals being higher up the evolutionary tree than reptiles, and so on. Even scientists fall into this pattern of speaking. Whether or not the idea of one creature being above another has any empirical validity, it is an idea that has become deeply embedded in our cultural consciousness. The eugenics movement played on this belief big time by implying at every turn that nonwhites, and especially blacks, were lower down the evolutionary scale. That view is far from dead, as attested to by the spewings of many white-supremacist groups that continue to flourish in America today. A corollary to racial ranking is the notion that the proper destiny of humanity is for us to realize our potential by taking evolution into our own hands. Eugenicists of the early 20th century advocated doing that through forced sterilization for criminals and the mentally impaired. Laws to do just that were enacted in many states. No one has enacted a law to sterilize nonwhites, but in the age of genetic engineering, the idea of taking control of human evolution is becoming increasingly common. Newspapers and airwaves buzz with talk about “improving” and “perfecting” our species. Visions of what a “better” or “more evolved” human might amount to generally conform to that of the film Gattaca, which starred two of the most gorgeously white people on Earth — Uma Thurman and Ethan Hawke. In debates about evolution it is crucial to bear in mind that Darwin’s theory makes no value judgments about any organism, but popular (and even scientific) discourse on the subject is shot through with language that continually implies a ranking. In this sense black Americans have every reason to be suspicious. The solution is not to ban the teaching of this core scientific theory, but to expand science education to include discussion of the social and cultural context of science |
that's a load of shit. darwin's theory, by definition, is racist. it's not judgemental, but it is definitely racist. but what is the matter with that? it holds water-- at least on some levels, for now. in society does it have to do with the superiority of one skin color over another? sure it does! it's obvious when you look at the breakdown of our leadership. of our wealthly. but to say that this strata has anything to do with the genetics of species (not even a species, really, but a sub-species, ethnicity,) is bunk. it has to do with societies. white society, black society, latin society, asian society. how education is established. how culture motivates individuals (asians and latinos both started as dirt-poor, hard-labor, non-white californians: one group is now strongly represented among the wealthy, one is not.) and certainly, societies effect other societies. keeping a huge percentage of the working-age black males in prison has to hinder something. but to "reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others" just shows how distant the american populus is from understanding science. might as well condem the history books that describe american slavery, chinese railroad workers, japanese internment, mexican farm labor-- certainly these describe concepts that are racist, also. |
"in society does it have to do with the superiority of one skin color over another? sure it does! it's obvious when you look at the breakdown of our leadership. of our wealthly." these seems to me more sociological than biological...i've always taken Darwinism in more biological terms. Im not doubting Darwinism can include the sociological realms..but its not its primary focus. Maybe i've misinterpreted the whole thing. |
I've never read "origin of species" in its entirety, so I don't know what all it says. but if darwin ever said that some races are "inherently superior" than others, then fine, let the science teachers all ignore that paragraph. however, it's still true that sickle-shaped blood cells have helped protect some african people from getting malaria, and it's true that light-skinned people are able to produce (or is that process?) more vitamin d when they sit in the sun, and it's true that fewer africans get melanoma. the question of whether all that means charles darwin or god is racist, I'll leave for the louisiana legislature to decide. |
Sunshine, on my nutsack, makes me smile; Sunshine, on my nutsack, looks so lovely, Sunshine almost always makes me high. |
A few sentences gone awry in what has become one of the most brilliant scientific documents ever recorded, and it's time for the warning stickers. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what Darwin DID mean, that other races are savages. I also wouldn't care. He lived in a time when no-one understood native people, when everyone had slaves and servants. Of course he would see them as inferior, at the time they were treated and understood as such. Sure he was a highly educated scientist, but that doesn't mean he was going to know any better at the time, when these people were being bought and sold like chickens. No shit Louisiana. this reminds me of when the musical Show Boat was in town, and there were protests because of how black people were portrayed. Because everyone knows that there was never any slavery on the Mississippi way back when. Of course not. I'm with nate, somebody has to teach these people the difference between 'promoting racism' and plain old history class. If some kid, somewhere, is actually ignorant enough to read the Origin of the Species and suddenly turn Nazi overnight, well, i say he was doomed from the start. Now all i can hear is Mrs.Lovejoy screaming- *won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?!?* |
My kids attend a Catholic school.I do not have them there for the religion.[I am a FIRM evolutionist.]My children attend this school,because the quality of education is so poor down here. This has been a difficult choice for me,with my "free-thinking" ways.More than anything,I have always tried to give my children a broad rounding of life,to never accept something just because "somebody says so".To be thinkers,to research,and use their own cognitive skills to form an opinion. This has caused me great concern,[in relation to their Catholic school],as I am well aware,that if info is consistently bombarded into someone,they eventually "buy the product". Catholicism is the mainstay in the area I live in.Little statues of Mary in everyones yards,etc.They even have a "Traveling Mary" that suspossedly crys,or oozes blood,or some such nonsense.This "fantastic" statue can come to YOUR house,too.Apparently a very long waiting list.But it requires 24 hour a day survelliance,while in your posession.[a friend of mine liked to hide at his parents house,and when visitors would come to marvel at this pious engima,he would "talk" to them,giving them all kinds of "divine inspiration".Sometimes he would squirt the statues eyes with a squirt gun,while the visitors were deep in prayer.[untill his parents caught him,tee hee]I loved that kid.He was bright.My favorite that he did,was when he would go out,and not be back in time for his curfew,he would call his house,and when his dad would answer,he'd say,"Thats okay dad,I got it.Its for me."Worked every time. But I digress.Sorry,I just got off from working a night shift. Where I was going with this,is that their school had to call me in,and ask that I remove my Darwin emblem from my car,as it was "distressing" the other parents.I had no choice but to comply,as transportation would be a problem,with me working nights,and trying to get my kids to another non-religious school,farther away. I think that possibly the reason this controversy started,is that there is an incredibly small gene pool here.And there is some loss of cognitive function in consangious spawn.So they just can't see the whole picture. |
I could go off on evolution and the like, but I just don't feel like ranting too much today. I will say that I have little patience with those that think evolution begins and ends with Darwin. What a nation of morons we have become. |
i have another history called "pictorial history of the world" - published in 1894, doesn't even have ww1 in it. it belonged to my paternal great-grandfather. i think it was the first book he got in america after he immgrated from ireland. it treats the bible stories as historical fact. i've got one of them darwin fishes on my car, too. i also own a copy of "origin of species." it doesn't say anthing about race. it's just about flora and fauna. it's just that, at that time, it was easy to apply the theories to humans. ideas of racialism already existed; it's just that, as george bernard shaw said, "darwin had the luck to please anybody with an axe to grind." A philosopher named Herbert Spencer found grounds in "origin" for his own theories of "survival of the fittest" in humans. he was the founder of social darwinism. his writings were an inspiration to great american materialists like andrew carnegie and rockefeller. marx and hegel saw darwin as a support for their theories. all of these theories were an answer to an age of revolution, both political and industrial, where the gap between the common people and nobility was closing. socialism, every-man-for-himself materialism, and fascism were all ways to cope with these masses of people. neither was the idea of evolution new. in the first page of "origin," darwin quotes from aristotle's "physicae auscultationes": [after a discussion on how teeth are adapted for tearing and maticating food.] And in like manner as to other parts of the body in where there appears to be an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perished." it still doesn't answer the question: has somebody given my cats amphetamines, or did she just evolve that way? |
|
you have anthing to do with that? |
|
|
|
it's not unusual for kittens to need help remembering where the litter box is, especially if you get them when they are *really* young. |
[and Dave,at least have the courtesy to use the litter box :)] |
which is good, because she shits bigger than i do. |
My cats are indoor/outdoor, which doesn't stop them from pissing on my guest's books, but does mean they make poopy in the yard. One of them has taken to shitting in gopher holes, which has a certain charm. |
when a cat (or dog) takes a dump somewhere, it leaves a "restroom" sign. the first night mattie (my current cat) was here she spent a lot of time hidden away (she was 7 weeks old). i knew she was shitting somewhere. i thought it was under the couches. it's not like i was shoveling pounds of shit from under my bed. just a few dried turds mixed in the junk under my bed. most of the time she was using the box, frequently enough for me not to notice where else she might be going. i got a friend to move my bed and cleaned it out, shampooed the rug, and sprayed it with "odor remover." i'm sure she'll stick to the box. i don't worry about the carpet, anyway. before i even had a cat my wheelchairs wheels where damaging the cheap rug. |
|
shit, i gotta go. evolving, you know. see you when you catch up. |
|
They are. "Why aren't the apes not continuing to become humans?" They're continuing to become something. "You people do not want any absolutes." If I meet an absolute, and there is absolute proof that it is an absolute, then I'll absolutely accept it. "You want to be a people out of control." Don't necessarily want it that way, but I can't control the universe. "Prove you darwinism!" Sure. There are books and entire schools that will help you to understand the proof. You can study the theory of evolution and see the evidence. "Why can't your darwinism continue to change an ape into a human." Well, according to the theory, evolutionary changes take a long time. And modern apes wouldn't, in all probability, change into what humans are now, though they would be closer to humans than any other animal. |
|
|
i better go tell my educators that i don't "sound to intelligent" and tell em to get on the ball! though *i* surely never said that humans are the most superior |
|
|
|
"making a living" "running the world" as if. what arrogance to presume that humans are superior because we spend our energy making high declarations of things we barely understand and spending the rest of our time destroying things. i have faith that i am as far from knowing anything as i am close to knowing it. everything is the truth. oh, and the argument that "there are no abolutes" is an absolute is weak, and also wrong. |
It has to be one or the other? Or must it only be YOUR god that created it? Not Zeus or Vishnu? |
|
So, I guess you don't think the bible proves anything about god, right? "Evolution can not even be proven!" Probably not in the way you'd like, no. It's a science, not a religion. Yes, the base assumptions of science requires belief, a belief in your base assumptions, but they're always open to interpretation. We must believe that our senses can be trusted. We must believe that rational thought is a valid form of thought. But, that the same time, you can change the senses you use to gather data. You can change the definition of "rational." It takes great effort to change these things, but it is possible. "Since you people are evolving and humans are the most superior in the evolutionary chart it shocks me that most of you all curse." Possibly it's superior to curse, you sperm burping miscreant. "I don't see any humans locked up on display at the zoo" I guess you haven't heard of Abu Graib or Nick Berg, then? "Gravity is gravity no matter what i "think" about it." Wait, so you're willing to believe in the science behind gravity, but not the science behind evolution? Why? |
|
99% of all species that have lived on earth are now extinct. this is part of evolution. Not every species or anything like that is going to evolve or become somewhat humanoid in its progress. Instead of changing in shape, it could just be perfecting its senses or evolving in miniscule ways that make that species 'perfect'. Lets look at a rabbit. If a rabbit made too much noise, it would be heard and thus more likely to get eaten by an eagle or whateverelse eats rabbits. So obviously a rabbit isnt going to progress into some communicating being. Who knows? Maybe at one time rabbits made more noise and they just learned to shut the fuck up, to survive. Thats natural selection, and it gets mixed up with evolution, because with a lot of species' history we dont know what happened. You can only prove so much. The best reason to believe evolution existed has to be the common ancestors thing. I mean, why the fuck do whales have hip bones? Explain THAT, Mr. "God made everything perfect". There are fossils out there where there were whales with rear legs! Archaeopteryx: feathers of a bird, but they have teeth! Why? common ancestors. Humans, apes, and ancient humans. What's common: DNA! It just makes sense, and the Creationist neglect of such common sense science is astounding. I dont really get the big-bang theory myself and think there is a possibility, just one of many possibilities, that there is or was a GOd that created the universe. As for shaping life or not, I have no idea. Like wisper said, what makes you so sure its just one or the other? How arrogant are you to think that you have the answer? Because you say you saw God have an impact on someones life? I've seen STAMP COLLECTING have an impact on someones life! So what? Its just ONE THING, and your PROOF is no more sound than any scientists proof by any ways or means, and at least scientists are humble enough to admit they can only prove so much. Biblical creationism is Santa Claus. Fine to teach to kids, but one day you have to be an adult and recognize that things arent so simple. You ever notice how so many creationists look really unevolved? Why is it all these 'proof of creationism' sites that use the Bible and somehow manage to come up with excuses about dinosaurs... this one guy who says that Lucy wasnt really a link to apes, but just an ape that couldnt walk upright, and because of this doubt created it means that the "only other option" of Creationism MUST be true. that its only one or the other. Its retarded. Its like when something bad happens and they say "God hates me! I've displeased him!" instead of thinking "hey, maybe its all random." or "hey, maybe God exists but doesnt get involved with us anymore" or "hey, maybe theres no God". GRRR |
Wanna talk about natural selection in action? Talk to an exterminator. Ask what happens if they only use the same chemical all the time. A few cockroaches likely have a genetic resistance to that poison. Note that they didn't develop it as a result of being poisoned. They already had it due to random genetic combinations and mutations. So all the non-resistant cockroaches die out, and over the next few generations, the non-resistant genes get almost completely wiped out, and the cockroaches no longer die when you spray them. That's one tiny, tiny evolutionary step. Give it a few million years, and when you spray the cockroach, it will beat you with a baseball bat, kick you in the groin, and sue your ass for all you're worth. Cursing heavily, I'm sure. |
And evolution certainly doesn't exclude God in any way. It doesn't tell us how life started at all. Ok, I'm just muddying the waters. That's impatience in action. |
|
Did you know that you have about 25% of your DNA in common with a squash? True. Hey, godscreation, if evolution is all fake, then explain why people look different in different places? If the theory of evolution is invalid, then shouldn't we all, as descendants of Adam and Eve, all look pretty much exactly like them? Try explaining Tay-Sachs Disease or Sickle-Cell Anemia. Or the ability of Europeans to digest lactose. Try explaining that without referring to the basic concepts of evolutionary theory. |
Try explianing why some children are sitting in poverty in other countries and you are sitting on the internet chatting with me? Try to explian any disease: cancer,aids, cp,the list goes on? I have been to other countries. Dont even get me started on diseases? I have seen the suffering of people. Maybe God would like to teach us how to have compassion on people and for each other.I have been called arrogant several times since I logged on to this site. Talk about arrogant. Do you think Europeans are somehow better than other races or that some other races are better than any other just because of the diseases we all tolerate? I don't. I believe that God made us all in His image.I belive all men(women) were created equal no matter what their race. There are many reasons why people suffer from disease. Some for no reason that they can control and others because of sin. Some diseases are consequences to peoples actions. I have a friend with aids and he did not get aids because of natural selection, he got aids because he was sleeping around. I have seen the people starving in India because of their religious beliefs not because they don't have cattle or what the US has. There starving because they do not want to eat their ancestors. You will understand what I am saying if you understand the worlds religious beliefs. No one can make a person believe in God(the God of the bible) The God who claims this whole creation story.However, no one could make me believe in evolution. But I would like to say agian both take faith, everyone believes in something. When I say "books prove nothing" I am meaning just as an evolutionist would not believe the bible to be the inspired Word of God, neither do people who believe in God and creation believe in the books on evolution. Both take Faith to believe in them. Semillama: I have two children and both look very different than the other.I did not have children that all look just alike. My children are white because both my husband and I are white. However, if I am white and would have married a black,hispanic,chinese,etc. my children would have looked very different. How do you know what Adam and Eve looked like? Do you think that they were the same ethnic group? Do you think perhaps if me and my husband can have two kids that both look different , then just maybe other people in the world can have kids who look different? Not everybody has kids with people of the same race.My children are both from the same parents and one has olive skin and the other is very fair. Wow , how did that happen! Maybe natural selction blessed one with a suntan and the other will have to go to planet beach and get one. |
"Maybe natural selction blessed one with a suntan and the other will have to go to planet beach and get one. " My eyes rolled so much after this one they now hurt. I mean, wow, you didnt even bust out the Tower Of Babel on us! I have my suspicions about our new Christian friends... |
using *your* gods 'punishment' for 'sins' as a reason why diseases like AIDS exist is all too convenient, pussy and dangerous. That mentality is just as much a threat to mankind as the disease itself you self righteous cocksucker. |
|
worth wild? is that something like escaped goats? |
|
"If I live my life not believing in evolution, what consequences will it have on my life? Tell me, please?" Ignorance IS bliss. |
|
|
The lack of belief in evolution would have very little effect, it's the basis for lacking that can be harmful. It means you don't have a rational basis for making decisions. Building a worldview based on rationality means you can be persuaded, you can be changed, if presented with a compelling argument. I'm not saying emotion should not be a part of your life. It can be a useful guide. It is essential. But it shouldn't rule you. "If 'He' is not true than I have just lived a moral life, so what?" Yes, if you have lived a moral life, then that's great. But if you have used god as a justification to do immoral acts, such as invade a country or behead an innocent man, then who is to say you are wrong? You have god on your side and no amount of convincing, no amount of argument will change you. That is the danger. |
well, at least I am. Or that's what my "religion" tells me. plus: don't you think it's hard to argue when you have no clue about what you're talking about? Obviously not. Here's a topic for you: Name one key difference between Tay-Sachs Disease and AIDS, that might have a bearing on the topic of evolution. |
|
I listen to the Jesus channel on the tv. It's crystal clear reception has restored my faith in the big G. Rupert Murdoch thinks he's god, but I can't get FOX without an antennae. Daystar, on the other hand, would come through in a black out, I just know it. I believe. Faith in my television. No, I don't have a point. Originally, I was going to try to craft an anti-creationist rant based on the fact of stupidity not being painful, but I can't. My mutating genes kept me up all night and I am exhausted. |
you did not continue your own argument or make any new points you invented a new topic wherein you defended the equality of people with equally misguided arguments. as if we here need to be convinced that someone's skin color does not mean they are a lesser person. i hope we are *way* past that one. then: what tiggy said many of us here believe in god, we just don't believe everything we were taught as children by other people who are simply human themselves. |
|
|
how old are you? the rest of us know how old the others are |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that why you are here, to try and "score some points on the big bad evolutionists?" Or are you interested in having an actual discussion with folks who are intelligent and irreverent? if so, then perhaps you could and try to stop setting up straw men to knock down and actually address the questions/points/answers that you are recieving. Of course, I suspect that the former is true, not the latter, and that soon your attention span will wither and you will go away. That's generally what happens with people who can't actually back up their arguments. Did I mention that I evolved from abominable snowmen? |
|
|
Fish are friends not food. |
i don't expect you read in source language. i sure don't/can't in my parents' church the other day i was surprised to find that the sermon indulged in a little theological historical criticism. he noted that although a certain book in the new testamant was credited to a certain well-known figure, it was more probable that the words themselves were written hundreds of years after that person lived and assigned the famous name to make them more acceptable. i only say this to point out that not everything is what its label says it is, even in the bible, and i'm sure that this is only one example. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
the difference is that none of the biblical documents was originally written in english. every word and inference and colloquialism has been translated and interpreted from a language you don't read and a culture that we know less about than we'd like to let on. |
i'm so tired that when I look at GC's handle, I keep seeing "god's secretion" |
|
I've always wondered how many puns and inside jokes we're missing in the Bible because of the fact that it was produced in a completely different cultural context than people interpret it today. I mean, what if the Sermon on the Mount was a stand-up routine? and as far as suspecting your motives, re : "I did not set out to prove I was better..." let's look at your original post again, shall we? "By Godscreation on Friday, May 14, 2004 - 12:55 pm: Professing yourselves to be wise you become fools. I am thankful I live in a state that thinks darwinism is stupid." That certainly sounds to me like your intent was to provoke and act like you were superior. "When I go to Audubon Zoo I visit to see the animals God created. You people must go to the zoo to have a family reunion or something?" That's clearly one of the standard lame creationist insults. Again, a puzzling thing to say if one didn't come here to provoke and make themselves feel superior to others. "Tell me this: Why aren't the animals still evolving? Why aren't the apes not continuing to become humans? Why aren't your CATS evolving?" Antigone answered all your questions. Apparently you must have believed him because you made no attempt to rebuke his statements. I guess that makes you an evolutionist now, right? "HA!HA! People like you do not want to beleive in a God because then you would have to serve HIM! You people do not want any absolutes. You want to be a people out of control. Prove you darwinism! I can prove my GOD! I have seen HIM change peoples lives. Why can't your darwinism continue to change an ape into a human." Again, here you are, starting off by mocking and deriding and being aggresive and confrontational. So, why are you surprised when other people reply in the same tone? I also notice that you say you can prove your God. That's a pretty interesting statement, and one would think that you would have expanded on that in your arguments against the validity of the evolutionary theory. Very curious. Did I also mention that I'm a real, honest-to-goodness minister? true. |
|
|
|
Coincidentally I saw the movie this past weekend, but the phrase, is a common one, because sometimes meaning CAN become uh, lost in translations. So yes, you could write something in one language and once translated to another, some of the nuiances and intent of the author can be lost, or misinterpreted. Its not that far out of a concept. |
ewwwwww |
Now, if that last letter, a transcript of an oral history, was 500 years old and the oral history even older... I would most certainly screw that one up and any translation I read of that letter, I would approach with, not disbelief, but a critical eye nevertheless ...is what I think heather's point is. please excuse the bad grammar. no sleep |
though, silly me, i thought my point was clear. |
I read this and was pretty intrigued. I never knew some interpreted Darwinism to be a racist theory. How can a state legislature be so fucking stupid? What does Louisiana rank in education...like 49 or 50? Any thoughts? " Patrick is calling all of Louisiana stupid and mocking the rank. So I am only speaking how I am seeing it typed. Calling the legislature in LA "f" stupid because it views darwinism as racist. Is everything only your WAY. Are does every person have the right to express his or her views. It is funny to me that you are upset about how I came off, but have nothing to say about Patrick's Superior view of people from Louisiana. I have challenged your views , but you all have insulted me by calling me "pussy,god's secretion,sperm burping miscreant,self righteous cocksucker,etc..Never have I called any of you any names, infact I even gave Antigone a compliment. Antigone you claim that belief in God can start a war or behead someone and that is dangerous, take a good look at who is doing all the ugly name calling and consider that. |
|
|
"Antigone you claim that belief in God can start a war or behead someone and that is dangerous, take a good look at who is doing all the ugly name calling and consider that." Shall I continue with the tradition of stating the obvious problem with this god secreted statement? To my knowledge, none of the people here who called you these names have started any wars or beheaded anyone. So what is there for Antigone to consider? Sticks and stones.... |
The way you shift the blame, you must be a Bush voter. |
Nor has my belief in God caused me to start a war or behead someone.Nor has my belief in God caused me to call you anything at all but your screen name. You don't truley believe I didn't think you meant something by calling me god's screation now do you? Why don't you just address the Question? |
|
|
|
This infamous line of thought is the single weakest argument for god out there. Behold, as it overlooks every other possibility and cultures! See, if you don't believe in god, you'll go to hell, right? So you might as well just believe? This assumes that there are only 2 choices: Biblical god or no god..... "If "He" is not true than I have just lived a moral life, so what?" So what? You're in the same boat as the non-believer then. Sure, if you die and your specific god turns out to be in charge, you're fine. But over the course of our time here, humans have thought up at least 1 million gods and religions. What if you die and Allah was the right god? You're going to hell then, so you might as well just believe in Allah. What if Scientology was the right religion? You might as well just believe in Scientology, what have you got to loose? You don't want to be PUNISHED, do you??? Your chances of being right re:god, are exactly the same as everyone else's. Weak. |
|
|
moreover, my statement wasn't that far off base. http://www.morganquinto.com/edrank03.htm According to the methodology from this seemingly reputable source, in 2002 LA ranked second to last in education 'smarts' and this year, 2003, ranked 4th to last. Its also interesting to note LA is one of the most dangerous states too http://www.morganquinto.com/dang04.htm That aside... Lastly, this BBS and the majority of people within oooze all kinds of sarcasm that apparently you are unable or unwilling to entertain. One of the biggest smartasses around here from time to time is in the New Orleans area. So while I was being flamboyant in my opinion delivering i don't really believe (nor did i state directly, but merely implied) that the entire fucking state of LA is retarded, though, presumably you are from there, so you know.... Do the math.. Otherwise, lighten up. |
|
You haven't searched hard enough. Heck, in a thread a few days ago I casually insulted Nate. And I regularly call heather an ascerbic bitch, but since she actually is one I don't consider that an insult. "When a god is mocked which god in the world is usually mocked?" Matters where you are and who you talk to. You mentioned being in India. There I expect the Hindus most often mock the Muslims and vice-versa. |
|
ec, nothing you've been called can top that, my first non-fyya sorabji insult. |
|
I wasn't under the impression that we were mocking any gods. Where was that? I thought we were mocking you. So what does that have to do with anything? And what tiggy said. |
I think the absolute most accurate depiction of what any deity (including the Christian one) would actually be like is from Eric the Viking. At least that's the impression you get from their followers. Always trying to put that bike helmet on their god and make sure the training wheels are screwed on tight. Oh,yeah. JHVH-1 is a TOTAL asshole. ok, i feel better. |