Home - List All Discussions

Roots of Racism

Racism and Abortion

by: darwinatridge

Many people's beliefs about abortion do not include the understanding of just what the roots of the abortion industry are all about. The modern day abortion movement is an elitist movement that was perfected by the founder of Planned Parenthood, who along with her elitist friends, pioneered the movement to make abortions legal in America.
http://www.deathbyabortion.org/

Many in this movement claim that it is all about freedom of choice. However, they neglect to except the responsibility that comes with the freedom of choice that is given to us by God.
http://www.youchoose2008.org/articleagainstracism.html

reply from: Tam

welcome to the forum, dar!

reply from: darwinatridge

Thank you,
I am hoping that this will be an informative experience for us all.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Thanks for sharing those links darwinatridge. There's also some good stuff at http://blackgenocide.org/ http://www.pop.org/index.cfm and http://www.straight-talk.net/ in both the sections on evolution and abortion -- as Darwinism plays a huge role in abortion eugenics. Not only is American abortion elitist, worldwide abortion is. Hidden under the veil of woman's rights, our attmpts to lower other people's populations is really designed to protect our access to their resources and for other such selfish reasons -- like ridding the world of lots of brown, gold, and black nameless and faceless "third world" people whose cultures we can't begin to understand. In fact, did you know that according to Lana Pritchard of the World Health Organization, 90% of the difference in birth rates around the world reflects the desires articulated by the women themselves worldwide. In other words, there is no unmet need for contraception -- but a lot of coercion. I hope that by studying the truth or abortion we can unmask it's racist and elitist motives here and abraod.

reply from: Tam

Not to mention, in effect, ridding the world of lots of WOMEN, since it is well known that most of the abortions in certain parts of the world are of female children.

reply from: darwinatridge

Many people, even those that call themselves Christians, have fallen into this trap that life does not begin until what they call a fetus is born. But God calls an unborn baby a baby. And if God calls it a baby then why are we arguing the point about that? The bible tells us that God is able to provide all our needs. So why are we also arguing about the economics of babies? It should be plain and simple. Do we believe God or do we not believe Him? That has always been the point from the beginning. Nothing has changed except that we have, as a people and a nation, gotten farther away from Him.
What do you call an unborn baby?
http://www.darwinshome.com/

reply from: darwinatridge

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was concerned about the economics of babies also. However, she and her friends where elitist and their concern was not for the welfare of the children. Just the welfare of the elitist! Those that do not look at this from a Christian viewpoint certainly make up the majority of the world and America. However, in the end it is Gods viewpoint that matters most. I am not advocating some sort of radical religious believe. A survey of most Americans shows that as many as 80% of them believe in God. But how many of them believe that what the bible says is His word. And how many of them who call themselves Christians actually know what His word says. I heard a minister state one time that is was not his job to preach the whole word of God. This is where political correctness has taken hold in America. If he knew anything about the bible at all he would have known that it is job to be a minister of the whole word of God. Just because speaking it makes him uncomfortable does not mean that he is not held accountable for speaking it. And that is what many Christians have allowed themselves to hide behind. The fear of being persecuted has caused many of them not to speak out. But we are called to speak the truth to anyone that God puts in our path. That truth must be given in love, but non-the less. It must be the truth. Part of the ministry that I believe that God has given me is to speak to those Christians that are hiding. You are right in saying that morality cannot be legislated. But the problem is, immorality is being legislated. Where is Gods remnant? If we where standing in the gap, as God expects us to, then Satan would not be able to have such a strangle hold on the world. That cannot be done without God doing the work. But it will not be done if Christians just simply stand back and say that it is not their job to be ministers of Gods word. On a post from another site I quoted Hosea 4:6
my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.
"Because you have rejected knowledge,
I also reject you as my priests;
because you have ignored the law of your God,
I also will ignore your children.
People like to take only the part of Gods word that they like and mold it into their own religion. That is what is happening in America today. And economics has become the religion of today. So I ask again. If God is more than able to provide all our needs, then why are people more worried about their pocket books than Gods word. I believe that I am right when I say that although 80% of the people in America believe in God, the clear majority of those people do not know God. And how are they going to get to know Him by Christians being politically correct?

reply from: Tam

Hm, I can't resist commenting that this is precisely what happened to create all the world's major religions--that is, unless God really did get an incurable case of laryngitis a couple thousand years ago.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Hee Hee. My favorite part of the Bible, First Corinthians, says that God gives some people one type of knowledge and another's a another. I think that diff religions are the reflections of the diff types of knowledge. Actually, Tam, in the Wind is My Mother, Bear Heart goes into why some Christians insist God spoke to them through various prophets, but then insist its superstition if a Native person says God spoke to their people through a bird, or whatever. As if God only spoke to one tiny fraction of the globe for a tiny fraction of human history.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I was trying to agree with Tam. Let me clarify. I don't think God is silent. I think he talks to people all the time -- like, and I don't say this to provoke you, Bear Heart. I was saying that God speaks to all people, as it shows in First Corinithians. He also speaks across time.

reply from: darwinatridge

You are right. He does speak to all. And as He commands in 1 John 4, we are not to rely on the words of man but to test the spirits to see if what man is saying is true. That means to read His word for ourselves. Too many people go to church on Sundays and walk away with some beliefs that are way out there. He gives us His viewpoint in His word. And He does speak to everyone through His word. The question is. How many people actually listen when He is speaking?

reply from: TruthOnly

Darwin, Margaret Sanger was certainly a racist who believed that charity was an evil since it prolonged the suffering of the poor by making them dependent rather than useful. She proposed to stop giving the poor anything. In other words, kill them by denying them any help whatsoever.
But she really hoped to eliminate all those who she felt were not of the pure, white race but not only that, eliminate those who propagate genetic "defects", the mentally ill, the poor who had an inordinately greater number of children than rich white folks, and Catholics because they were the largest group at the time that provided services to the poor.
In fact, she was a eugenist and supported those in the eugenist movement in the U.S. These people's ideas were heralded by Hitler who used them. The U.S. and European eugenists were afraid to advocate their racist and eugenic ideas because they weren't that popular.
With the widespread use of contraceptives in America and throughout the world, the acceptance of eugenics began. Controlling the birth of children is a method of eugenics because man now controls the birth of children, not God. This widespread acceptance of "man playing God" directly led to the acceptance of abortion because when the improper use of contraceptives failed to prevent pregnancy, those pregnancy were "unwanted" so had to end somehow.
Contraceptive use which led to abortion has led to IVT, genetic testing and genetic munipulation, euthansia, assisted suicide, and now embryonic stem cell research. When one has control of the process of procreation and reproduction, the logical consequence is the control of ALL life. That is eugenics in its completion. Making the right kind of human and eliminating the wrong kind. Of course the right and wrong kinds of humans has changed and will continue to change as societal norms change. No moral or ethical issues, and certainly God, can supercede the quest to create the perfect human being with no defects who will have immortality.
As far as the false notion that "morality cannot be legislated", this is what those who know they are doing something immoral always say. In fact, all law is a moral judgement of someones.
I believe that the reason this country is experiencing such expansive social, moral and ethical problems is that most Christians have been complacent, apathetic and some believe that since we are not to live in the world but are of the world, there is no point in trying to change the world. Other Christians have not wanted to expose their heretical views publicly so have been silent. Others have completely bought into the wiles of the world, while also adopting every perverted view of Christianity that has been exposed over the centuries or making up a new religion based on their personal viewpoints if they don't conicide with traditional Christianity but still calling it Christianity.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I think what MLK meant by morality being unable to be legislated is that you can't make a racist storeowner LIKE welcoming a black client into his store with any law because nothing you say in court can alter the racism in his mind, but you can make him allow blacks into his store because the law can affect his behavior -- just not his attitude. I don't think the quote means don't make any laws against immorality. I think it's saying just because you can't change attitudes doesn't mean you can't affect behavior.

reply from: yoda

Indeed. That seems obvious to me.

reply from: Tam

Yes, there's a great quote by MLK that sums this up nicely (in addition to the great quote CP uses in his sig):
Hear, hear!

reply from: Tam

As for the bit about God speaking--perhaps I should clarify what I really think.
I do believe in nonphysical beings, in powerful nonphysical forces, and in telepathic communication. I realize that some people do not believe these things are real, but in my experience--which is ultimately what I trust above all else--they are.
What is God? God is a handy word we use to describe an entire realm of existence that is extremely difficult to describe or even to understand. Some people think God is some dude in a place called Heaven, and that he's sitting on a throne from where he judges humans and decides our fates based on our performance in life. Others believe God is a genderless, distant, impersonal Force that has no interest in us as individuals and merely acts in the same way as any other force, such as gravity. Still others believe there is a whole cast of nonphysical characters who interact with us in a variety of ways, and that some of those folks are more divine than others. And yet others believe that every atom in the universe is alive and part of a great divine whole, and that God is the sum of all consciousness in the universe. And there are surely other beliefs as well.
So, I will tell you what I believe. I believe that there are nonphysical beings with great power, some of whom are working towards goals I'd support and some of whom are not, but none of whom is God. For example, I believe angels do exist, and negative forces as well. I believe that there is a powerful nonphysical force best termed the Tao, that is pretty much what is described in Christianity as the Holy Spirit, and that does interact with us a great deal. I also believe every atom is alive and that the "sum" or superposition of all consciousness does have a certain magnitude and power, but whether that is "God" I would not presume to say. I assume that God is much bigger and more awesome than anything I can imagine at this time, and I hope that as I gain more spiritual understanding over time, I'll be able to come closer to imagining the magnitude of God, but I am willing to let that process unfold in its own time. I don't even much like the word "God" because it carries with it so many predefined notions that may or may not apply. I prefer to be vague and correct than to get too specific about something I don't understand very well yet.
I believe that God, whatever he/she/it may be, communicates with us directly via telepathy, through a part of ourselves that is also a part of God. In other words, I believe we each are divine beings, and that the nonphysical part of ourselves is more or less connected to God depending on our intentions and goals. It is our choice how close to God we wish to be, and we have the free will to make that choice for ourselves.
Now, as for hearing God's voice--this I believe is a skill like anything else. Some people are more gifted at this than others, but all can develop the skill with practice. The same is true, IMO, of telepathic communication with anyone else--other people (living or "dead"), animals, plants, insects, and even minerals. I do not believe that God speaks to us through birds--but I do believe birds speak to us. However, depending on our ability to hear it, we distort it as it's coming in, and we may not understand the full message, which introduces errors into the message.
Our own thoughts and preconceived notions interfere with our ability to discern what is being communicated to us. This is true whether the communication is from another human, a bird, the Tao itself, or something even greater. Depending on the nature of the entity with whom we are communicating, it may be easier or harder to "hear" what is being communicated. The greater the disparity between our own spiritual energy and that of the being with whom we are communicating, the greater the distortion between the two. This is why it is much easier, relatively speaking, to communicate telepathically with your twin than with an angel. Dogs are pretty easy, possibly because they are so much like us in so many ways.
I believe that as a human being (or any other being) advances spiritually, s/he is able to communicate with those entities or energies farther along the path. So while it might be easiest to communicate with one's twin, one might be able to learn to communicate with dogs fairly quickly, some time before one is able to "hear" communications from the Tao or anything beyond that. As ones abilities increase, one's body becomes more attuned to these vibrations and more able to hear and to discern the content.
In a way, I feel as though all telepathic communication is divine by its very nature, and yet that no one in physical form has a direct line to the highest spiritual realm where the energy or entity we would consider the Most High exists. In other words, I do believe that prophesy is divinely inspired, but to call it The Word Of God is, I feel, no more accurate when applied to biblical writings than it is when applied to Bear Heart's communication with a bird. Divinely inspired, yes. The Word Of God? That is not a call we are able to make.
I consider it arrogance that the Bible is considered more holy than other prophetic writings since its publication, and I have frankly found that modern-day prophets bring forth information far more relevant to me than most of what I find in the writings considered holy scripture. Who decides what is holy scripture? Some conference centuries ago cannot determine whether works that were recorded later are equal to the books of the Bible. And whether or not those men were qualified to make that call even then is not something I am in a position to determine--but I don't take it on faith that they were.
So that is, in the much longer form, pretty much what I was trying to say about the Bible. Something like what CP said:
That isn't 100% how I feel--I will definitely listen to beings other than myself, but the ultimate authority to me is that thing I mentioned earlier--that part of ourselves that is also part of God. And the way to communicate with that part of ourselves is not through the mind, but through the heart. The mind has great value, but when it tries to do the heart's job, it cannot do it any more than the heart could do the work of the mind. Our culture considers the mind to be God and the heart to be a muscle pumping blood, or maybe the source of womanly emotions. Ha!
We have, as a culture, much growing up to do. I can only hope that as more people open their minds and hearts to the animals, starting real relationships with them based on mutual trust and respect, and cemented through clear communication between humans and animals, the tide will turn and a new culture of truth, respect, and love can grow on this beautiful planet. I honestly wonder whether one thing keeping people from even making the slightest effort to communicate with animals is the fact that they love the taste of flesh.
I was going through old photos the other day and found one of me as a child, seated in front of a huge lobster. Thinking back to all the animals whose lives I was responsible for ending, by being an eater of flesh, I was struck with an even more intense dismay than I have felt in the past about this issue. It has been a very long time since I've eaten flesh, but I felt such profound remorse for what I had personally done to contribute to the immoral and unjustifiable slaughter of the animals that I broke down and wept for some time. I doubt it will be the last time I am struck by the inhumanity of my own actions.
I believe through forgiveness, all this can and will be healed, but I mention it now as a warning to others who are still eating flesh. Like post-abortive women and reformed rapists, you might find yourself feeling, as I do, that there is a higher truth than the truth that you like hamburgers--and that the taste of food that was prepared without anyone's death is the sweetest and most nourishing--on all levels--indeed.

reply from: darwinatridge

Many people say that Hitler was a Christian. There is nothing farther from the truth than that. What he wanted was a positive Christianity that did not offend the government or anyone else. In other words he wanted a state run religion that was politically correct. He killed those Christians who opposed him along with the Jews. Concernedparent is right is some ways. Doing right is a choice. But many use society as an excuse to sin. And many Christians use persecution as an excuse to sit on their hands. In the end however, despite of those that close their eyes and deny that it is going to happen. Everyone will be classified as a sheep or a goat as Jesus said in the bible. As Christians we need to be praying for those who are not saved. But we also need to be honest with them. There are a lot of things that I see that lead me to think that we are going to repeat what Germany did. I hope I am wrong but that is what I see. Socialism did not die when Hitler did. It just went underground and is now resurfacing in both the Democratic and Republican Parties. Neither party is immune to it. Without Christ in our hearts, anyone is capable of the worst of atrocities. But thank God that there is only one unpardonable sin. My belief is that it is the ultimate rejection of Gods provision for our salvation. Their have been so many people who have died without ever excepting that provision. Greasy grace is not part of that provision. But Gods love is.
http://www.youchoose2008.org/somethingmoredangerousthanliberalism.html

reply from: Shiprahagain

Very intelligent article, darwin. I, too, think we're on the brink of Holocaust. Not only because of euthanasia and abortion, but because of the push for contraceptives, often coerced, in poor countries so that we can lower the among of brown, black, and yellow people on the earth. Furthermore, I see the indiscriminate killing of civilians in war as a form of holocaust, along with the violence against indigenous people's the US has a history of backing in order to support capatilists concerns. We are making our definition of a human being narrower and narrower -- you have to be of a certain color, live in a certain "modern" manner, you can't be too old, young, sick, deaf, blind, etc. You need to live in a wealthy country... The more we engage in practices like abortion that qualify humanity and make it more exclusive than merely any one from the zygote stage upwards, we head in the direction of holocaust.

reply from: Tam

Imagine this: imagine we're a society of cannibals, and you feel cannibalism is wrong. You oppose the killing, but you also find the idea of eating other people to be disgusting and vile. Now imagine someone starts telling you how if not for eating the Franklins down the street, he'd never have survived his childhood. Would you really think, first of all, that it was the child's fault that he was participating in this atrocity? Of course not--it's a systemic problem, not a moral failure on the part of that child.
Second, what if someone asked you whether children should starve to protect other people? Of course children should not starve, but this should not be an either/or situation. And in the case of animals, or humans, I certainly don't think it comes down to kill or die. If in a specific situation, it comes down to kill or die, I wouldn't fault someone for choosing to kill, although it is perhaps nobler to refrain even if it causes one's own death.
Of course a desperate person ("hungry man") might care more about meeting his/her immediate needs to preserve his/her own life than about preserving the life of anyone else.
This isn't about some extreme situations--that's like making the abortion issue about women whose lives are directly and immediately threatened by the presence of their pre-viable children. Yes, that happens sometimes, but far more common are the women who kill out of convenience, habit, fear, or a variety of other reasons having nothing to do with any immediate crisis.
In some life-or-death situation, the rules might be somewhat different, and it is not fair to extrapolate what is necessary in an emergency to be necessary for normal life. It is absolutely not necessary to eat animals to survive. Perhaps in extreme circumstances one might be forced to eat other humans, or animals, or one's shoes, or tree bark--but that doesn't mean one should engage in cannibalism daily or subsist on bark.
Right back at ya!

reply from: NathanG

Experience alone is very subjective. Are you sure that you want to put your ultimate faith in yourself? What about yourself has made you believe that you are a reliable final answer to your search for Truth?
As for us (humanity),
Apart from God, there is nothing good in us. How then can we trust ourselves?
Our hearts have God's Law written in them:
but our hearts often ignore that law and go astray:
Yet none of these is the Truth. The closest is your first description, but it departs severely from the Truth nonetheless. God is in heaven, but He is not confined to heaven. He is intimately aware of all that is going on in His creation, and He is active here. He is judging our deeds now, and will give final judgment on the Last Day of this present age, but not everyone will be judged according to what they have done, good or bad. You see, because we have all done wrong, we all deserve to die forever--in eternal separation from God. Death is essentially separation--physical death is the separation of the spirit of a man from his body, while spiritual death is the separation of our spirits from God. Hell is eternal spiritual death--eternal separation from God. God told Adam that if they ate of the tree which He told them not to eat, that they would "surely die." They died spiritually the moment that they each disobeyed God and therefore sinned. At that moment they were spiritually separated from God, and their bodies began to die physically as a result. Once our bodies die, our eternal destiny is sealed:
All of us who have reached the point in life that we can tell right from wrong have sooner or later chosen wrong, and have been choosing wrong quite often ever since. We are all sinners:
and the consequence for sin is death, but at the same time, eternal life is a gift offered through the Lord Jesus:
No one can earn God's salvation by doing good:
Remember, I said that not all of us will be judged by what we have done. This is because those of us who believe in Jesus Christ, who accept "the free gift of God" that is eternal life in Him, will be given the actual Righteousness of Jesus in place of our own failures, and will be judged before God by the Righteousness of His Perfect Son and therefore escape the due judgment for all the wrong things that we have done:
How can God be just, and also justify the one who has faith in Jesus? Because Jesus came and lived an absolutely perfect life here on earth before the eyes of men and the eyes of His Father, and then willingly allowed sinful men to mock Him, scourge Him, and the crucify Him on a cruel piece of wood, so that He hung suspended between heaven in earth as a testament to the ugliness of sin and the penalty that it deserves. It took the death of Someone sinless in our place for us to have the opportunity to be forgiven of our sins. Because Christ suffered for sins that He Himself did not commit, He was not bound by death, but rose again so that all Who believe in Him may be forgiven of their sins and inherit eternal life in Him. This is the Gospel--the Good News--that the Scriptures proclaim, and that today, I proclaim to you.
The Holy Spirit is referred to as both a person ('He' not 'it'; 'Who' not 'which'; etc.) and as being God in the Scriptures, He cannot be simply a "force."
There can be no "more or less" connection between us and God. Either we are reconciled to Him through Christ, or we are separated from Him by all our sins. There is no part of us that is also a part of God. Those who believe in Christ unto salvation are inhabited by the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit is not a part of them--He is still wholly other than us, even when He dwells within us. To suppose that we are divine, even in part, is among the heights of human arrogance before God. There is nothing of ourselves that is divine. To suppose that we, even in part, are divine, one must either have a very poor view of God, a very exaggerated view of man, or both.
First of all, the message of the Bible is entirely exclusive. There can not be the Bible plus any other independent revelation. If the Bible is true, and it is, then there can be no other authoritative revelation. If there is other authoritative revelation, than the Bible cannot be true, yet it is True.
The Hebrew Scriptures were widely accepted among the Jews without dispute, accept among a sect called the Sadducees who only accepted the first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus, however, quoted from multiple "Old Testament" (as we call them) books as being Scripture, and basically gave His seal of approval for all the Hebrew Scriptures when He said:
The "Law of Moses" referred to the first five books; the "Psalms" was shorthand for the entire section also known as the "Writings", which included the poetic writings such as the Psalms, and also the historical prose writings; and the Prophets, of course, refers to the Prophetic writings of the Hebrew Scriptures. Since the canon wasn't being disputed, at least not widely, and Jesus considered all the main categories to be Scripture, there is no reason to believe that any one of the Old Testament books was not considered by Him to be Scripture. He certainly wasn't going around trying to revolutionize the Jews' concept of which books were Scripture. So the Old Testament cannon is trustworthy according to Jesus.
The "New Testament" writings were canonized based on the concept of "Apostolic Authority"--that is, that only writings which were written by people who had actually been in the presence of Christ, and had been commissioned by Him, or by people who were direct disciples of an Apostle, could be considered for canonization. Matthew and John were of the original 12, Mark was a disciple of Peter (who was one of the Twelve) and Luke was a disciple of Paul, who was commissioned personally by Jesus in a vision on the road to Damascus. Paul's Apostleship was confirmed by the other Apostles, so his authority stands without legitimate challenge as to the validity of his commissioning by Christ. James who wrote the letter that bears his name was a half-brother of Jesus, as was Jude. The only New Testament book who authorship is not well attested is Hebrews, and its canonicity was one that took a while to be settled by the whole church, but it was settled in A.D. 367.
As for further internal testimony:
That isn't 100% how I feel--I will definitely listen to beings other than myself, but the ultimate authority to me is that thing I mentioned earlier--that part of ourselves that is also part of God.
A dangerous place to be for you both to be.
There is no salvation apart from Jesus Christ, Who is revealed to us through the pages of Scripture and the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives.
In all cases, I hope and pray the best for you both.
May God bless you truly in the knowledge of His Son, the Lord Jesus, Whom to know is eternal life.
Sincerely,
In Christ's Love,
Nathan Galeotti

reply from: Tam

Nathan, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I certainly understand that from the perspective of anyone who believes that no revelation can be true other than what is in the Bible, what I say would seem to be wrong. And maybe I am wrong. I am always open to being wrong, and I'm not claiming to be certain of much of anything, really. I have reached certain conclusions over the course of this lifetime, and I do recognize that they are not always directly in keeping with Christian dogma. I don't think it's really necessary for me to respond to each of your statements individually, so I'll just say that if you feel that my soul is in danger, please feel free to pray for me. You seem like a very loving and honest person, and I appreciate your taking the time to share your perspective. God bless you!
Tam

reply from: faithman

Evolution is the Genesis of godlessness. It is the very foundation of racism as well. There is no such thing as race. All people are humans. different ethic groups, yes. The word race, when applied to humanity, is a lie. As long as you teach evolution in the class room, you will have intitutional racism. It is the excuse for abortion in the first place. We just can't have too many less evolved people groups having disgenic offspring, now can we?

reply from: NathanG

Thank you, Tam.
May we continue this discussion in personal message?
I would enjoy the privaledge and the honor to discuss Truth with you.
I will pray that God gives me wisdom and grace and Truth in all that I say.
And I will pray for you.
God bless you in the Lord Jesus, Tam.
In Him is Eternal Life.
Sincerely,
In Love,
Nathan

reply from: Shiprahagain

Here are some things to learn about evolution from http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/racist.shtml

Darwin spoke of the "gorilla" and the "Negro" [sic] as occupying evolutionary positions between the "Baboon" and the "civilized races of man" ("Caucasian"); viz: At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro [sic] or Australian and the gorilla.
Despite his hatred of slavery, Darwin's writings reek with all kinds of contempt for "primitive" people.
Thomas Huxley wrote: "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successively with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites." (Lay Sermons, Addresses, and Reviews, 1871)
Huxley believed that the Australian Aboriginal peoples to be perhaps the "lowest" race in evolutionary terms, and one perilously close to racial extinction.
Many of the early evolutionists were outspoken racists, and racial inferiority views were assumed to be proven, and thus were less a subject of debate or concern than one today would assume.19
Darwin's cousin, Sir Francis Galton, who founded the eugenics* movement, believed very strongly that intelligence was mainly hereditary. He was also convinced there were profound differences in mental ability between the races. He regarded Negroes as barely human at all.19
Robert Chambers in his classic Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, concluded that the Negro was "at the foot of" the Mongol, the Yellow race between, and Caucasians at the top. Chambers himself taught that the "various races of mankind, are simply . . . stages in the development of the highest or Caucasian type. . ." and that the Blacks were the least developed, and the Caucasians were the highest, most evolved race.19
Although support for Darwin's theory was by no means universal, by the 1920s textbooks such as George William Hunter's 1914 Civic Biology that supported the idea that man had evolved from a lower life form, were prevalent in public schools. The message provided fuel to the United States' growing and the eugenics movement. It concluded that as man descended from a lower life form, he evolved to varying degrees of accomplishment.16, 19
Henry Fairfield Osborn, professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University from 1908-1933 and President of the American Museum of Natural History's Board of Trustees wrote: "The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics . . . but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo Sapiens."59
In evolutionary theory, the survival advantage factor is the chief explanation for the existence of most differences. Because these differences result from the survival advantage that they confer upon an organism, an evolutionist must assume differences between or within a group likely exist because they provide some inherent survival advantage for the animal. Since the key survival advantage of humankind over 'lower animals' is intelligence, consequently differences in this trait likely also exist between the races. This is exactly what has been assumed by many eugenicists, evolutionists, sociologists, and psychologists, both before and since the time of Darwin. This conclusion has justified a wide variety of governmental and scientific policies, not the least infamous were racial genocide programs.19
The two races most often compared are the 'Caucasian ' and 'Negroid', now commonly called the 'white' and 'black' races. The dominant western cultural ethos, that whites were 'superior ' and blacks 'inferior' and more 'ape-like', was commonly reflected in science books published from 1880 and 1980.19
H. Klaatsch, a prominent German evolutionist, concluded that human races differ not only because of survival factors, but also for the reason that they evolved from different primates. The blacks came from the gorillas, the whites from the chimpanzees, and the Orientals from the orangutans, and it is for this reason that some races are superior. He concluded that "the gorilla and the Neanderthal man" have a close biological affinity to "a large number of the living African blacks . . ."19
In the 1920s, an article in the Encyclopedia Britannica, under the heading "Negro", said that the inherent mental inferiority of the blacks was even more marked than their physical differences and that no full blooded Negro has ever been distinguished as a man of science, a poet, or an artist.
The racism which developed from the theory of evolution was by no means confined to Blacks. One of the leading American eugenicists, Charles Davenport, founder and director of the prestigious Cold Spring Harbor Biological Laboratory, concluded that Black Americans were below Caucasians-but so were several other groups. Among the groups that he included were 'the Poles, the Irish, the Italians, and . . . the Hebrews' and even the Serbians, Greeks, Swedes, Bohemians.19
Mark H. Haller (Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought, 1984) writes: "[T]o understand attitudes of racial inferiority in the context of nineteenth-century science and social science is a first step in fathoming the depth of race prejudice in our own day. Inferiority was at the very foundation of their evolutionary framework and, remaining there, rose to the pinnacle of "truth " with the myth of scientific certainty. To see racial prejudices in their scientific robes is to understand why attitudes of racial inferiority have continued to plague western culture."
Hitler used Evolutionary Theory to Justify the Holocaust
Darwin's idea that evolution means "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" eventually led to Nazism and the Jewish holocaust - even though Darwin himself would have been appalled at the thought."19
Sir Arthur Keith wrote: "The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the 'national front' of Europe is also the 'evolutionary front;' he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people."59 and "Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?"19
In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing "lower human types." He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting ization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of s." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live."59
The success in breeding cattle, dogs and other animals with certain desired characteristics gave empirical support to the concept of racial breeding as advocated by eugenicists and later Hitler and others.19
Hitler exterminated over 273,000 people even before the Holocaust! "The first to be killed were the aged [those who are an economic burden, who detract from the happiness of society as a whole], the infirm, the senile, the mentally retarded, and defective children [that included epileptics]. Then there were WW I veterans - amputees - still in hospitals. Their reward for giving an arm or leg for Germany was extermination as 'undesirable.' Even bed wetters and children with badly modeled ears were put to death - all part of the euthanasia project of Germany."33
Instead of letting chance factors dominate reproduction decisions, Hitler proposed that the scientists use the power of the state to influence these decisions so that the gene pool would shift to what "informed conclusions" concluded was the desired direction. Consequently, Hitler encouraged those individuals that he perceived as having Aryan traits to mate, and discouraged "interbreeding," supposing that this policy would gradually cause the Aryan race to evolve "upward". He believed that the Nazi race programs would further evolution by intelligently deciding which traits were not beneficial, and preventing those with them from reproducing.19
An important argument that Hitler used to support his programs of racial genocide of the Jews, Blacks and other groups was that they were genetically "inferior" and that their interbreeding with the superior Aryan race would adversely affect the latter's gene pool, polluting it, and lowering the overall quality of the "pure race."19
"From the 'Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life' [that is, Darwin 's subtitle to Origin of Species] it was a short step to the preservation of favored individuals, classes or nations - and from their preservation to their glorification . . . Thus, it has become a portmunteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race . . . recent expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here." - Gertrude Himmelfarb, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1962
Recently, in Louisiana, African American State Representative Sharon Weston Broome charged that, "Darwin's ideas on how humans evolved are racist and the key reason for race problems [and] provide the main rationale for racism." As Broome logically concluded, "If evolution has provided the main rationale for racism, and we are teaching our children evolution in schools, then correspondingly we are teaching them racist principles."
Now for the facts:
Scientists found that if any two people from anywhere in the world were compared, the basic genetic differences between these two would typically be around 0.2 percent - even if they came from the same people group.15
So-called "racial" characteristics that many think are major differences (skin color, eye shape, etc.) account for only 6 percent of this 0.2 percent variation, which amounts to a mere 0.012 percent difference generically. In other words, the so-called "racial" differences are absolutely trivial.

reply from: Tam

There you have it, folks--science says we're more alike than we thought. And what really unites us is not something that is physical but something metaphysical, something we are barely beginning to start to question, let alone understand, in the scientific community.

reply from: galen

in my humble opinion abortion has never been about race or ethnicity, Or anything else except controll. Controll over someone who who has no controll seems to be a power trip for some and a pathological need for others. In every story i hear, someone somewhere is trying to controll the outcome, oftentimes with dire consequenses to the mother , not to mention the child.
mary

reply from: Shiprahagain

That is so true of racism, Concerned. The reason we hold on to this myth of different races is that it's profitable to do so.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I don't think the article is saying Darwinism is false b/c Darwinists are racist, but that Darwinism was created to be racist. I don't think evolution did occur -- for example, so many "missing links" that are supposed evidence of evolution really aren't.
Neanderthal's are humans with rickets, Lucy is made up of different Chimpanzee bones, Java man is an organgutan. "Fifty Reasons Why Evolution Will Not Fly," Mike Toler & Eric Samuelson
When I see evolutionary theory that isn't the result of mangled science I'll believe. Right now, I don't think its a coincidence that a society looking for a reason to dehumanize others latched onto evolution. It's not like some objective rational ppl created the theory and some racists happened to hijack it. Evolutionary theory is the case of racists lying about nature and history to craft an ideology that promotes evolution. There is no evolution without racism.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Thanks for the postings, Concerned. It seems that Neanderthal's didn't have rickets, but that still doesn't change the fact that a myth of their entire society was created around one bone. I can pull up more creationist research and you can pull up more evolutionist research, but I think we're both going to remain of the same mind. I agree to disagree if that's okay with you. I think we can both agree that people who use evolution or Creationism as an excuse for abortion and eugenics are wrong.

reply from: Tam

CP -- no offense, but: whoa, nellie. Was it somehow impossible to link to these pages and pages of information? It's drowning at least two threads.

reply from: Tam

Hmm. Well, try this one on for size. Evolution is real, but humans did not evolve from apes, nor did apes evolve from the proverbial slime. What's more, both apes and humans, and every other species alive, is still evolving. So what we are now is not what we are becoming. Perhaps the relevant question is: what is evolution, really ??

reply from: Tam

It is entirely possible that:
a) Darwin was a liar, and yet evolution is a real phenomenon
b) Darwin was a racist, and yet evolution is a real phenomenon
c) Darwin was both a racist and a liar, and yet evolution is a real phenomenon
d) Darwin was not a liar, but just made mistakes, and yet evolution is a real phenomenon
e) Darwin was both a racist and also prone to error, and yet evolution is a real phenomenon
f) Much of what is said about evolution by Darwin and those who believe him is false, and yet evolution is a real phenomenon
Food for thought...

reply from: Shiprahagain

I appreciate your food for thought, Tam, but I remain a creationist. However, as the evolution v. creationism debate pertains to abortion, I think we can all agree, as I previously posted, that it is wrong to use either ideology to promote abortion and eugenics.

reply from: Tam

Ah.
Oh, thank you!!!

reply from: Tam


Well, put it this way. I totally recognize the fact of evolution. However, the prevailing "theory of evolution" is nowhere near a plausible an explanation of the fact that life changes over time, IMO. (But you knew that already.) For all we know, evolution is God's way of lifting us to heaven gradually, or something like that. I find the idea that humans "evolved from apes" to be about as ludicrous as it gets. And as you may recall, I am all for giving "human rights" (or, more accurately, "people rights") to apes. Apes are awesome, and WAY more intelligent and aware than they are given credit for. But there is a reason that "link" is missing. LOL

reply from: Tam

Good point.
And just because someone attempts to use facts to promote an ideology that is wrong doesn't mean the facts themselves are in error.

reply from: Tam

Ok, no, seriously, I will read it, but just not until after Labor Day weekend. It is just Too Crazy for me right now. The only reason I'm even stopping by the forum is to touch base with y'all, and sometimes I stay longer than I should, but I really will look into Sitchin asap next week.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I don't want to debate further, but I would like to make some resources on Creationism available to anyone who would like them: One is http://www.creationism.org/index.htm
http://www.creationresearch.org/ which is a peer review research organization of 600 scientists with advanced science degrees and http://www.icr.org/ a creationism research organization are good places to start

reply from: faithman

Adaptation is not evolution. No new creature has "evolved". Dogs, from poodles to great danes, are still dogs. There is simply no evidence of new creatures mutating from something else. hybreds [mules] do not reproduce. Most so called evidence of evolution has been proven to be a total sham [plitdown man and such]. The way you know an evolutionist is lieing is when they lips move. Unless of course they are a vantrilaquist.

reply from: faithman

Ecc 5:1 ΒΆ Keep thy foot when thou goest to the house of God, and be more ready to hear, than to give the sacrifice of fools: for they consider not that they do evil.
Ecc 5:2 Be not rash with thy mouth, and let not thine heart be hasty to utter [any] thing before God: for God [is] in heaven, and thou upon earth: therefore let thy words be few.
Ecc 5:3 For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice [is known] by multitude of words.

reply from: faithman

Free speach. Gotta love it.

reply from: Tam

Well, IS there any evidence of new creatures mutating from other creatures? Any solid evidence at all? I think it's obvious that creatures change over time, and that is all "evolution" really means--but even though it's clear, for example, that humans have changed over time, the "evidence" that humans evolved from apes is both scant and unconvincing IMO.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Even creationists don't claim creatures don't change over time.

reply from: yoda

Evolution is in the same class as the theories of plate tectonics and the big bang. They rely heavily on logical inferences of actions over great periods of time, rather than direct evidence. For some that is a weakness, for others it makes little difference.
In plate tectonics the fact that mountains and depressions do exist, and that certain features do appear to have moved over time has led to the conclusion that the colision of plates has rasied up mountains and pushed down depressions in the earth's crust. Although we can measure earthquakes directly, we cannot directly measure the movement of plates in such a way as to directly prove that it raises great mountain ranges, because that takes way too long. Same is true with the big bang theory, we can't observe the early formation of the universe because that was too long ago for direct observation.
Evolution can best be understood in terms of the principle of the "survival of the fittest". When random mutations occasionally occur in a population of creatues of a particular species (plant or animal), most of those mutations have no or very little benefit for the individual specimen, so they disappear and are forgotten (or occasionally remembered as "freaks" in humans). However, on very, very rare occasions a "very helpful" mutation will occur, and that specimen will be more successful than others of his species, and will have more descendants than they will. Those descendants in turn will be more successful than the others of their species, and they in turn will reproduce more successfully. After many, many generations of this reproductive imbalance, the mutated specimens will either become the "normal" for that species, or will go off in a different direction than the non-mutated members, and form a "new" species. The latter will most likely happen if the mutation affords them the luxury of being able to tap new food resources, thus leaving the non-mutated ones to live on as they always have.
It's rare that a newly mutated species is so aggressive that they kill off their non-mutated relatives intentionally, but that's what may have happened to some species of early humans, according to the theory. But they obviously did not kill off all the monkeys, apes, gorillas, chimps, and orangatans, so that theory remains controversial.
No, the theory of evolution cannot be proven directly, it can only be inferred by logical deduction using fossil evidence and comparative studies.
And it certainly isn't important to the subject of babykilling, either way.

reply from: Tam

So, there is no direct evidence whatsoever of one species ever directly evolving/descending from another species? There's evidence of adaptation and mutation within species, but not of changing from one to another?

reply from: Tam

Yes, that is my point. It is an assumption, not an observation in and of itself. There is no conclusive proof either way at this time.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Transitional fossils provide such evidence. Logical conclusions can drawn from the evidence, but only minute changes can be observed directly over the short term. If tiny changes can be observed to occur over short periods, it can be logically assumed that these tiny changes combined over long periods of time should result in major changes cumulatively. Known transitional fossils support this conclusion.
There are plenty of alleged transitional fossils.

reply from: Shiprahagain

You don't have evidence, just myths.
As for the Neanderthal, how about the evolutionary nonsense of the piltdown man http://www.creationism.org/symposium/symp2no7.htm Creationism is real scients, evolution is absurd theories, and if you knew about science you'd be more careful and accurate about what you called willful ignorance. Study up and then argue about who's credible.
Clearly many scientist do take in seriously
CRS Creation Matters
CRS Quarterly
ICR Acts & Facts
ICR Back to Genesis
ICR Days of Praise
ICR Dr. John's Q&A
ICR Impact Articles
CSM Journal
BCS Origins
Alberta Creation Creation Illustrated
CSE Newsletter
Creation Research Update
CRSEF Newsletter
ARK Fndn Newsletter
AiG Creation Magazine
AiG Technical Journal
CRT Our World (Kids)
CRT Original View (Teens)
CRT Update (Adults) CSA News
ABR Bible and Spade
ABR E-newsletter
AP Reason & Revelation
AP Discovery (Kids)
AOI Think & Believe
DSA Newsletter
MCF Newsletter
TCCSA Bulletin
Gablers Newsletter

reply from: Shiprahagain

Apparently not since you go tit for tat with me, but I would appreciate going back to abortion. Good post on the legality of Roe.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Oops, unitentional quote.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I don't suscribe to ID, but creationism. If you want me to read your post use a link, I'm not going to assume which one you want me to read.

reply from: Shiprahagain

You didn't say on this thread a. B. Intelligent design isn't merely the belief that an intelligent God designed the universe. For example, intelligent design ppl don't necessarily believed God created the world in 7 days which creationists do -- youo're showing your ignorance again. Obviously I consider what you post -- I admitted Neanderthals don't have rickets. Funny how you forgot that. You still haven't specified with 8/29 post.

reply from: galen

so ship, I just have to play devil's advocate and ask.... where is your proof that the world was created in 7 days?
Mary

reply from: Shiprahagain

How can you trust that link when many of the guys you mention are disproved
http://www.creationism.org/crimea/engl/g2.htm

reply from: Shiprahagain

You know what? I admitted the Neanderthal didn't have rickets, so that's obviously not true. You can research the ppl in my link, but you're to churlish to debate this. If you could manage to not be so rude, maybe it'd be worth it, but I'm bowing out -- at least until you choose to behave with couth.

reply from: Shiprahagain

I wasn't obnoxious, I defended myself. You aren't doing my a favor by spreading myth -- you don't even know the diff between ID and creationism. As for debate -- the boards speak for themselves. Apparently you're the one whose scared since you don't want to research my link.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Look, I have to apologize, sometimes my tone with you is rough b/c you really know how to provoke me, but I will try to be more gentle with you in the future, I think we can still be polite despite disagreeing.

reply from: yoda

If you mean by "direct evidence" an actual physical record of the origin of a new species, no. Fossil evidence is spotty and incomplete at best, and new species come along only over great stretches of time. And then there is always the question of how much change is required in a specimen to constitute a new species, and whether this can occur in a single individual or must be a gradual process over many generations.
It (the theory of evolution) provides interesting conversation, but otherwise isn't of much consequence one way or the other. Mother Nature isn't holding her breath to see whether we embrace it or not, and neither am I.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Concerned, creationism and intelligent design are two different belief systems and I have studied evolution -- I just don't buy it. I have tried to end this debate and you have so I hope we can both politely degree to disagree.

reply from: Tam

Yes, that is my point. It is an assumption, not an observation in and of itself. There is no conclusive proof either way at this time.
It is a logical assumption, based on a preponderance of evidence, not an unbased assumption.
Ok, sure. But it was a logical assumption at one time that the earth was flat, that the sun revolved around it, etc. I'm just saying that it might be that the data is real but has been interpreted incorrectly. I remain open-minded about whether or not one species evolves *from* another species, but don't see any conclusive proof of that at this time.

reply from: Tam

Um, just one little point I think it might help to know:
the time stamp on the posts is customized for the user's time zone
so if I post at 5:00 pm, it might show up as 5:00 am for someone on the other side of the world
so citing the time stamp in general might not be all that useful,
maybe just the minutes past the hour, which would be consistent across time zones
? just trying to help

reply from: Tam

If you mean by "direct evidence" an actual physical record of the origin of a new species, no. Fossil evidence is spotty and incomplete at best
Right. That's precisely my point.
According to the prevailing theory at this time, yes. We shall see, I suppose.
And you are right that it is way off topic.

reply from: galen

he he he .... it is sooo fun to listen to this.
i know its off topic but i find myself in here on my break just to see how this debate is going...
Weeeee this is fun!
Mary
BTW>>> no one asked but...
If all of you belive in GOD( except Yoda). And GOD is omnipitant... then couldn't he have done the whole thing any way he wanted to. kinda mesh the whole creation/ ID/ Evolution thing together and see what you get.
m

reply from: Tam

What was the evidence that made these other assumptions "logical," Tam? They appear to have been unfounded to me.
You must be kidding. Look around you.
If you stand outside and use all five of your senses and every mental faculty you have, you could not possibly discern that the earth is round and travels around the sun. Every single observation would tell you that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. It is only with much more sophisticated instruments and understanding that it became possible eventually to discern that both of these logical assumptions were in fact false.
Yeah, like how we can see with our own eyes that the earth is flat.
Which is why it was possible to conclude that the earth is flat, even though it isn't.
It would be logical to conclude, based on the available evidence at the time, that the earth is flat. The evidence was quite conclusive. Do you really dispute that? Everywhere they looked--flat, flat, flat! Climb to the top of a mountain--look around--flat, flat, flat. Out in the ocean, look all around you--flat, flat, flat. You really are disputing this?
Even if you are disputing it, surely you can concede that the reason the ancients believed the world to be flat was: they looked around, and the world looked flat. You should further concede that when something looks to be a certain way, it is usually reasonable to conclude that it is in fact that way. Yes, appearances can be deceiving--but the sky looks blue because it is blue, etc.
It is fact that evolution takes place, and that is about as much as can be stated as fact. If it were a fact that we evolved from another species, that would be easily provable and there would be no serious debate about it.
For example, it is indisputably factual that the primary component of the ocean is H20. No one debates that, because it would be pointless to debate it--it can be easily proven and is common knowledge. If someone tried to claim the oceans were made of primarily cobalt, because of the blue color, then a simple analysis of a sample would reveal that it is primarily water. It is not possible to prove that we evolved from another species. Obviously, we have changed over time, but if it were an indisputable fact, it would be easily proven.
I acknowledge that it's a theory, and that it may seem to some to fit the evidence quite neatly. And maybe it'll turn out to be true. LOL As I said, I'm keeping an open mind, and the jury is still out. It's certainly not been conclusively proven that we did NOT evolve from apes. I think that we didn't, perhaps you think that we did--hey, time will tell, right? The truth is bound to come out eventually, just like the earth being round.
Most "experts" would probably agree to many things I consider to be total BS. Now, don't take that as intentionally offensive--really, it's not--but you know me well enough to know that the "experts" and their "expert" opinions are not granted any more weight in my deliberations than anyone else. Having more power and influence does not mean having more wisdom or true knowledge, IMO. I will concede that IF the experts are actually as knowledgeable as they are supposed to be (which I contend is not the case), THEN it is a "probability" that they are right about this. In other words, I don't consider it a probability at all.
Oh, no, I'm ALL about the physical changes in our bodies, especially the ones that include genetic changes. That is definitely happening. Emphasis on ING as opposed to ED. Absolutely, I get it that evolution does not necessarily imply changes that result in new species, but can include changes within each species. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it doesn't include species-to-species changes but only those changes that take place within a species. Perhaps a species can change so drastically over time that it can be said that it evolved into a new version of itself--and in a sense that could be considered a new species--but that is not the same thing.
Exactly. Within the species canus, just as there has been evolution within the species homo sapien.
LOL Not yet it hasn't; tell me something I don't already know, though, and I promise to think about it!
Well, people are free to believe whatever they want. I don't make it my job to trumpet my version of reality from the rooftops and expect others to lap it up unquestioningly. But neither will I lap up unquestioningly the opinion of the so-called experts and authorities, especially the media. (I mean, really. I'm a conspiracy theorist; what do you expect? LOL)
The most I will concede is that they might be right and might be telling the truth, and that I'll keep an open mind. I certainly think that is the most that can be expected of anyone, given that the theory in question (or the theory I am questioning, anyway--the theory that we evolved from apes) is neither proven nor currently provable. Right? Isn't that all that can reasonably be expected of anyone, especially of someone highly skeptical of the claims of those in positions of power?
Well, I certainly agree with that. Ignorance doesn't help the situation. By all means, more study is needed. But don't be too shocked if those whose beliefs are the most threatened by further study are those in the majority. Imagine everyone's surprise when it turned out the world is round. I believe discovering our true nature will be as shocking, and that we have barely scratched the surface.

reply from: Shiprahagain

For anyone whose interested this is the diff between creationism and id
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=1329

Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same
By: John G. West
Research News and Opportunities in Science and Theology
December 1, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join The Free Speech on Evolution Campaign. Scientists, teachers, and students are under attack for questioning evolution - click here to help us help them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent news accounts about controversies over evolution in Ohio and Georgia have contained references to the scientific theory of "intelligent design." Some advocates of Darwinian evolution try to conflate "intelligent design" (ID) with "creationism," sometimes using the term "intelligent design creationism." (1) In fact, intelligent design is quite different from "creationism," as even some of its critics have acknowledged. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." (2) In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
In reality, there are a variety of reasons why ID should not be confused with creationism:
1. "Intelligent Design Creationism" is a pejorative term coined by some Darwinists to attack intelligent design; it is not a neutral label of the intelligent design movement.
Scientists and scholars supportive of intelligent design do not describe themselves as "intelligent design creationists." Indeed, intelligent design scholars do not regard intelligent design theory as a form of creationism. Therefore to employ the term "intelligent design creationism" is inaccurate, inappropriate, and tendentious, especially on the part of scholars and journalists who are striving to be fair. "Intelligent design creationism" is not a neutral description of intelligent design theory. It is a polemical label created for rhetorical purposes. "Intelligent design" is the proper neutral description of the theory.
2. Unlike creationism, intelligent design is based on science, not sacred texts.
Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Instead, intelligent design theory is an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature observed by biologists is genuine design (the product of an organizing intelligence) or is simply the product of chance and mechanical natural laws. This effort to detect design in nature is being adopted by a growing number of biologists, biochemists, physicists, mathematicians, and philosophers of science at American colleges and universities. Scholars who adopt a design approach include biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, and mathematician William Dembski at Baylor University. (3)
3. Creationists know that intelligent design theory is not creationism.
The two most prominent creationist groups, Answers in Genesis Ministries (AIG) and Institute for Creation Research (ICR) have criticized the intelligent design movement (IDM) because design theory, unlike creationism, does not seek to defend the Biblical account of creation. AIG specifically complained about IDM's "refusal to identify the Designer with the Biblical God" and noted that "philosophically and theologically the leading lights of the ID movement form an eclectic group." Indeed, according to AIG, "many prominent figures in the IDM reject or are hostile to Biblical creation, especially the notion of recent creation...." (4) Likewise, ICR has criticized ID for not employing "the Biblical method," concluding that "Design is not enough!" (5) Creationist groups like AIG and ICR clearly understand that intelligent design is not the same thing as creationism.
4. Like Darwinism, design theory may have implications for religion, but these implications are distinct from its scientific program.
Intelligent design theory may hold implications for fields outside of science such as theology, ethics, and philosophy. But such implications are distinct from intelligent design as a scientific research program. In this matter intelligent design theory is no different than the theory of evolution. Leading Darwinists routinely try to draw out theological and cultural implications from the theory of evolution. Oxford's Richard Dawkins, for example, claims that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." (6) Harvard's E.O. Wilson employs Darwinian biology to deconstruct religion and the arts. (7) Other Darwinists try to elicit positive implications for religion from Darwin's theory. The pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE) has organized a "Faith Network" to promote the study of evolution in churches. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE, acknowledges that the purpose of the group's "clergy outreach program" is "to try to encourage members of the practicing clergy to address the issue of Evolution in Sunday schools and adult Bible classes" and to get church members to talk about "the theological implications of evolution." (8) The NCSE's "Faith Network Director" even claims that "Darwin's theory of evolution...has, for those open to the possibilities, expanded our notions of God." (9) If Darwinists have the right to explore the cultural and theological implications of Darwin's theory without disqualifying Darwinism as science, then ID-inspired discussions in the social sciences and the humanities clearly do not disqualify design as a scientific theory.
5. Fair-minded critics recognize the difference between intelligent design and creationism.
Scholars and science writers who are willing to explore the evidence for themselves are coming to the conclusion that intelligent design is different from creationism. As mentioned earlier, historian of science Ronald Numbers has acknowledged the distinction between ID and creationism. So has science writer Robert Wright, writing in Time magazine: "Critics of ID, which has been billed in the press as new and sophisticated, say it's just creationism in disguise. If so it's a good disguise. Creationists believe that God made current life-forms from scratch. The ID movement takes no position on how life got here, and many adherents believe in evolution. Some even grant a role to the evolutionary engine posited by Darwin: natural selection. They just deny that natural selection alone could have driven life all the way from pond scum to us." (10)
Whatever problems the theory of intelligent design may have, it should be allowed to rise or fall on its own merits, not on the merits of some other theory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) For a particularly egregious example of use of this term, see Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert T. Pinnock (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001).
(2) Richard Ostling, AP Writer, March 14, 2002.
(3) For good introductions to intelligent design theory, see Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (The Free Press, 1996); Michael Behe, William Dembski, and Stephen Meyer, Science & Evidence For Design in the Universe (Ignatius, 2000); William Dembski, No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence (Rowman and Littlefield, 2002); and Unlocking the Mystery of Life video documentary (Illustra Media, 2002).
(4) Carl Wieland, "AiG's views on the Intelligent Design Movement," August 30, 2002, available at http://www.answersingenesis.org.
(5) Henry M. Morris, "Design is not Enough!", Institute for Creation Research, July 1999, available at: http://www.icr.org/.
(6) Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 1996), 6.
(7) E.O. Wilson, Consilience (New York: Vintage Books, 1998).
(8) Eugenie Scott, interview with ColdWater Media, September 2002. Courtesy of ColdWater Media.
(9) Phina Borgeson, "Introduction to the Congregational Study Guide for Evolution," National Center for Science Education, 2001, available at www.ncseweb.org.
(10) Robert Wright, Time, March 11, 2002.

reply from: Tam

So ID is science, creationism is faith? Does that pretty much sum it up? I thought it made sense that creationism is a subset of ID, but I didn't realize ID was a scientific thing, I thought it was a philosophical thing.
What about the folks who think we were intelligently designed by extraterrestrial scientists in a laboratory? Does that count as ID? I'd say no, if ID is based on science.
And yet, creationists and those who think we were engineered by aliens both believe we were intelligently designed.
So it is somewhat confusing to say the least.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Creationism is science but it's science that identifies the Creator as the Biblical one, believes the earth is 6,000 years old, that God made life in 6 days etc. It's researched based just like any other science. Intelligent Desgin is also research based science however the Intelligent Designer is no more assumed to the Christian God than Zeus, just some divine force and the world wasn't necessariliy made in a week -- God made the world but not necessarily a Christian God according to the ways articulated in the Christian Bible. Ppl who believe we were made by extraterrestrial scientists aren't ID because Id folks believe the designer was divine. They aren't creationist either. For example, the Insitute for Creation Research does research like this http://www.icr.org/research/

reply from: yoda

Tam: "If you stand outside and use all five of your senses and every mental faculty you have, you could not possibly discern that the earth is round and travels around the sun. Every single observation would tell you that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it."
Well, almost, but not quite. Over the centuries there have been sailors and seashore-dwelling folks who have noted that the first part of an approaching ship you see is the top of the mainmast. Why there was even one very smart Greek fellow, I think, who figured out the circumference of the earth over 2000 years ago, and was actually very close. Here's a quote:
"Over two thousand years ago Greek astronomers knew that the Earth was sphereical. During lunar eclipses the Moon passes through the Earth's shadow. The Greeks noticed that the shadow cast by the Earth was always circular, and the only object that always casts a circular shadow is a sphere. Therefore, the Greeks concluded that the Earth was a sphere.
However a nagging question was how big was the Earth? About 200 BC. Eratosthenes, a Greek astronomer, discovered a way to measure the circumference of the Earth. " http://inkido.indiana.edu/a100/earthmoon7.html

We now return you to your regular programming.......

reply from: Shiprahagain

Some ancient religions and cultures refer to the world in ways that imply it's round. For example, one African tribe insists a snake is wraped around it 3,500 times. Kind of hard for a snake to wrap himself around something flat -- it'd have to be round.

reply from: Tam

I'm not saying no one has ever thought it might be round. But you can't possibly be arguing, any of you, that the world is clearly round, that it is blatantly obvious that it's round. If it's obviously either to most people, it's obviously flat.

reply from: Shiprahagain

No, of course I agree with you. We were just adding historical addendums. A lot of times what seems to be common sensical or self-evident in one era is disproved in the next.

reply from: Tam

Precisely my entire point.

reply from: Tam

Um, the source you posted said
I mean, ok, maybe it can be called science, in which case so can the research that has produced the alien laboratory theory.
This, too, seems to contradict what you quoted:
Sounds pretty agnostic to me--which is different from a belief that "the designer was divine."

reply from: Tam

No. Not logical. Visual observation was what first prompted belief that the earth is round, so you can't claim all the available evidence
No, I didn't say all the available evidence. I know there was evidence to the contrary--but that evidence was not available to everyone all the time, whereas the evidence that the earth is flat was far more accessible. Do you disagree?
You can only consider the evidence that you 1) know exists and 2) find credible. It is impossible to consider evidence of which you are unaware. Obviously.
If the only cows you had ever seen were brown, yes, it would be perfectly logical. In fact, if the only cows you have ever seen are brown, it would be illogical and outright nonsensical to conclude that there are non-brown cows, unless you had other fairly conclusive evidence (photos, eyewitness accounts from credible persons) to the contrary.
Not at all. If something looks to be a certain way, that only means it looks to be that way. Reason and logic (utilizing all available evidence) can often be used to determine that something is not as it appears. There are invertebrates dwelling in the sea that appear to be plants, but we know they are animals.
Ok, Fair Witness. When you look at one side of a house, and it's painted white, do you call it a white house, or do you call it a house that's white on at least one side?
The sky is not blue. It simply appears to be blue
That's what "blue" means. Something that appears to be blue to humans. The word "blue" and the concept it represents are practically meaningless to both the blind and dogs. But blind people know the sky is blue, even though it doesn't appear blue to them.
I'm not enjoying this exchange. Maybe I'll get back to it. Right now I feel rather patronized.

reply from: Tam

Why don't you share some of what you believe? I'm interested to know. I've seen a bit of Sitchin's stuff now, and although there are not any ideas so far that I've not encountered elsewhere, I think it's pretty interesting stuff. But the fact that you recommend it doesn't really tell me much.
Where do YOU think we came from? Do you think extraterrestrials combined their DNA with that of an earlier human form on earth in order to genetically engineer a slave race to work in the mines for them? If so, why haven't you mentioned that yet in this discussion? If not, what do you think really happened? Do you just buy the prevailing theory in its entirety?

reply from: Tam

I thought I was done here for the day, but then I just happened to notice this in today's news (I just saw it, but it was apparently posted 3 hours ago):
http://www.physorg.com/news76949121.html
">http://www.physorg.com/news76949121.html
From the article:
This supports both my assertion that the experts have been looking at factual evidence but not necessarily coming to factual conclusions based on that evidence, and also supports Sitchin's assertion that the Anunnaki crossbred with early humans to create a slave race.
I'm not saying this guy is necessarily right, just pointing out that even literally as we debated, radical new understandings about human evolution were being published.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Um, the source you posted said
I mean, ok, maybe it can be called science, in which case so can the research that has produced the alien laboratory theory.
This, too, seems to contradict what you quoted:
Sounds pretty agnostic to me--which is different from a belief that "the designer was divine."
I guess by divine I mean, most ID ppl consider the IDer to be a supernatural force, not an alien scientist, but I guess you could be ID and believe in the alien.

reply from: faithman

The roots of racism is evolution. It is also the excuse the eugenic influenced marget sanger used to justify abortion. The false religion of evolution is responsible for more human death than all other faiths combined, for it was the driving force behind nazism, comunism, and humanism. 50 million pre-born children have died in america alone by abortion, based on secular humanism driven by evolutionary thinking.

reply from: faithman

You have already proven your self to be a racist by your belief in evolution, and are numbered with margret sanger, adolf hitler, mao, all praised by secular humanist, all believed in the myth of evolution, and all responcible for millions more dead than all other faiths combined. Just simple historical fact no matter how punk mouthed you want to get about it.

reply from: faithman

Struck a nerve, did we? LOL Could I please have those statistics on numbers dead? Boy, you're going to have to go back thousands of years. I wasn't aware that statistics were available on how many had actually been killed in the name of Christianity!

No nerve struck here that I am aware of. I just call a punk mouth a punk mouth when I see one. The census for battles deaths were kept thru time, as well as guestamations on world populations. Hundreds of millions of people have been killed either directly by evolutiuonist, or in the fight against them. That is just in the 20th centuri alone. The freeist countries on earth are christian. The most deadly and oppressive are based on godless secular humanism, and evolution.

reply from: faithman

Think I alread replied to the fact that I don't do home work for criminals. Just type in info to search enigine and study. Oh sorry. That right. You are incapable of creative thinking seeings how you don't believe in a creator. May haps they got the net in hell. You will have more than 4 years to look it up

reply from: faithman

I will certainly concede that it takes some "creative thinking" to arrive at the conclusion that belief in evolution is basically the "root of all evil."
Glad to see you are finally comming around.

reply from: faithman

I will certainly concede that it takes some "creative thinking" to arrive at the conclusion that belief in evolution is basically the "root of all evil."
Glad to see you are finally comming around.
Glad to see you have a sense of humor! (or did that just go over your head?)
Figure it out and i'll give the ape a banna.

reply from: faithman

TRy "hitler evolution" baboon breath.

reply from: faithman

Hitler directly plunged the world into war based on the "fact" that the germans were the master race and higher evolved than all others. He may have used some religious leaders as a political ploy, but when he gained power he reverted germany back to it's pagan roots, and put the christian in the camps right next to the jews. Even though there may have been folk stupid enough to believe in evolution on the allied side, most countries still based their existance in a belief in christ, and sought Him for providential guidance thru national calls to prayer. the only exception was russia which embraced communism which is a godless form of government based on evolution. And we kown the millions who died under it's rule. The british imperialism of the 1800's can be atributed directly to an evolutionary mind set that states that white europeans are higher evolved than all other "races". this really heated up after darwins plegerized work that gave false science crediblity to those who wanted to murder and exploit the rescources of other people groups. Know monkey mutant, if ya just fall out of your tree, loose your tail, and evolve some true desire to know truth, you will find out that what I am saying is historically acurate.

reply from: coco

faithman, humanism is a bad thing ????
crimminals are a part of history wheather you like it or not!! If you dont study criminals how do you know about adolf hitler etc....!!!

reply from: coco

YES YOU ARE CORRECT FAITHMAN HITLER DID USE THE THEORY THAT THEY WERE THE MASTER RACE BUT ON THAT SAME TOKEN CHRISTIANITY ALSO USED THE CRUSADES AS WELL SO IN THAT THEORY CHRISTIANITY IS ALSO RESONSIBLE FOR KILLING MANKIND NO MATTER WHAT FAITH THE BELONGED TO.

reply from: yoda

Quite so. And there is still the "Flat Earth Society", of course........

reply from: Shiprahagain

The difference is, the Crusades are against Christian doctrine that insists upon free will and not killing the innocent, while the view that whites are a master race is not a manipulation of Darwinism but the only true interpretation. Of late, people have tried to purge racism from Darwinism but it has always been miscible with the doctrine.

reply from: faithman

The difference is, the Crusades are against Christian doctrine that insists upon free will and not killing the innocent, while the view that whites are a master race is not a manipulation of Darwinism but the only true interpretation. Of late, people have tried to purge racism from Darwinism but it has always been miscible with the doctrine.
Thanks ship, but you guy's got it wrong about the crusades. The christians were not the aggressors. The holy land had been in christian hands for centuries before islam. The crusades were an attenpt to retake ground, and to halt the muslim invassion of europe. That is simply not the case with hitler, as he was clearly the aggressor, and using the myth of evolution as his excuse to kill all disgenic peoples to create the master race. It always gets me that punk mouth pagans twist the crusades into something they simply were not. The most deadly faith system of all times is secular humanism, and their excuse is evolution.

reply from: coco

cp I would have to say 3 all the professors I know view that as the most scientificly plausiable theory

reply from: coco

I dont see nothing wrong with combinding both of these theories together!!!! I total belive in god because the earth and its contents did not just appear but the overwelming evidence also supports evelution so I PERSONALLY belive that both explain alot of evidence and most importantly FACTS and FAITH!!!

reply from: coco

sorry about the misspellings and I ment you also add faith that is needed to belive in god.

reply from: coco

I LOVE PEOPLE AND APES!!!

reply from: coco

CP no matter how many scientific facts you place in someones face some WILL choose to ignore and dismiss them but i am sure you understand this already>

reply from: faithman

evolution is a fraud, period. There is no factual information to back it up period.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fraud.asp____________http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm__________http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/bkfraud.htm_______http://fellowshipinhislove.com/index36.html__________http://www.csama.org/NWS1101.PDF#search='%20evolution%20fraud'________________

reply from: Tam

ooookay, I'm going to try to get back to this.
Quite false. The "facts" on which theories on the mechanics of evolution are based are overwhelming. I have already posted a small sample on this thread.
Ok, if they're facts, why are you putting "facts" in quotation marks? And presuming they are facts, they are demonstrating that evolution is taking place. Right? And when they are assembled into theories, those are called "theories" as opposed to facts. That's my point.
With all due respect, what is the logical basis for this assumption? If something is not "easily provable," it can't be true? That would certainly rule out most speculation about "spiritual" or "supernatural" phenomena, wouldn't it?
Ok. Let me clarify. There is a tremendous gulf of difference between "true" and "easily provable"--and sometimes there is overlap, other times not. I thought the earth being flat was a pretty good example, but everyone seemed to jump on that one with criticism, so let's try another one. How about this one--it used to be thought that maggots were spontaneously generated from rotting meat. Some scientist, can't recall offhand who, did this experiment with some meat under glass and some sitting out, proved that maggots didn't spontaneously arise from meat, but were caused by an external factor (as it turns out, flies). It was easy breezy to prove that the maggots weren't coming from the meat--all it took was putting some meat under glass. There is PLENTY of stuff that is NOT as easily proven. Example: the Loch Ness Monster. Let's assume, for the sake of the analogy, that the LNM is real. Now, go prove it. Not so easy. It is presumed that it is *possible* to prove all true things--but maybe not immediately, maybe not with our current understanding or technology, maybe not to someone with a very different frame of reference, etc.
So maybe I didn't mean that exactly the way I said it. There's IMO plenty of stuff that's probably true but nearly impossible to prove. And whether something is proven is at times debatable. Existence of God--to some, it's blatantly obvious by looking around at the world that God exists; the evidence is everywhere. To others, there is no evidence for God whatsoever. Depends on what is considered evidence.
So my point is really that if there is incontrovertible evidence of something, that would be easily provable and there would be no serious debate about it. That's what I should have said.
IOW, my point is not that the evidence is not factual, but that it is not incontrovertible. IMO.
LOL! It was once claimed by many that it was impossible for man to create a machine that can fly. Just because it has not yet been done certainly doesn't mean it is "impossible." If you do not believe it is possible, that proves only what you believe, not what is possible.
Again, I didn't say what I meant. Sorry. I meant that statement to be in the context of the present time. I assume it will be settled one way or another eventually. I just mean it's not incontrovertible at this time.
So something that is obvious can be disputed? All facts can be easily proven?
What? Well, I think I've explained what I meant, but: if something is indisputable, incontrovertible, indubitable, that means it can't be disputed (at least not by reasonable persons). However, sometimes things that ARE indisputable are disputed, and sometimes things that are NOT indisputable are taken for granted as being so. Much of what we now take for granted about the nature of the world would have been at one time considered nonsense. Some of what we now take for granted will be disproved in the future. Really, that is the point I am trying to make: that what we take for granted now wasn't always obvious, and might not even be true.
Gee, how can anything that is "impossible to prove" "turn out to be true?" When you say it may "turn out to be true," does that mean it might possibly one day be proven?
You surely know that it's possible to prove things that aren't true. Like proving that .9999999... is equal to 1. The algebra is indisputable. Yet, it's impossible that 1 is equal to anything less than 1, and .999999... is absolutely less than 1. It's not true, but it's a fact. Huh??? I don't know.
Yeah, I can tell. [snip]
LOL Dude, I'm trying to, anyway!
Ok. On the other hand, I don't just accept at face value the descriptions of evidence I've not seen firsthand. Sometimes I do, but it's not a given whatsoever that just because someone that someone else deems an expert says something, I am going to accept it without question. That's my point. Everyone keeps mentioning the Piltdown man hoax and such--there has been plenty of evidence that has been faked, misrepresented, or misinterpreted over the course of the history of science. THAT is really all I am trying to point out here--that just because someone considered an expert considers a thing evidence of another thing does not mean that the other thing is indisputable. That's my point.
I'm really not trying to have a debate about evolution, though I realize that must be hard to believe. I am really just making a general point about how things that are accepted as true might not be, and things that are accepted as false or impossible might be true. At one time, experts on the movements of stars and planets would give people advice about their futures based on the way the stars looked at the time of their births. Experts. I'm not even saying astrology has no basis in truth whatsoever--but I'm saying that there have always been experts, and the experts of today may or may not be more accurate than the experts of yesteryear, depending on the subject in question.
Yeah, ok, maybe. The word is too vague, in a way, I guess.
Do you really accept that this might be possible?
LMAO!!! Yes, yes I do. And the clock starts ticking . . . NOW!
Well, that may be what's accepted in the scientific community, but the majority of people on the street, if quizzed, would I suspect say it as "we evolved from apes"--even if that's not an accurate description of the theory.
Argh, I am so sick of this topic now! Don't take that the wrong way--we can talk about it more another time--but I'm burnt out on it for now. Back to talking about abortion?

reply from: faithman

every facet of the issue proves evolution a myth and a fraud.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Concerned, add up evolutionist frauds and creationists frauds and prove that there are more commited by creationists.
Coco, the fact that 3 profs believe in evolution is meaningless. There are tons of creationist profs, and tons of creationist evidence.

reply from: Tam

I agree that it is understandable that the majority of people would believe the world was flat, but I would disagree with the assumption that each individual arrived at this conclusion based on personal observation. I think it most likely that some "smart" person (or persons) illogically assumed the earth was flat based on limited observations, and the masses just believed it because a "smart" guy said it. I think it also likely that the assumption was based largely on current understanding (or lack thereof) of laws of physics rather than on observation alone. Common people probably didn't spend a lot of time considering anything that was not related to providing their immediate needs.
I think it doesn't make sense that the majority of people would believe the world is flat because some expert said so. What smart person? What expert? I don't think the subject even came up, for the most part. I think it wasn't so much that people believed the earth was flat--more like just assumed it in the back of their minds, never consciously considering the question in the first place, let alone arriving at an answer. Which, of course, isn't "logic" and so doesn't support my original point that it would be logical to conclude the earth is flat--which, by the way, I am not conceding, at least not yet.
I agree, but is it logical to assume no other evidence exists?
Well heck, cp, I guess that depends! As an example, consider the question of extraterrestrials existing and the question of whether or not the genetics of humans currently living on earth were created by breeding primitive humans with genetically advanced extraterrestrials. Is it logical to assume that no evidence for this exists?
I'm not sure I have a great answer for that right this minute; I'm just trying to go through this quickly and respond to things, but I hope the point is coming together--that of course other evidence always exists, but it might not always make sense to assume that *contradictory* evidence exists. At least, I think that's my point. LOL
OH, which brings me--let's just skip ahead, here. Forget the brown cow stuff for now. Maybe I'll get back to that, maybe not--but the most important BY FAR part of this post is this:
Now, this brought me up short. What on earth, I wondered, are you talking about? So I went back and looked to find the "serious response preceded by 'lol'" to which you referred. Here is the thing to which I must assume you refer:
LOL Not yet it hasn't; tell me something I don't already know, though, and I promise to think about it!
Ok, now I can see why that might seem like I was being condescending. I really do see that; I totally get it why you took it that way. In fact, it's so clear that I feel rather silly trying to claim it wasn't meant that way, in that sort of "It's not what it looks like!" way that a married person might protest when caught naked with another person's spouse. But, really, it's not what it looks like. Don't ask me what planet I must have been on in order to fail to recognize at the time I typed it that of course it would be interpreted as my being a jerk--I don't know how I could have missed that.
Here's the thing. A good bit of the time--who knows exactly how often--when I am typing these little laughing internet shorthand things like LOL or ROFL, I am laughing at MYSELF. I have no idea if that's clear in general, but I am more than willing to believe it is NOT clear in the above example. A good chunk of my "laughter" isn't even laughter per se, it is self-effacing, self-depreciating chuckling that really is intended to soften whatever I'm saying.
I know you have a sense of humor, but looking at that sentence, I do see why you wouldn't find the humor in it. It sounds like I'm laughing at you. I totally see that. But I swear that is not what I was doing. I knew what an unbelievably arrogant dork I was going to sound like by saying that, and the LOL was just my way of acknowledging that and trying to soften what I was saying so it would be clear that I wasn't saying it with a sneer but with a shrug and a lopsided grin.
Sorry. You tell me stuff I don't already know all the time. I figured you knew that, and that in context of that knowing and of knowing I have a tendency to crack wise, would not take that the way you did. Again, really, I do see in retrospect that that stuff wasn't at all obvious to you, let alone to everyone. So, just for the record: I wasn't trying to be condescending, honestly. It's just that--I know I'm weird. Not just normal-weird the way it's almost cool to be these days, and not disturbing-weird the way some creepy guy in a trenchcoat after dark might be, but super-weird in that believes-stuff-other-people-consider-fiction way. Okay, every single Christian, Muslim, and Jew on the planet believes stuff other people consider fiction--but they have lots of company, so it's seen as somehow less weird, or more acceptable. People who think trees communicate telepathically--look, I totally know that's weird, and I totally know I'm weird. And I don't mind, and I have a good sense of humor about it. That "LOL" was saying "Look, I'm a dork and I know it, but . . . "
We're cool now, right? Neither of us meant to be prickly. I don't expect us to agree on everything all the time, but I think highly of you.

reply from: Tam

Ooh, that's a good way of describing that. I literally JUST NOW (less than 5 min ago) was typing these words to a friend:
So, there you have it. Would it make the coincidence all the more amusing and cool to know that the friend to whom I was typing that . . . is you? GMTA
Right. Same here.
That reminds me of the Richard Bach book "Illusions" (and anyone who's read it will know why it does). I loved that book!
Yeah, I've been sort of getting there, myself, in the back of my mind, but hadn't taken the time to stop and figure out where I was going. LOL I think you're right about that, and it's what I was searching for when I responded to some of your earlier comments in this thread.


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics