Have Atheists Hijacked Darwin's Evolution??

I can't believe the amount of ignorance here.
Many of us creationists show PROOF of the connections between eugenics, genocide, atheism and evolution and some of you can still say, "That was how it was way back when", "Well, Christians have killed", "this isn't about evolution",!
I give you Darwin's OWN words and you look the other way, not even addressing it, instead focusing on his cousin and son!!!

Has Atheism hi-jacked the moral VOID of evolution? YES. Why?
Because without a CREATOR to endow inalienable rights to ALL, weak and small, the STRONGER, more vociferous cretins enforce theirs, JUST as in the jungle.

As for the modern evolutionists and their sterling intellect;
Does atheist Dawkins promote eugenics?
Yes.

As for the atrocities by stalin, hitler and mao and others, I don't believe you CAN'T see how Lamarckianism and Lysencoism were PRIMARY factors!
Darwin HIMSELF was racist.!

Explain to me, please, the 'supposed' glaring differences between Darwin, Lysenco and Lamarck.

Originally posted by Clearskies
I can't believe the amount of ignorance here.
Many of us creationists show PROOF of the connections between eugenics, genocide, atheism and evolution and some of you can still say, "That was how it was way back when", "Well, Christians have killed", "this isn't about evolution",!
I give you Darwin's OWN words and you look the other way, not even addressing it, instead focusing on his cousin and son!!!

I don't give a flying monkey about darwins words. I'm sorry but his theory is written down, if he went against it in life then that's his own issue. His theory is brillaint, if he went to eugenics then he went against his own theory. Are you unable to see that? Or are you just so utterly biased you can't see that?

Originally posted by Clearskies
Has Atheism hi-jacked the moral VOID of evolution? YES. Why?
Because without a CREATOR to endow inalienable rights to ALL, weak and small, the STRONGER, more vociferous cretins enforce theirs, JUST as in the jungle.

No i'm sorry but no. You are utterly misquoting evolution. Evolution doesn't favour rights, it doesn't favour any human concept, it favours adaptation to the enviroment. Therefore eugenics cannot possibly be evolution because evolution is natural and eugenics is selective dependant upon the human mind to decide what is more important genetically. If you understood Darwins theory you would see that the two theories are two completely seperate things. You don't want to understand though do you?

Originally posted by Clearskies
Explain to me, please, the 'supposed' glaring differences between Darwin, Lysenco and Lamarck.

In truth i don't care. What Darwin thought in his personal life is completely unimportant. What his theory says is the important part. If you want to attack his theory then stick to the theory, not the man. Hell i could attack atomic theory by attacking the men who support it and i coul no doubt find dirt on them. Would this disprove atmoic theory? No it wouldn't.

Stop trying to deflect the theory, start attacking the theory itself.

reply to post by Clearskies

Many of us creationists show PROOF of the connections between eugenics, genocide, atheism and evolution

Correction.You have shown theories & speculations,not proof.And you're forgetting one very important thing in regards to Hitler.He believed in God! And so did many other Nazi's.As well as the usual Catholic's & Protestants they also had a faith called Positive Christianity and a church called the National Reich Church.

Also when Hitler uses the word "evolution" in Mein Kampf,it is clear that he is not referring to Darwin's theory.He never mentions him. In fact,a look at his writings reveals his sentiments on the subject to be those of an orthodox creationist.

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger....

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape,were given their natures and their faculties.

Mein Kampf.

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them.

Speech,April 12 1922

The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator

Hitler's Tabletalk. (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

I give you Darwin's OWN words and you look the other way,not even addressing it,instead focusing on his cousin and son!!!

No you didn't.You quoted this;

After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest; and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity," a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean."

Only this bit

the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization.

was from Darwin.The rest is from Galton and what he did.

He reasoned

This is in reference to Galton.

You said,

Darwin subscribed to the the theory that the weak should not breed and degenerate the races, but argued that it would hurt the 'noble' conscience of those who CHOSE to limit the negative effects. And furthermore that the ONLY salvation in the evolution of mankind, was that those with deformities didn't marry and procreate as much as the 'fit'.

Nowhere did Darwin claim such a thing and nowhere has any over pioneer of evolution stated such a thing.But those who follow Eugenics say such things.





[edit on 6-10-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by Clearskies


Oh,and the theory of evolution actually disproved the lamarckism theory,so how on earth could they have anything in common

Originally posted by jakyll

Correction.You have shown theories & speculations,not proof.And you're forgetting one very important thing in regards to Hitler.He believed in God! And so did many other Nazi's.As well as the usual Catholic's & Protestants they also had a faith called Positive Christianity and a church called the National Reich Church.

The devil can quote scripture.

Also when Hitler uses the word "evolution" in Mein Kampf,it is clear that he is not referring to Darwin's theory.He never mentions him. In fact,a look at his writings reveals his sentiments on the subject to be those of an orthodox creationist.

I NEVER said he was a Darwinist adherent. He used Lamarckian evolution.

I give you Darwin's OWN words and you look the other way,not even addressing it,instead focusing on his cousin and son!!!

No you didn't.You quoted this;

After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest; and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity," a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean."

Yes, I did!
Did you not see this, below that in THE SAME POST?

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected

This is from Darwin's Descent of Man Chapter V - On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties

You said,

Darwin subscribed to the the theory that the weak should not breed and degenerate the races, but argued that it would hurt the 'noble' conscience of those who CHOSE to limit the negative effects. And furthermore that the ONLY salvation in the evolution of mankind, was that those with deformities didn't marry and procreate as much as the 'fit'.

Nowhere did Darwin claim such a thing and nowhere has any over pioneer of evolution stated such a thing.But those who follow Eugenics say such things.

Read the excerpt above from Descent of Man; What do you see?



[edit on 6-10-2008 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by jakyll
Oh,and the theory of evolution actually disproved the lamarckism theory,so how on earth could they have anything in common

Explain to me, please, the important DIFFERENCES between Darwin's theory and Lamarck's, in layman's terms
They don't seem to be very far apart.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

In truth i don't care. What Darwin thought in his personal life is completely unimportant. What his theory says is the important part. If you want to attack his theory then stick to the theory, not the man.
Hell i could attack atomic theory by attacking the men who support it and i coul no doubt find dirt on them. Would this disprove atmoic theory? No it wouldn't.
Stop trying to deflect the theory, start attacking the theory itself.

Hell i could attack atomic theory by attacking the men who support it and i coul no doubt find dirt on them. Would this disprove atmoic theory? No it wouldn't.

How the hell do YOU know it wouldn't? Sylvia Brown tell you this? Haekel, and his embryos, 45 years of piltdown hoax, peppered moths, java man colorado man, peking man, lucy, neanderthal man etc. , they were all thought to be the genuine article and their are literally hundreds more just like those where at one time someone could say the same thing about the men who wouold perpetrate such hoax and fraudulent proofs and still feel confident about those icons of evolution. The fact remains the character of many in science is unscrupulous and un-ethical some taking as long as 50 years before we finally knew that many of the pillars of evolution rest on a house of cards built by hundreds of years of pure speculation and fabricated lies in addition to manufactured evidence.

Evolutionary scientists have the same prestige of a used car sales men and are one notch above a convict.

reply to post by jakyll


Just a couple of clarifications, if I may:

1) This one has nothing to do with me, and is probably off topic, but I would just like to include it...
Throwing Einsteins cotes around doesn't further the discussion, in my opinion. He is nothing more then a guy, an intelligent guy if you like, with an opinion, that has no more validity then anybody else's. In fact, he might of been a genius in his field, but as a political and social human he was less then lacking...

2) "He lived in the 19th century,people had freedom to deny the existence of God without fear of their families being tarnished for life and without suffering 'unimaginable consequences.'" [Your cote, sorry I don't know how to do those nice quote boxes you have...]

I won't even have to go back to Darwin's time on this one. I'll just mention McCarthy's America, Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, Reagan's America etc, all in the twentieth century.

Directly he, and his family, might not have been punished. They would however suffer both social and economical consequences (remember he relied heavily on grants, mostly from institutions run by Anglicans).

3) I wasn't talking about the Islamic Sharia law, that is why I wrote "Sharia", I was referring to any theocratic law, in any religion...

Thanks for the reply, I will try to read all the posts...unfortunately, contradicting the Rolling Stones, "Time Is Not On My Side"...

reply to post by TALIN


Wow. Even if you could find a thousand scientific hoaxes (which is possible), you'd still have less than 0.001% of all scientifically-verified findings debunked. It's strange that, to you, the 0.001% disproves the rest of the findings. That clearly is not rational.

If you can find anything that actually rocks the scientific boat, please come back and share it with us. I'll save you the trouble, though - you won't find anything.

Nice try, though.

reply to post by Clearskies

I NEVER said he was a Darwinist adherent. He used Lamarckian evolution.

You did say,

Let me google it for you.Hitler's views on evolution dictated that there were inferior races, who were threatening to interbreed with the higher races and 'taint' them.You don't know that?

My point is.............. THAT DARWIN WAS RACIST. THAT EUGENICS was/is racist and evolutionary science, genocide and atheism go hand-in-hand. It's not rocket science!

I have clearly shown that Hitler was neither a believer in evolution or an atheist.

Did you not see this, below that in THE SAME POST?

I did.And there's something important you should know;selective quoting is a bad form of argument and can make George Bush seem intelligent and can make Mother Theresa look like the daughter of Satan.

You really need to read Darwin's books all the way through before you form an opinion.If you do you will find that in the Descent of Man Darwin opposed the polygenism theory,developed by scientific racist discourse,which postulated that the different human races were distinct species(polygenism) and were likely separately "created".To the contrary,Darwin considered that all human beings were of the same species,and that races,if they were useful markers at all, were simply "sub-species" or "variants." This view is known as monogenism.He also viewed the differences between human races as superficial.In the book he also discusses Galton's theory...and dismisses it.


Now,not only are you guilty of selective quoting,you are also guilty of pasting gross miss-interpretations of what Darwin said.You,quoted this;

Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.

In the book this is what is actually said;

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Oh,and as for Darwin being a racist,how foolish would you feel if you found out that he was actually an abolitionist??

"I have watched how steadily the general feeling, as shown at elections, has been rising against Slavery. What a proud thing for England, if she is the first European nation which utterly abolish is it. I was told before leaving England, that after living in slave countries: all my options would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the Negros character. It is impossible to see a negro & not feel kindly toward him; such cheerful, open honest expressions & such fine muscular bodies; I never saw any of the diminutive Portuguese with their murderous countenances, without almost wishing for Brazil to follow the example of Haiti; & considering the enormous healthy looking black population, it will be wonderful if at some future day it does not take place."

Charles Darwin to Catherine Darwin (May 22 - July 14 1833) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 1 1821-1836 (1985), pp. 312-313.

"But I suppose you are all too overwhelmed with the public affairs to care for science. I never knew the newspapers so profoundly interesting. N. America does not do England Justice: I have not seen or heard of a soul who is not with the North. Some few, & I am one, even and wish to God, though at the loss of millions of lives, that the North would proclaim a crusade against Slavery. In the long run, a million horrid deaths would be amply repaid in the cause of humanity. What wonderful times we live in. Massachusetts seems to show noble enthusiasm. Great God how I should like to see the greatest curse on Earth Slavery abolished. "

Charles Darwin to Asa Gray (June 5, 1861) The Correspondence of Charles Darwin Vol. 9 1861 (1994), p.163.


Game,Set and Match-Jakyll.

I am now done with this debate and,as this is my thread,i get to have the last say.




ATTENTION 1 & ALL!

From now on all those posts that do not deal with the OP i will ignore,so i suggest all those who want to discuss that topic,ignore such posts too.









[edit on 7-10-2008 by jakyll]

Not so fast Jakyll!
You can't close this thread in a huff like so much revolving door.lol

WHERE DID I say that Hitler used Darwin's theory???
I said on PAGE one;

Oh, yeah.
Tell that to the inferior races under Hitler who used Lamarkian evolution.

Let me google it for you.Hitler's views on evolution dictated that there were inferior races, who were threatening to interbreed with the higher races and 'taint' them.You don't know that?

My point is.............. THAT DARWIN WAS RACIST. THAT EUGENICS was/is racist and evolutionary science, genocide and atheism go hand-in-hand. It's not rocket science!

^^^^^^^^^
Yes?............ where do you see that I said Hitler followed DARWIN'S form of evolution?

I did.And there's something important you should know;selective quoting is a bad form of argument and can make George Bush seem intelligent and can make Mother Theresa look like the daughter of Satan.

Only if they SAID evil/or smart stuff WITHIN context!

You really need to read Darwin's books all the way through before you form an opinion.If you do you will find that in the Descent of Man Darwin opposed the polygenism theory,developed by scientific racist discourse,which postulated that the different human races were distinct species(polygenism) and were likely separately "created".To the contrary,Darwin considered that all human beings were of the same species,and that races,if they were useful markers at all, were simply "sub-species" or "variants." This view is known as monogenism.He also viewed the differences between human races as superficial.In the book he also discusses Galton's theory...and dismisses it.

Calling someone a sub-species is O.K., why????

Now,not only are you guilty of selective quoting,you are also guilty of pasting gross miss-interpretations of what Darwin said.You,quoted this;

Yes, you're right about that. The FIRST quote from Darwin was lazy on my part when I quoted it from an non-DARWIN site. I UN-KNOWINGLY did that.
The next time I quoted directly from The Descent of Man.
But, Darwin's use of the terms the "savages"and the "civilized" IS RACIST.
The only downfall to eugenics, Darwin said was the effect on morality.
His predecessors would bypass that by hardening their conscience toward eugenics.

In the book this is what is actually said;

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

Oh,and as for Darwin being a racist,how foolish would you feel if you found out that he was actually an abolitionist??

You could fight against slavery and STILL say things like this in Descent of Man;Chapter 5.

The children, moreover, that are borne by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts- and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sixth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal 'struggle for existence,' it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed- and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults."

It doesn't mean you are racist?



Why won't anyone address my reference from Atheist Dawkins about eugenics?




[edit on 7-10-2008 by Clearskies]

Where did you go, Jakyll?
Come on, my points BEG for a rebuttal.

Darwin did not publish his theory for many, many years as he knew that it implicitly challenged the very foundation of the church, and his own faith.

Eventually he no longer believed renounced his faith and published his findings.

His wife claims that he reached out to god and reaffirmed his belief in God on his death bed - a common practice at the time of the bereaved - a claim which is universally repudiated.

The rest of this thread is simply drivel.

reply to post by audas


Fantastically summed up. Perfection in four lines - well done!

reply to post by audas

Eventually he no longer believed renounced his faith and published his findings.

Re-read the OP and get back to me,because right now you look like an idiot,and we wouldn't want that now would we.






[edit on 8-10-2008 by jakyll]

reply to post by NorthWolfe CND


We weren't talking about Spain or America,we were talking about England in the 19th century.

Darwin was not the only one to talk about evolution.Alfred Russel Wallace released his theory 1st and it was this,along with the death of a son that made Darwin delay his own publication.

Hewett Watson was an evolutionist and an atheist,and he championed Darwin's work.Some other well known English atheists of the time were Percy Bysshe Shelley,Charles Bradlaugh,Thomas Henry Huxley and Herbert Spencer.

ok, if atheists belive in darwin's evolution, then what about survival of the fittest, isnt that part of evolution? the strong overcomes the weak and gets to propagate while the weak become extinct, and if thats the case then isnt mans conflicts with one another just a way to cull the weak from the genepool? thus war and even genocide become justified? i know this is harsh and personaly i dont agree with survival of the fittest mostly because i belive in both evolution and a higher form of existence. but ive always wondered what people who are staunch evolutionists feel about that part of the theory. this isnt an attack on atheists im just curious.

Originally posted by lunchbox1979
ok, if atheists belive in darwin's evolution, then what about survival of the fittest, isnt that part of evolution?

loosley speaking, becasue its used in a different way to the one it often gets misused in

the strong overcomes the weak and gets to propagate while the weak become extinct, and if thats the case then isnt mans conflicts with one another just a way to cull the weak from the genepool?

no becasue survival of the fittest refers to the species not the individual, and it is not 1 species attacking its self its 2 species survivning within the enviroment

so while one of those species may predate on the other it is only one factor that determines enviromental fitness, and bieng the fitest rarely means bieng the fastest strongest its the most adaptable to changes in enviroment which is why bacteria are and always will be probabiy the fittest organism ever to live

survival of the fitsest is what gives us our inbuilt morality and group survival dynamics, we help others becasue it aids the survival of our own genetics, we risk death by defending others in our group so our shared genetics will be passed on

human wars are bigger versions of animals fighting over territory and the resources that area contain, but while that may determine if a group lives our dies in the wild we have built a false enviroment where getting enough food and finding mates dont require border conflicts of territory and is essentially pointless now

we have expanded our group size beyond the small related family groups(we find in natural settings) to large scale cities and countries, while we have moved beyond the need and origins for conflict with our technology and none related group living we are still acting as if we were back there

so while it was once a neccesity for survival it no longer is

thus war and even genocide become justified?

nope

genocide is the attempt to destory a blood line by some poor deffinition of what that blood line is, where as we would only battle to survive now we battle for things we dont need to so genocide can never be justified by naturalism

but ive always wondered what people who are staunch evolutionists feel about that part of the theory. this isnt an attack on atheists im just curious.

curiosity satisfied i hope? at least from my personal point of view


to answer the OP i dont think that atheism has hijacked evolution or science as a whole, science doesnt disprove god and ive jumped on a few people here(ats) for saying it does with regards to theistic evolution, but it does show there doesnt neccesarily HAVE TO BE a god or higher bieng, so it lends support by proxy with our lack of belief in one existing

the reason i defend it, its good science and science does a whole lot more good then harm where people are concerned, it feeds us keeps us warm, heals our injuries, cures us of disease, gives us glimpses of just how massive and awe inspiring our universe and tiny spec of sand we sit on is

its the absurdity we find so offensive people alive becasue of the grace of science living comfortable lives from the grace of science and things it has brought us who then sit there insulting and beratiing and attempting to destroy or subvert it, armed with ignorance of the facts and what is essentially an old book but still insisting they must be right and everything including maths must be wrong becasue thier book says otherwise

someone has to defend it becasue most scientists think showing people the evidence is enough and im sad to say they are wrong, science as a whole is under attack becasue to attack one part is to attack all there is no good science/bad science no realscience/made up science there is ONLY science, and while it remians under atatck from plain ignorance there are ppeople who will step up and not just athiests christians mulims hindu's buddists people of every group you care to name that appreciates and understands will step up but athiests get the rap becasue were the latest greatest bad man to religeous creationists of any faith, and im happy to get called a few names by the ignorant if they are willing to keep the hell away from our science(thats all people not just athiests) and stop trying to ruin it and our future as a species





if you bite the hand thats feeds you, you may get hit for biting it, and ive got plenty of rolled up newspapers here to hit em with

Originally posted by Clearskies

Yes, you're right about that. The FIRST quote from Darwin was lazy on my part when I quoted it from an non-DARWIN site. I UN-KNOWINGLY did that.

you make a habbit of that, ive discussed this with you several times and you still pull out the same misquotes and quote mines

. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: "The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence,

see more dishoensty ive pointed THIS perticular quote out both times as well, Mr Greg isnt Mr Darwin now is he

Why won't anyone address my reference from Atheist Dawkins about eugenics?

becasue your posts and sources are riddled with dishoensty so this more then likley

didnt god command the isralites not to go a whoring with the women of moab... isnt that eugenics? not tainiting the blood line and subverting the faith by relations with a lesser race....

Gen
24:3 And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell:

ooo cananites a lesser race also?

Num
5:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, (5:1-4) God tells Moses to expel all lepers from the camp "that they defile not ...whereof I dwell." So by God's instructions, the sick are abandoned and left to suffer and die alone.
5:2 Command the children of Israel, that they put out of the camp every leper, and every one that hath an issue, and whosoever is defiled by the dead:
5:3 Both male and female shall ye put out, without the camp shall ye put them; that they defile not their camps, in the midst whereof I dwell.
5:4 And the children of Israel did so, and put them out without the camp: as the LORD spake unto Moses, so did the children of Israel.

eugenics? dont care for the sick leave them to die

make sure your own backyards clean and tidy before bitching about your neighbours





[edit on 21/1/09 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


thanks noobfun yea it does, i think my thoughts were more along the lines of social darwinism but that would be an entirely different thread

reply to post by lunchbox1979


even Darwin was against social darwinism

one of the usual quote mines pulled out to show how evil and racist he was and pro eugenics has several key sentences removed from within it and a whole bunch more below it removed becasue he clearly states we are no longer in a situatuion where actions like that are required for our survival and to carry them out would be of the greatest evil of mankind