START A RANT
SIGN UP / SIGN IN
GET PAID TO POST
FOLLOW ON TWITTER
START A RAVE
MY PROFILE
CONTACT US
ABOUT US
Culture & Lifestyle

Rant

Darwinism: The Religion of Genocide

Posted 19 months ago|170 comments|1,874 views
VIDEOS
ADDITIONAL IMAGES
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
Written by
Darwinism: The Religion of Genocide

The belief that specific "races" are superior to others has resulted in more deaths and atrocities than any other belief system. If you read Mein Kampf you will see that Hitter used the word evolution over and over again to justify the extermination of particular groups of people. Darwin's idea that evolution means "the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life" eventually led to Nazism and the Jewish holocaust.

Darwin "proved" that all races descended from apes. Based on his assumption or "proof", some races have "evolved" more than others. In his opinion the white races had evolved more than any of the other "races." Thus said, there are a multitude of individuals waiting in the wings that will swallow that lie.

Theistic religion has had nothing to do with the vast majority of wars: the Hutu-Tutsi war in Rwanda, the Falklands War, the Vietnam and Korean Wars, WW2, WW1, Cambodia, the Spanish-American War, the Franco-Prussian War, the Crimean War, the US Civil War, the Napoleonic wars, the Wars of the Roses, the Mongol wars, the Gallic War, the Punic wars, and on and o.. Deaths in the 20th century alone due to evolution-based philosophies such as Nazism and Communism far outweigh those caused by 'religion' in all centuries combined.

Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and even Mao held a belief in Darwinian thought which allowed them to murder millions. Belief in the doctrines of Darwinism gave them license to do whatever they thought was in the best interest of the superior "race."

Is evolution observable science? No, evolution falls under the realm of historical science; it is a belief system about the past. Evolution however is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion.

"There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead." That is all dogma, not science.

Darwinian evolution even begins with a faith based statement: The world originated by itself through totally naturalistic processes. Before any scientific investigation is done at all, that statement of faith lays the foundation. There is a term for this type of belief system—that term is religion.

Thank you for reading.

HN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xxgRUyzg...
Living Colour – The Cult of Personality

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=ZieSsxPkMw...
2001: A Space Odyssey – The Dawn of Man

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCFHYyErkA...
Bob Marley & The Wailers - War

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ai-DXFXZr...
Statistical Probability of Evolution
UPDATE - 19 months ago
Science 101 -

Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing. Some animals are simply more fit to survive in a certain environment. Also, adaptations are not evolution. They are just that, adaptations. Fish never produce frogs and lizards do not produce birds. They are genetically different species.

Artificial selection also is not evolution. If you want to purposely breed stock or vegetation fine. You will produce a wide variety within a kind but you will not change one kind into another. No new genetic material, no new type.

Darwin was wrong. It is not a scientific fact that life began from a single organism and has evolved into all the life we see. That is unprovable and is as much a religious statement as is anything I have ever heard.

Since humanity is really the focus of this Rant not livestock and plants, let's go back there.

The full title for Darwin's work published in 1859 is "The Origin of Species: Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life." For obvious reasons they have pretty much dropped the subtitle of the book these days. For obvious reasons.

There are no "favored races" so the "Messiah of Science" is wrong.

There are no genetically superior or inferior races of people. I know there are many who believe that, but what they believe is a lie. Follow?
EMAIL|FLAG THIS POST
COMMENTS
19 months ago: A statement of fact cannot be turned into a statement of faith just because you want to twist the belief that a fact is true into faith that the fact is true.

Neither can you make the use of a term into a religion and then list a few despots and say they practiced this religion because they used the term.

Hitler was an unwilling Catholic who believed in one God. Mussolini was a practicing Catholic. Stalin believed religion was bad for a communist society. Mao was raised a Buddhist but rejected all religions.

This blog might interest you:
http://stupac2.blogspot.com/2006/10/hitl...

Just because Darwin's theory about evolution conflicts with your faith in creation doesn't mean he started a new religion based on his findings. He was conflicted by his own belief in the Christian religion's one God, he was an agnostic who had many unanswered questions and was also sought out by the religious and non-religious to help them grasp the ideas being presented at that time concerning many different topics.

http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwin-an...

I really don't think demonizing Darwin is a good use of your time and the other historical figures have their own places in history and it has little to do with Darwin.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago:
"A statement of fact cannot be turned into a statement of faith just because you want to twist the belief that a fact is true into faith that the fact is true."


Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Heb.11:1
Put it in today's English and it reads:
Now faith is the assurance that what we hope for will come about and the certainty that what we cannot see exists.

Straight out of the lion's mouth, this is the definition of religious faith. It is the definition of faith. Period. How much of Darwinism, and for that matter much of secular scientific theory resembles that passage? The big bang theory hasn't been proven, but is widely taught as fact. Spontaneous life has not been proven, and cannot be reproduced, but is taught as fact as well. We haven't even figured out how Jupiter and Saturn accreted in an almost energy free environment, but we are confident how the entire universe was created?

Much of modern science is based on faith, and when that faith became so strong as to crowd out other possibilities, it became a religion.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: Most of modern science is NOT based on faith whatsoever...without this LIE, religion can't stand. The believer takes credit for mankind's progress at evwery step of the way when history demonstrates conclusively that religion has stood in the way of man's progress and civilization every step of the way. Revising history to suit and support your belief system is a simple mechanism of defense. If your religion is so shaky that you need to IGNORE facts, you can always say that your God allows you to LIE in defense of the faith. Now you have a justification for everything you say in your facetious program to save "sinners" like myself. It also allows you to steal and cheat...There is absolutely no proof whatsoever for the religious to be enjoying a higher moral standard, a better life, happiness or prosperity as the rest of us. Fortunately Christianity is losing ground and non-believers, agnostics, atheists, humanist and secular society grows by leaps and bounds.
19 months ago: Owlafaye -

Your arguments are a joke.

You have not addressed one issue that is contained in this post. Not one.

If you have nothing substantive to contribute you should just leave it alone.
19 months ago: Also - I believe what OOTB is saying is that much of what passes for "science" these days is based on faith. That is an unfortunate fact.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: The TRUTH applies everywhere Huey, get your head out son.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: owlafaye

You seem to be dancing around the subject and broadly generalizing, while engaging in an attempt at ad hominem. Please address the issues specifically, instead of using words like "most science". We are not discussing "most science" here, we are discussing evolution as it applies to race, and words concerning racial superiority written by Darwin.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: I see that you have designated yourself as moderator and all posts not fitting your ideas are not to be considered? Typical Christian argumentative methods, self serving, arrogant and bigoted...you may need a dictionary to understand us boy.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Actually owlafaye, you have said nothing. You haven't presented a case except the ad hominem attack "Christians are stupid". You say evolution has been proven in it's entirety? You say life was spontaneous? You say Darwin was not a racist?

I don't believe you have the balls or the education to answer these questions directly.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
Content Removed by RantRave
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: I see you don't have the education for anything more than bluffer, simply playing the part of demagogue.

You remind me of Foghorn Leghorn.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: I think you can make a point without the personal juvenile insults.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Who, me? No insult intended. Just an observation. Usually the under-educated are in that position through no fault of their own.

And he really does remind me of Foghorn Leghorn.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: No, to owlafaye
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
10 months ago: Faith is the substance of Nothing...and in closing:

Nothing fails like prayer.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
10 months ago: And yet you have faith in what men tell you, (I'm sure you haven't done any scientific research yourself) and faith in the unprovable conclusions they have reached. Go figure.

Even if I didn't believe in God, I would still call bs on most of evolutionary theory. There is simply not enough evidence to support 90% of the claims made.

What some people wish to do is to use science to absolutely preclude the possibility of the existence of God, and that is closed-mindedness of the worst kind. You start out with an assumption or belief, i.e.; "there is no God" , and set out from there to prove that. Nothing that anyone says will open your mind to the possibility.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
10 months ago: What some people wish to do is to use science to absolutely preclude the possibility of the existence of God, and that is closed-mindedness of the worst kind. You start out with an assumption or belief, i.e.; "there is no God" , and set out from there to prove that.

This is an excellent example of the severe delusion and paranoia people like OutOfTheBox experience...and he demonstrated it himself.

A lot of these people need counseling badly...if they were not dumb as a box of rocks they would realize the need.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
10 months ago:
Back to your old tricks, eh, Mr. Owl? Only three licks to the Tootsie Roll center? You made a grand sweeping statement without providing us poor deluded individuals with any insight into how you reach your conclusion.

Let's us dissect.

"What some people wish to do"...

Are you implying that there are no people who wish to use any argument available to refute the existence of God? Are you further stating that anyone who believes that some people hate the idea of God so much that they will believe anything that appears to deny His existence?

If there are such people, then your statement "...an excellent example of the severe delusion and paranoia people like OutOfTheBox experience..." would be false.

So, are there such God haters in the world, making me correct, or do they not exist, making me a deluded paranoid?

Can you prove that God does not exist? Can you prove common ancestry? Can you prove spontaneous generation? If not, then you are the one constrained by a closed mind, and you are the paranoid delusional one, who bristles when his belief of things not proven is challenged.
sunny2
sunny2
10 months ago: You mean your answer is No. Prayer didn't fail you because you want it to go your way or nothing. What about when life does go your way, and your happy. Isn't that a prayer in itself that is answered. Life is a complete learning experience. We have spouts of happiness, and we have saddness. Everything is a challenge but worth it. Yes or No it is as simple as that. Sometimes we may want things so bad we get angry, but there is a reason for everything. At times what we want, can have terrible consequences that you don't see coming. You have to expand your horizons to know what is out there, and you have to listen carefully to what others have experienced to have some sort of idea to be flexible enough to bring volumes more awareness to you. We don't know what lies beyond, but we can only take what we have and try to understand. What sense does it make fighting life. You don't have to force yourself to believe, only try to look for more. I don't knock you at all.
sunny2
sunny2
10 months ago: Owl the masses of people can't be fooled and accept the existence of God from the time of birth. If we all felt the way you do, it would be exhausting.
You have to see that there is credibility somewhere, but you haven't discovered it yet. Is it difficult to make an attempt? You can believe there is no God, but when you need a life preserver thrown out to you, I bet you reach for it. Others being dumb as a box of rocks, isn't a good reply to what you don't know exists. Someone said to me that there was no heaven, my reply was, where were you before coming here. My mind is always open to questioning as you. No harm in it but saying people are dumb because they don't believe as you, doesn't win an argument.
19 months ago: You need to study your history.
19 months ago: And at what was that aimed? What fact did my research return the wrong data for?
19 months ago: "other historical figures have their own places in history and it has little to do with Darwin."

Darwinism was the lynch pin that gave validity to their atrocities by their own admission. To say it has little to do with it is inaccurate.
19 months ago: It is what it is. These are facts. I did not make any of this up.

Darwin was not the father of racism, but he has done more to promote it on large scale than anyone in history.
19 months ago: Read your Old Testament.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: Darwinism has done more to promote racism etc etc etc...laughter...desperate eh?
19 months ago: You are splitting hairs. You dig up a fact, then try to make Darwin the scapegoat for how some portion of it was similar to what some later despot did, said or caused.

If you want to really blame some past person or group for racism, genocide and all the other horrors that came about in the last couple of hundred years, try the Bible, Christians, Muslims, the Koran, and any other book or group that tells it's readers or believers that those that don't believe are lesser beings or sinners that should be shunned or devil worshippers, witches, warlocks, demons, you name it.

You have tried to blame all the wars of the last few hundred years on anything BUT religion when most of them have deep religious roots as well as economic and cultural causes. No matter what you want to believe, religion plays a big part in how one group of people perceives another group that is almost identical to themselves, they just live a few miles away, or have kinky hair or darker skin or slanted eyes, just pick a characteristic and you can find a group that believes it is better because it does or does not have that characteristic and the clergy of each group will be right there telling the members of it's respective group that they are justified and will be blessed by whatever God or Gods they believe in.

You say I need to study history, from your writing and the ideas you convey within it, history is not something you have even opened a book on.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: sixholdens...you have to remember: He is getting his information from the Christian Press. Bible "college" is actually a school that teaches thw world according to the BABBLE and everything else is BS because the BABBLE is the "Word of God"...laughter.

The arrogance of the Christian is mandated by God and the BABBLE...the righteous can do no wrong remember.
19 months ago: O -man -

At least Sixholdens uses his brain. Based on what you've written so , I unfortunately can't say the same for you. That is unless you come back with better than this stuff.
19 months ago: Much evil has been done in the name of religion. But you must face the fact whether you like it or not, that more harm been done in he name of genetic supremacy than all the overt "holy" wars combined.

Also when a so-called Christian murders in the name of his God, he is not being true to the moral code of his religion. However when an evolutionist murders in the name of "survival of the fittest" he is being true to his.
Paper Tiger
Paper Tiger
England
19 months ago: Hi

Darwinism's theory was based on five elements.

1. Indiviuals have random variability, more so if they sexually reproduce.

2. Reproductive capacity inevitably leads to competition, both within and between species as populations tend to remain a set size. If there are no major external influences to upset this e.g. mass-slaughter of animals by humans or an environmental catastrophe such as a huge oil slick.

3. Some individuals are better adapted than others to their environment, which will help in their survival and reproductive success i.e. fitness.

4. Some of the characteristics that make parents successful in their ability to survive and reproduce are inherited by their offspring, increasing the probability of success for those offspring. These characteristics become more widespread in the population. This is evolutionary change.vThe surviving species has adapted better to an enviromental niche, the survival of the fittest.

5. The descendants of a single stock tend to diverge and become adapted to many different environmental niches.

Darwins paper "Origin of Species (1859) was criticized by both the religious and scientific establishments of that period. Darwin was nor aware of genes as the unit of inheritance, so it was understandable that he believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics.

This would be a rational explanation for the phenomena he observed. If the organisms have the capacity for genetic variability, then new species can emerge that will adapt to new environments, while the old species, which are no longer suited to the surrounding environment, will eventually die out.

This is happenening all over the world, communities that have existed for generations are dying out because of progress. The tribes in the rain forests, the villages, all niches of ways of life is dissapearing. As more people fill up the world growing communities become more interactive with each other and adopt best practice.
19 months ago: More like Darwin's story.

What is your take on his "theory" with regard to the human race?
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: It isn't a "theory" son, it is a repeatedly demonstrable FACT me boy, reviewed and tested some 160 years now by Darwin's peers through the generations.

"Theory" and "Missing Link" are creationist constructs designed to sustain doubts in the minds of believers.

Remember: There are more evolutionary scientists named George than all the creationist "scientists" in the world.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Are you related to Huey by any chance? If not, the attempt at demeaning and\or exerting authority with the term "son" is pretty lame.
Paper Tiger
Paper Tiger
England
19 months ago: Darwins theory was explosive in the mid 1800's because it challanged Genesis the infrastructure to christian religion. This made him more famous than he should ever have been.

People use this theory as a base to justify racism. It gives the racist some foundation for their views and allows the racist to quote Darwin to excuse their views on far right extreamism.

Personally I do not think Darwin was a clever man, his findings were in the order that 2 and 3 make 5. But he twisted it to make 4. He wanted his findings to take a predetermined route and to make him a great man. He was not a great man and if he had not challenged the Bible he would be just a small paragraph in a national newspaper.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: Of course...Darwinism has nothing to do with racism but rather with "The Race of Man" We are talking to some rather dim-witted Christians here with little awareness of the English language much less themselves.

Like having tea with a brick wall...
19 months ago: How does behavior fit into this? Are behavior traits genetic or can they be modified? Is behavior even considered in the theory?
Colorado
Colorado
Westcliffe, CO
19 months ago: Huey; Please read the original version of Origin of the Species before you make a greater fool of yourself.

In the Origin of the Species, Darwin does not use the word "evolution" in his thesis. Social Darwinism was popular among the elite of Europe but Darwin never said a thing in any of his books regarding social Darwinism.

Darwin's theories are very interesting and contributed to the scientific community in positive manner. Some of his theories were wrong and many were right, but claiming he was responsible for people like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao would be the same as claiming Jesus was directly responsible for the crusades, European wars, or 9/11.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: We've been down this road before but Huey is doing try to deflect the fact that Germany was a Christian state and that the rabid anti-semitism that led to the Holocaust was seeded by "revered" European Christian leaders such as the leader of the Protestant Reformation, Martin Luther and his gross screeds against the Jews. To wit, who wrote the following paragraph, Charles Darwin or Martin Luther?:

"What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians."
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: And Hitler had what association with Protestants? His father was nominally a Catholic, but was somewhat religiously skeptical, and his mother was a practicing Catholic.

"In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith." Adolf Hitler- Mein Kampf
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: Amazing how Christians can call non-believers "blasphemers" Only Christians can blaspheme their God.

Remember: Blasphemy is a victimless crime.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
19 months ago: Colorado - So you are comparing Darwin to Jesus?

What is your take on the Darwin - Race issue??
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Huey

I believe this is the attempt at deflection I was referring to. Although it appears that Hitler believed that God, and not evolution, was responsible for the creation of the Aryan "master race" , social Darwinism is still responsible for more deaths and atrocities than religion by multiple factors.

Break it down to reasonable estimates.

Deaths from socialism/commmunism: between 65 and 93 million

Deaths from naziism: around 25 million

Deaths from Christianity: around 6 million

Any questions?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Now, before you go all red eyed looking for deaths by religion in total, let's keep it in the time frame somewhat comparable to the time encompassed by communism and/or naziism. I'm sure if you want to go back 8000 or 10,000 years, and especially if you include highly inflated numbers of Hindus reported to have been killed by Muslims....
19 months ago: More like wearing blinders or a solid case of tunnel vision.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: A census taken before the rise of the Nazi party showed that out of population of 65 million, 40 million Germans belonged to the Protestant Church and 21 million belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. So let's not pretend that Germany was an atheist state, Islamic state, or Jewish state, and let's not confuse political movements such as Nazism with religion.

Also, let's not quibble about denominations of Christianity; whether it's Catholic or Protestant is meaninglessness except for theological hair splitting and organizational power - the Nazi political machine used both.

For example, Hitler appointed a Reich Bishop, Ludwig Mueller, who led a "German Christian" movement within the church: "Ludwig Müller was a German who headed the German Christians and was imposed by the Nazi government as state bishop of the Evangelical Church of the old-Prussian Union and Reich's Bishop of the German Evangelical Church. He had been associated with Nazism since the 1920s and was an antisemite. He supported a revisionist view of "Christ the Aryan" as well as a plan of purifying Christianity of what he deemed "Jewish corruption," including purging large parts of the Old Testament."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_M%C3...%29

So there's the fusing of ancient religious based hatred combined with Aryanism and so it goes today. Of course you could say that Müller and his hundreds of thousands of followers were not real Christians, and if that's the case, you can say the same about Martin Luther with respect to his insane anti-semetic rants.

Of course there were Christians who opposed the Nazi's but it didn't stop the holocaust from happening and it couldn't be done by Hitler alone - millions within this vast majority Christian state had to play their role. To say they were Darwinists is laughable and I'll ask again - who made the above quote about the Jews?
19 months ago: Why would he not quibble or split hairs with you Mark? You do it all the time.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: Where you getting the numbers? According to the following website and it's list, the number of deaths attributed to Christians is on the order of hundreds of millions:

http://www.islam101.com/terror/christian...
19 months ago: An all time new lowfor you. What keywords did you Google to find that site?
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: So quoting an Islamic source is a new low yet you practically saluted OOTB when he provided his death stats with no citation at all.
19 months ago: I'm glad you mentioned citations. The link you provided offered none.

So you found a obsure page that says hundreds of millions have been killed by Christians without citation and posted it as absolute.

What if I spent an hour or two and posted a web page that said billions have been killed by liberals without citation? would it then be presented a fact by you without citation? What was your citation again? A website called islam101? Yeah, right.

I was wrong. You don't have tunnel vision. It's more like cone vision along with a self importance complex.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: ...So you found a obsure page that says hundreds of millions have been killed by Christians without citation and posted it as absolute...

OOTB posted his stats without any citation at all, and you accepted that as an absolute - where's the challenge to OOTB to backup his numbers that he pulled out of thin air?

...You don't have tunnel vision. It's more like cone vision along with a self importance complex...

It seems that you're trying to channel yourself through me.
19 months ago: Don't get your hopes up.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: Let's get down to brass tacks. The religion of the vast majority of Germans during WWII was Christianity and you want to pin the holocaust on "religion" of Darwinism? Yeah, sure - you can sell that from the pulpit of your Church but not in the rational world. By the way, where did this idea spring from? According to the Texas Freedom Network:

"During the debate over science curriculum standards in Texas early last year, anti-science fanatics argued that serial murderer Jeffrey Dahmer's depravity was the result of "believing" in evolution. Yeah, that was pretty crazy. But it's not any crazier than the more common smear tactic of tying the acceptance of evolutionary science to Nazi Germany. The far-right group American Family Association sent out an e-mail yesterday doing just that.

The AFA is hawking a DVD set entitled What Hath Darwin Wrought?, which features an evangelical radio host (Todd Friel) and three "fellows" (John West, Richard Weikart, David Berlinski) with the anti-evolution Discovery Institute in Seattle. The propaganda program suggests that "the 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history" because of Charles Darwin and evolutionary science."

http://tfninsider.org/2010/08/05/blame-h...

Is that where this gem was dreamed up?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: "...you want to pin the holocaust on "religion" of Darwinism?..."

I already addressed that in an aside to Huey, which I will repost in case you are ignoring it deliberately.

" Huey

I believe this is the attempt at deflection I was referring to. Although it appears that Hitler believed that God, and not evolution, was responsible for the creation of the Aryan "master race" , social Darwinism is still responsible for more deaths and atrocities than religion by multiple factors. "
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: ...social Darwinism is still responsible for more deaths and atrocities than religion by multiple factors..

And that's the evangelical Christian sourced smear that I mentioned above.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Are you saying that because an evangelical Christian said the same thing its a smear, or are you refuting that it's true? Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
19 months ago: Glad to see you have hit another new low level by pinning your argument on Texas.

What will be your third new low? Need some tips? NAW. Your doing fine on your own.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: ..Glad to see you have hit another new low level by pinning your argument on Texas...

No, I'm crediting Texas for having rational citizenry that exposed this religious fueled smear.
19 months ago: Rather than pound you like you do to others with their own quotes...

I refer you back to you comments on...

http://rantrave.com/Rave/Tea-Tea-for-Tex...

Everyone can follow the link and the date to see if your being honest or not.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: What of it - that was a related topic considering it's all part of the religious right agenda to teach religious creationism in schools and demonize Darwin and the teaching of evolution as being responsible for the death of millions. Now I've quoted the revered Protestant Reformer's violent screed with respect to the Jews; can you quote Darwin making a similar remark that the Nazis would have used. And speaking of Hitler and his religious beliefs, see his quotes at:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/hitler.htm

"How many of my basic principles were upset by this change in my attitude toward the Christian Social movement!

My views with regard to anti-Semitism thus succumbed to the passage of time, and this was my greatest transformation of all."

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)
19 months ago: Your right again Markenbergenstein. I'll follow your instructions and Rave "Sieg Heil, Markenbergenstein".

NOT.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
Content Removed by RantRave
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: "...Christianity is just as evil as socialism, communism..."

Remember to take your statistics in the same time frame. You can even go back 200 years and compile your statistics. See where you wind up with your socialism and communism then.

And be sure to deflect the subject matter by pointing out the splinter in someone else's eye, and ignore the redwood tree sticking out of your own....(laughter x 2)
19 months ago: Just like OOTB said. Dodge, dodge, dodge.

I reiterate:

"Much evil has been done in the name of religion. But you must face the fact whether you like it or not, that more harm been done in he name of genetic supremacy than all the overt "holy" wars combined.

Also when a so-called Christian murders in the name of his God, he is not being true to the moral code of his religion. However when an evolutionist murders in the name of "survival of the fittest" he is being true to his. "

Darwin taught then and it is taught now that there are "races" of people that are genetically superior to others.

Hitler, Stalin and the rest of that type used that "fact" of "science" as a justification for their atrocities.

I am not defending the atrocities of other religions. Evil is evil. But as any rational person should understand, just because one claims to be something does not make the individual that. Be it Catholic, Atheist, Fundamentalist, Muslim, Taoist or whatever, doesn't ultimately matter.

What I am saying clearly is that the genocides perpetrated in the name of this particular dogma need to be recognized as such. If you want to throw other religions in fine. But two wrongs don't make a right.

"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, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, 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 or Australian and the gorilla"

This is your hero of science??

So far wher on this post is the repudiation Darwin's racism and the racism that is inherent in the particular religious worldview he peddled? Far and in-between.

So am I correct then in deducing the Darwin defenders believe there are "races" of people who are in fact inferior according to this "science"?

Are some so-called races superior while other are inferior and thereby worthy of being eliminated as the religion promulgates?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Huey,

Don't you know? The inferior people are being forced to evolve, in the mindset of the so-called superiors. Or, maybe they just need an army of expendable inferiors, kept ignorant and dependent by nefarious social programs. I'm not talking any particular race or creed. The social Darwinists considered the poor of all backgrounds to be inferior genetic stock.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: OutoftheBox...Tell us where you get all this goofy information...millions of really ignorant people want you to lead them into heaven...laughter
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Wow, you really are not up to speed on all this, are you? OK, here goes some reading for you. I'm assuming you do read.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/eh...
Applications of Social Darwinism

Social Darwinism was used to justify numerous exploits which we classify as of dubious moral value today. Colonialism was seen as natural and inevitable, and given justification through Social Darwinian ethics - people saw natives as being weaker and more unfit to survive, and therefore felt justified in seizing land and resources. Social Darwinism applied to military action as well; the argument went that the strongest military would win, and would therefore be the most fit. Casualties on the losing side, of course, were written off as the natural result of their unfit status. Finally, it gave the ethical nod to brutal colonial governments who used oppressive tactics against their subjects.

Social Darwinism applied to a social context too, of course. It provided a justification for the more exploitative forms of capitalism in which workers were paid sometimes pennies a day for long hours of backbreaking labor. Social Darwinism also justified big business' refusal to acknowledge labor unions and similar organizations, and implied that the rich need not donate money to the poor or less fortunate, since such people were less fit anyway.

In its most extreme forms, Social Darwinism has been used to justify eugenics programs aimed at weeding "undesirable" genes from the population; such programs were sometimes accompanied by sterilization laws directed against "unfit" individuals. The American eugenics movement was relatively popular between about 1910-1930, during which 24 states passed sterilization laws and Congress passed a law restricting immigration from certain areas deemed to be unfit. Social Darwinist ideas, though in different forms, were also applied by the Nazi party in Germany to justify their eugenics programs.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Encyclopedia Britannica


Social Darwinism


Theory that persons, groups, and "races" are subject to the same laws of natural selection as Charles Darwin had proposed for plants and animals in nature. Social Darwinists, such as Herbert Spencer and Walter Bagehot in England and William Graham Sumner in the U.S., held that the life of humans in society was a struggle for existence ruled by "survival of the fittest," in Spencer's words. Wealth was said to be a sign of natural superiority, its absence a sign of unfitness. The theory was used from the late 19th century to support laissez-faire capitalism and political conservatism. Social Darwinism declined as scientific knowledge expanded.
19 months ago: It is important to note that Darwin did not extend his theories to a social or economic level, nor are any credible evolutionists subscribing to the theories of Social Darwinism. Herbert Spencer's philosophy is only loosely based on the premises of Darwin's work.

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-s...

Herbert Spencer might be a better whipping boy than Darwin...... He seems to be the one who expanded Darwin's theory into something with an agenda.
19 months ago: Huey said "Also when a so-called Christian murders in the name of his God, he is not being true to the moral code of his religion. However when an evolutionist murders in the name of "survival of the fittest" he is being true to his.

Actually he is just being a murderer. "Survival of the fittest" does not involve overt acts to destroy those not considered the "strongest". It is the way of nature and does not require "activism" by those who think they are the "fittest", in fact it pretty much requires that nature be allowed to take it's course rather than someone usurp natures methods and take matters into their own hands. Any act to speed up or select by general decree a portion of the populace for destruction is not and never has been part of "survival of the fittest" it might come under the heading "religious activism" or "genocide" but it won't be what Darwin theorized because those carrying out the act of murder are bypassing nature, or natural selection, a critical part of Darwin's theory.

Darwin did not teach that even if we suspect there might be races that are not equal to each other, that we should actively attempt to destroy them, he taught that they would fail on their own, without any intervention from outside their own sphere of influence.

What others did was use what he theorized as a basis to actively carry out what should have been left up to nature, not Darwin's teaching but their own and your attempts to put the blame on Darwin's theory and Darwin himself is just reaching.

Sure the strong might kill off a few of the weak, but the theory relies more on natural selection than on active selection.

I will go so far as to say that individual members within each races are inferior to other members of that race and other races. Whether an entire race is inferior to another race within the Human race is far beyond my abilities to determine because there are superior members within each race that raise the bar for members of all the other races.

There is no proper way to use Darwin's theory to commit genocide since the theory relies on natural selection.
19 months ago: Would that not also apply if they are being held up by external forces?
Gregoire
Gregoire
19 months ago: Huh?
The strongest tribe gets to mate.
If that ends up being blue eyed blondes, then the future will say there must have been something superior in that group...nature selected for the blue eyed blondes over the swarthy semite.
Which reminds me of a poem:

Whose butt this is I think I know
his head's wedged firmly up it though
he will not see me standing here
to watch him stumble to and fro.
There's still some folks that think it's queer
to jam one's head up one's posteer
Contortion's not the shame nor sin
but to love the view in one's own rear.
Some ask why again begin
such drivel formed from ear of tin
it has to do with lack of sleep
and your mindless rumblings from within.
Your rectum must be dark and deep
to fit your head sized like a jeep
but that's a talent you can keep
**** fixiation defines you …
now what's a word that rhymes with jeep, deep, keep?

Notice nature has never selected for the sensitive poetical soul as myself.
19 months ago: If the strongest tribe gets to mate and it is full of weak genes, it won't be the strongest for very long. If you are equating strength to mechanical military might, then it will be an artificial strength and eventually even that will begin to falter without some influx of intellectually stimulating genes.
19 months ago: So when we see tribes destroying other tribes it's just nature taking its course? I don't think so.

There have been some who are quick to call others racist on this site, yet here we have a golden opportunity for those to repudiate if not a racist, his overt and racist ideologies, they refuse to do it. So who is the real racist?

Anyone who believes Hitler did what he did because he was following the teachings of Jesus Christ needs to have their head examined.

Anyone who believes that certain "races" are superior and others inferior as Mr. Darwin taught, is simply hiding behind pseudoscience in order to justify the cultural prejudice that dwells and lives in their own heart.
19 months ago: See your next post... war, by your definition and partially mine, is nature taking its course, artificial, but still a part of it. To what degree I'd allow it to be "natural" is determined by the cause behind the war, resources or ideology.

No, Hitler wasn't following the teaching of Christ or the Bible, he may have felt justified by them or some of the radical preacher's teachings of that era, he wasn't much of a practicing Catholic or Protestant, but he encouraged and allowed the Holocaust to happen while he was trying to dominate more territory for the resources they contained.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
19 months ago: BTW - war, slaughter, slavery, and absorption are taught as part of the natural selection process. These are some of the natural mechanisms through which the dominant and superior "races" prove that they are in fact superior.

You can only murder another human. When you move down the evolutionary scale you begin to see races that are in fact sub-human. Now the murder is no longer murder, it is doing the planet a favor. It is nature taking its course.

I believe that this religious ideology that attempts to pass itself off as science is wrong, and anyone who thinks I am a fool for believing that needs to re-read Gregoire's poem.

This crap needs to be roto-rootered. Now not later.

Unfortunately there is so much cultural and racial prejudice in the hearts of the individuals out there defending and teaching this garbage (to our children, no less) that the task is almost daunting.

However, it is do-able and I'm doing my part.
19 months ago: I guess I'm too old, what you say is taught as part of the natural selection process was taught as part of the artificial selection process for the pure and simple reason that someone/thing made a conscious decision to perform said act which subverted the natural processes.

Which means I must assume that "No child left behind" is dumbing down the curriculum even more by taking one of the terms and combining it under one term so they don't have to explain both and confuse the slow ones, or maybe it's the Texas school board causing the whole problem by selecting books that follow the religious rights view that Darwin was the root of all their evil. Oops, forgot, the Bible is the root of all their evil, Darwin is just a scapegoat.

Even if it is "taught" wrong does not mean that its proper definition and the way that I will be using it will be the same.

Yes, war can be part of natural selection, but not the kind of war you are speaking of. War between two tribes is usually over territory and the resources contained within that territory, even now. The use of race, religion, color of skin are just excuses used to justify the slaughter and enslavement that occurs during the war, absorption is what happens to the loser or a tribe that is failing to thrive on it's own. War fought for those reasons alone and not over resources is not natural selection, it is artificial. Hitler's minions didn't slaughter the Jews through "natural selection", the entire process was artificial, otherwise they would have bred them out of existence and then you could blame Darwin for the idea.

True natural selection war is between two neighboring groups of the same species that compete for resources, not over ideological theories, only man goes to war because his neighbor is an apple eater and he likes pears. Sometimes and only sometimes, two different species will go to war with the dominant one completely destroying the loser and this is only to take what the other has, resources.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Neandertal man, now extinct, is thought to have died out due to an inefficiency in competing for resources. Just as natural selection favors the more successful hunter and the most successful hider, man's ability to kill each other is still based on resources. The natural man has developed mental processes with all sorts of justifications for his insuring his own survival, but it is not artificial. Whether a people go to war due to race, religion, national pride, whatever, the desired result is that more resources will be available for people that are like the ones doing the killing.
19 months ago: Say it. Neandertal man died of because of stupidity. What the Geico Neandertals are going to sue you?

What will the future in 10 or 20 thousand years say about todays human?

Possibly that they died off from being lazy and obese while eating every resource they could without breaking a sweat in air conditioning while texting.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: You mean that homo-sapiens, with his superior reasoning and tool making ability crowded out the poor disadvantaged Neandertals? Hmmm, must be the natural order of things. Just because homo-sapiens used a spear and neandertal used a stick, does that make it any less natural?
19 months ago: UH...Kinda like today...rocks and slings against nukes. And once again they are too stupid to figure it out.
Gregoire
Gregoire
19 months ago: Christianity has been bent, twisted, tortured, to justify all manner of heinousness. But that's the point, in order to do so it must be twisted.
Darwin need undergo no such revision:

We call our dialectic materialist, since its roots are neither in heaven nor in the depths of our "free will", but in objective reality, in nature. Consciousness grew out of the unconscious, psychology out of physiology, the organic world out of the inorganic, the solar system out of the nebulae. On all the rungs of this ladder of development, the quantitative changes were transformed into qualitative. Our thought, including dialectical thought, is only one of the forms of the expression of changing matter. There is place within this system for neither God nor Devil, nor immortal soul, nor eternal norms of laws and morals. The dialectic of thinking, having grown out of the dialectic of nature, possess consequently a thoroughly materialist character.

Darwinism, which explained the evolution of species through quantitative transformations passing into qualitative, was the highest triumph of the dialectic in the whole field of organic matter. Another great triumph was the discovery of the table of atomic weights of chemical elements and further the transformation of one element into another.

From Trotsky: The ABC of Materialist Dialectics

Things being always in flux, (that is, never even being equal to themselves) leaves no room for any truth other than that.
But the christian doesn't need a long winded explanation of how the world works..."might makes right"...always, only, and without exception.
But the simple are easily manipulated to get aboard whatever train an illustrious and powerful oligarchy deem worthy of rolling over whoever is in in their way.
Yes, Manifest Destiny is not unlike its offspring, even having predated it's birth.
Darwinism certainly isn't the cause, but it sure is another useful tool in the box.
19 months ago: Sometimes a tool is used incorrectly, just because a hammer is not handy, a pipe wrench will smash stuff too, if you can swing it....
19 months ago: ...at the inferior race.
19 months ago: What if the inferior race was the aggressor? That question will open up a whole new dialog.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: K, guys, I just have to interdict here that there are no inferior races. Good fortune has more to do with it than anything, especially when dealing intra-specially. Europeans had many natural resources that were unavailable to Middle-Easterners, and in some places resources were so abundant and easy to get, there was no need to advance technology in order to survive and thrive. The Americas are one example, where natives lived thousands of years with very little technological advancement. They shunned the white man's way, except for the weapons they would need to defend their home.

Figure in the fact that Europe had many differing cultures all competing for the same resources, and you can see why their war technology was so advanced. Take gunpowder, invented by the Chinese and used for centuries as a novelty. It took a European to see the stuff and think, "Hey, I could probably kill somebody with that stuff!"
19 months ago: Actually Darwin or to say it more properly, Darwin's Theory must be taken completely out of context to be used the way Christianity can be used straight out of the Bible to commit genocide.
19 months ago: Indeed. Darwin did not invent or advocate genocide. Nor did he invent the domestic dog, or agricultural crops and livestock - all products of selection.

A belief in genetics and inheritance does not justify genocide. Furthermore, if you allege that believing in these things has negative consequences, that does not go anywhere to addressing the plausibility of the belief.

"When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations...then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy." Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1
"...do not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them...as the Lord your God has commanded you..." Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV
19 months ago: I think that the sort of person who'd be in favour of a genocide is going to be the same whether they have heard of Darwin or the Bible or not. Self interest and the denial of personal responsibility that comes with authoritarianism and "destiny" are not the exclusive province of religionists or non-religionists.

Darwin wasn't needed to justify "Manifest Destiny".

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny)

"Historian William E. Weeks has noted that three key themes were usually touched upon by advocates of Manifest Destiny:

1.the virtue of the American people and their institutions;
2.the mission to spread these institutions, thereby redeeming and remaking the world in the image of the U.S.; and
3.the destiny under God to accomplish this work."
19 months ago: Further from Wikipedia

"In the age of Manifest Destiny, this idea, which came to be known as "Indian Removal", gained ground. Although some humanitarian advocates of removal believed that American Indians would be better off moving away from whites, an increasing number of Americans regarded the natives as nothing more than savages who stood in the way of American expansion. As historian Reginald Horsman argued in his influential study Race and Manifest Destiny, racial rhetoric increased during the era of Manifest Destiny. Americans increasingly believed that Native Americans would fade away as the United States expanded. As an example, this idea was reflected in the work of one of America's first great historians, Francis Parkman, whose landmark book The Conspiracy of Pontiac was published in 1851. Parkman wrote that Indians were "destined to melt and vanish before the advancing waves of Anglo-American power, which now rolled westward unchecked and unopposed.""
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: I think Stan5, like too many, has confused Old Testament history with Christianity. Are there any teachings of Christ Jesus that command murder or destruction?
Gregoire
Gregoire
19 months ago: I hope you understand that the point I was making with "Manifest Destiny" was not that it was attributable to a Darwinian derived ethos, but that domination has always been at work, first in the individual for his own benefit, then granted to the "tribe" as an extension of that.
Darwin has never been necessary to justify conquest nor genocide, but as I'd also said, he can come in handy as a pseudo scientific rationalization of such when it suits the needs of the aggressor.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: True, Gregoire. And just as Jesus never intended to found what we call "Christianity" as a religion(s), Darwin never expected his theories to become one either. Didn't stop it from happening in either case.
19 months ago: I wasn't intending to refer to the words of Jesus Christ, OOTB, but of God, who was right when he ordered such actions and retains his authority to this day, I presume.

That is to say God, according to the Bible, was right to order genocide, as was His will at the time and would be right to do so again if that was His will.
19 months ago: I should say that I agree with BOTH Gregoire and OOTB here. It's good to see things expressed well.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
10 months ago: Gregoire: Hear! Hear!
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
10 months ago: Owlafaye

I really don't want to insult your reading comprehension, well maybe I do, but perhaps you should reread Gregoire's post. If what he is saying is something you agree with, then I was correct in predicting you would be arguing the other side of the coin without even realizing it.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
19 months ago: Check out your relatives.

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=ZieSsxPkMw...

And you wonder why things are so messed up.
19 months ago: The part of Darwin's biography that I find most interesting is that of his failed career as a minister of the gospel. His doubts existed even in his youth. Before he decided that this God whose existence he doubted had no part in the creation of the universe he had already confirmed his views as that of a deist. He pictured the creative power of creation as a force more than a being. It is this idea of deism or God as an impersonal force that helped give body to his theory of evolution. What should be notable to staunch non believers is that to his death he never denied the possibility of God existing merely his relevance. Read further into his biography and the horrors of his family history will make it clear why he seemed not able to reconcile the existence of God with the image of an active loving God but he seemed to lack the capacity. The best he could do in his estimation is to see him as a force and not a being.
19 months ago: Would you say that it might have been, to Darwin, an unexplainable force? One that has no form or function, but one that drives the cosmos.
19 months ago: Actually there is a function, just not defined in human terms like the current Christian God is defined.
19 months ago: Hi Dwayne.

Thank you for your addition to the post. Nice additional insight and a fresh perspective. I appreciate it.

Welcome aboard.
19 months ago: Darwin's struggle of faith was very much a personal one. It is too bad that his literature became culturally relevant because outside the scope of his own private life it really was more of a commentary on his own doubts than a work of science.
Hello Huey, Thank You!
19 months ago: Great post Huey. Man has the unique ability to twist just about anything when it comes justifying his own actions. However the hard and cold "survival of the fittest" ideology requires little twisting in regards to eliminating fellow human beings.

Here is a little off the wall science for everyone. Energy, will, as everyone knows follow the path of least resistance. For there to be an "evolution" from innate energy into something with any form of conscience which has a desire to "survive" would require said innate energy to actually reverse its natural course and perform a move of "effort" upon its own, i.e. science states the law of energy is path of least resistance yet to perform a spontaneous movement toward any semblance of "biological existence" would require energy to break its own law and move itself into a laborious action requiring "effort".

Now naturally designed "adaptation" is a horse of a completely different color in my book.
19 months ago: Thank you for stopping by Jakarta. I appreciate your contribution.
19 months ago: I think you guys are funny because Darwin made note of the obvious. Specifically, Life survives because the most well adapted offspring survive and reproduce.

Life isn't static and fixed, but adaptive and flexible, so said Darwin, using other words. Life survives, Darwin said. But he used slightly different words.

Here, you guys are trivializing Darwin. You focus on a specific that had little to do with his contribution to mankind. That has very little to do with what he actually contributed that has helped mankind, and science.

And you trivialize that. You make a specific issue very large and contentious, important and significant. But overlook and go past what Darwin did that has been helpful to mankind. You make his contribution small and insignificant by making large of a trivial issue. Get real, hey?
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: TerryEO

It's not Darwin in the main thesis, it's Darwinism, as used by those who want to ensure genetic "evolution". Those who feel that their genetics are superior and therefore they are the fittest to survive have expounded erroneously on Darwin's observations.

That is not merely an opinion. That is a fact.
19 months ago: OOTB - Well said.
19 months ago: " You make his contribution small and insignificant by making large of a trivial issue. Get real, hey?"

So Terryeo - You believe the racism that is inherent in Darwinism is trivial? That's rich.

Issues like this always brings out folk's true colors (no pun intended). Thanks for helping us all locate you T-man.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: It's their way.

I just wonder how well Darwin's convictions on racial inequality would have been received if he had claimed "Blacks and aborigines are inferior stock because God made them that way."

Something tells me he would have been denounced as a vile hate-mongering racist by the same ones that today hold him up as a visionary.
19 months ago: " You focus on a specific that had little to do with his contribution to mankind."

His contribution to mankind has been either directly or indirectly responsible for the justification of the death of millions. Why is that so hard to admit?

Why is it that instead of noting that Darwin made an error, responses have to go off on tangents in order to downplay the atrocities that have been committed in the name of this particular religion? Hmmm?

There is nothing funny about what Darwin postulated. What was obvious to him was that this world operates on purely naturalistic mechanisms and that certain "races" of people are inherently superior to others. That's a screwed up premise from which to begin. But unfortunately many of you believe it.

It is obvious that the bait has been swallowed because if you read many of the comments, they are actually defending his conclusions. Where are the posts that point out that what he postulated at this particular juncture is flat out WRONG, that we are all equals? A few (mostly from me).

It does not surprise me that many follow this tenant of faith because it gives justification and excuse for them to continue in their racist mind set.

This is a controversial topic and I know it scares some folk because they believe this overtly or they refuse to come to grips with the very real prejudice and animosity that lives in their heart.

This is not some footnote in Darwin's racist religion and agenda, it runs right through the middle of it. Y'all may not want to admit it, but that does not stop it from being the truth.

Wake up.
19 months ago: So what you are saying is that if a person believes in Darwin's Theory of Evolution, they are a racist? And if someone believes in D'sTofE they also a member of Darwinism as a religion?

What others make of Darwin's contribution to the theory of evolution did not directly or indirectly make Darwin guilty for the justification of the death of anyone. Only those who used it to justify their actions are guilty.

Misuse of information doesn't make the provider of the information guilty, only the user, otherwise anyone who reads the Bible, Torah, Koran or any other book and can bring condemnation down upon the writer of any part of any one of those books as being guilty of the crime they commit because they interpreted the words there in such a way as to cause them to commit the crime.

Opps, that's already been done, millions upon millions of times.
19 months ago: Six - what I am saying is if one believes that Darwin was correct in his "scientific" postulation that the white "race" is superior to all other races, then yes, that individual is a racist. Is that so hard to understand?
19 months ago: So you would argue that this statement is false?

Charles Darwin himself opposed the idea of rigid racial differences in The Descent of Man (1871) in which he argued that humans were all of one species, sharing common descent. He recognized racial differences as varieties of humanity, and emphasized the close similarities between people of all races in mental faculties, tastes, dispositions and habits, while still contrasting the culture of the "lowest savages" with European civilization.

Please feel free to edit the article at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism since you seem to feel Darwin was a racist and encouraged the practice while he was alive.

Since I didn't know the man personally, just not that old, I must rely upon historical textbooks and other writings, preferably from his lifetime and a few years after, that deal with the scientific theories he formulated, not the religious or political ideas formulated by others with an agenda to run his name and ideas into the dirt.

Every man/woman is a racist, it's in our makeup, and it's how we function within a world of multi-racial cultures. What we do with that natural proclivity to "be with and support our own" determines how we are viewed by others and how we treat others. A person who is "well rounded" will not hold one race above the other in any way that can be considered favoritive, attempting to treat each and all equally in all manner of dealings with them and will teach their children to do the same, I say "attempting" because some racism always shows through, no matter how hard a person tries to hide it.

Religious adherents are racist in their constant insistence that their way is the only way and if you don't follow their God and pay homage to their Savior and read their book that you are less of a being than they. Doesn't matter what religion, they are all the same in their insistence that to not follow it, you are doomed to some horrible end and will be shunned by them until you either die or submit to their rule and they go to all manner of lengths to try and coerce a non-believer into submission, promising ever-lasting life, riches beyond belief, virgins by the dozens, peace, unending food and drink, streets of gold and all the while threatening eternal damnation in a pit of fire or coming back as an insect to be squashed under the foot of a pig. They will also take a persons life work and turn it into something not intended so as to destroy his work that disagrees with their religious teachings of myth.

I understand racism, in all it's forms? Do you?
19 months ago: "Every man/woman is a racist, it's in our makeup, and it's how we function within a world of multi-racial cultures"

Unacceptable. That may be how you function, but not I nor many others. That view is a cop out from responsibility which becomes an excuse for one to be an un-repentant racist.

Listen, if you want to believe that you and your ancestors squiggled up from pond scum billions and billions of years ago, go for it. Just realize that that notion is not provable or testable and it is not science. It is a myth.

Contrary to the opinion of some, Darwin is not the savior of the universe, nor are his teachings/"findings" fully scientific or above reproach.

Fact: Darwin was racist in his world view. It's a historical, documented fact that a paragraph from Wikipedia cannot dismiss. It was the premise from which he began his "studies" on the human race. He turned "science" into religion.

That being said, I believe in freedom of religion. You are free to believe what you want. Unless you are overtly violent or pose some immediate threat, I am not going to hinder the expression of your religion or condemn you to hell or any other not so nice place for eternity. I don't have the power to do that anyway.

So if one by faith believes they are the product of an un-provable cosmic accident, so be it. To each his/her own.

My beef however, is when folk try to twist science into something that it is not, peddle it in my direction, and expect me to swallow it. Not happening.

I stand by everything I've posted. Pride unfortunately keeps many from seeing the truth. Thank God not everyone is so blinded.

The sheet needs to come off this nonsense and people need to see it for what it is and put it in proper context. That is all. Period.
19 months ago: Why should I repent from what is normal human nature? Do you actually believe you have no racist motivations, no racist feelings, no racist preconceived ideas? That is being super naive. Could your religious beliefs be confusing you into thinking you are better than the rest of the human population? Sorry, that is racist as well, if you think that. And if you deny it, you are lying to yourself.

I don't worry myself with that accomplishment of my ancestors from millions of years ago. I don't have millions, much less, billons of years to attempt to repeat it nor the knowledge of all the conditions that occurred to speed or slow the process down, neither do the scientist, they have a few clues but not the entire process. If they did, it would already be common knowledge and your claims of "creation" would have bit the dust. Don't get me wrong, I believe they will someday get it figured out, they have come very close and they have some processes down that allow the formation of many of the essential parts that may encourage some form of life to grow spontaneously in the "soup" of primordial Earth, or as close as they can get it. Only time will limit what they accomplish before this crop of humans is gone (meaning you and I).

Myth is what you have put your faith in. A myth created a few thousand years ago to bring tribes of humans under the control of a few leaders, same as all religions. Something brought forth from the mind of man to better control his fellow tribesmen, fear and desire. Fear of the unknown and a desire to live forever. Islam is even younger, just a few hundred years ago and much baser desires, what virile young man doesn't want a few virgins to deflower upon his death to prove just how "manly" he is? To bad he will just be dead and not be able to fulfill his desires.

Darwin was a man who sought out answers. He was no ones savior, not even his own. His quest brought forth a few ideas that he put into a theory and he wrote it down and then thought long and hard on, never achieving the final answer he sought. Being a Christian, it conflicted with what he had been taught and what others believed, an internal battle that depressed him and probably ruined his health. He did not start nor desire to start a religion based upon his theories, he did not and does not claim to be the "savior of the universe", that is something that those who oppose his theories accuse him of because they must have a whipping post to draw attention away from the fact that their mythical Savior and mythical God aren't provable and that their believed method of life's formation, creation, is even further from the truth than Darwin's theory is from being proven plausible. (Mythical Savior, does not mean that a person named Jesus Christ did not exist in the past, just that he is not what Christian's claim.)

The age that Darwin lived in, past but not forgotten, was one of class distinctions, racist views and ways of life. The "Church", those Christian missionaries and saints you revere, were some of the biggest offenders, encouraging the slaughter of thousands of "pagans" and disbelievers the world over. Sure, Darwin was probably just like all his neighbors and fellow Christians, looking down upon the other races, the poor, the pagans, and all the other "lesser" beings around him. You call it racism, he would have called it his station in life.

My use of a Wiki reference was not to dismiss his views but to expand the general knowledge of how he actually felt about the human race, that it was one race with many differences. If left to religious adherents, he would be painted to have believed and behaved like a Grand Dragon of the KKK, or whatever they call themselves.

"My beef however, is when folk try to twist science into something that it is not, peddle it in my direction, and expect me to swallow it." And when you twist the work of a historical figure like Darwin into something it is not, you expect me to st
19 months ago: Dudage, It's okay. Stick with your myth and I'll stick with mine. Still does not change history. Our religions can coincide with each other. Peace.
19 months ago: We all remember Martin Luther as the father of the Protestant Reformation, don't we? But should we forget that he also died a bitter cold hearted bigot? People go through their own paths in life and rewriting history doesn't change who they were in life. Terryo says we are trivializing Darwin's contributions. I think far from it we are magnifying the products of them. Evolutionary Science has led to many a contrived studies that make division and strife in the human family and that have divided the body of Christ (his church) by a made up thing called race, so tell me who is trivializing what? I think it's high time that Darwin's work be seen in the light of apologetic disbelieving religious fiction that it was meant to be!
19 months ago: Right on.
19 months ago: Magnifying the products of them. That's a bit different than demonizing the man, which is what happens when you name a fake religion after a man who proposed a theory that conflicts with your religions beliefs. (you and your not directed at you personally)

Fiction is what is in the Bible, stories built upon a few facts and then expanded to make others believe that the impossible happened and will happen again if they just believe.

All critters must be classified into something; race is just one of the monikers used to differentiate between like species that have different traits.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: " I think it's high time that Darwin's work be seen in the light of apologetic disbelieving religious fiction that it was meant to be! "
... Laughter

Sarcasm at its best.
19 months ago: For those of you who are inclined to racism, let me ask you this.

Should you be sinking into a quicksand pool, would you refuse the helping hand of an "inferior" race?

So it goes, people are as valuable as they can help you.

Huey seems to think that Darwin "proved" that all races descended from apes.

Nah he didn't. He proved and science says some things about survival and evolution.
19 months ago: "Huey seems to think that Darwin "proved" that all races descended from apes."

TO - We've had intelligent dialogue in the past and I can't believe you are that thick.

I believe that notion is nonsense in the highest order. However that is what the religion of Darwin teaches.

What I do believe is that we are all members of the same human family. That there is no such thing as "races" and there are no people groups that are genetically superior to others. We are all on equal footing.

http://www.rantrave.com/Rant/Racism-Is-I...

There are plenty of people who believe otherwise. Sad to say, this Rant brought a few out of the woodwork.

But I guess you can't cure the disease if folk won't agree that the body is sick.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: A vast number of TRUTHS have been assaulted in this article, a typical Christian LIE

If you accept the FACT of evolution, your belief system starts to crumble and fall. Believers fight tooth and nail for their silly beliefs while the world goes on. Every aspect of the world is directly involved in the principles of evolution, from antibiotics to breeding food stock. No other idea has ever had as great an influence on man's progress as has evolution.
19 months ago: What truths have been assaulted in this particular article? Please enlighten us.
Content Removed by Dwayne Johnson
19 months ago: To Owlafaye,

Except perhaps the life of a man from Galilee who believed he was the son of God and called others to be sons also. His life has had such an impact that people take a 5 day work week now because of him instead of a 7 day work week as was customary. People dedicate around 10% of their incomes today to altruistic behavior. People have defended and upheld laws of humanitarian compassion that before his time were unheard of. Oh and here is my favorite: People now hope for a life beyond this one that is filled with hope and optimism so much so that they start living that life now even before they die transforming the very world around them from one of despair to one of hope .
So please tell me more about those evolving little microscopic life forms whose mechanisms are revealed to be even more intricate the closer they zoom in the microscope, tell me how blue prints so sophisticated that scientist require generations to decipher them just evolved while a rock is still a rock. You believe in the blind watchmaker if you want but I'll continue to believe in the lovely man I've come to know as Jesus the son of the Almighty!
19 months ago: Owlafaye - Why are you running?

If you want to have a dialogue bring it down here. Can you handle that?
19 months ago: Still waiting.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: We might be waiting awhile. All owlafaye really had to say can be summed up as such:

1)Christians are stupid, but merely by virtue of the fact that they are Chrstians. Therefore anything they say can be dismissed as superstitious ramblings.

2)Evolution is a proven fact in all its tenants, because some progression of species has been observed.

3)Anyone who doesn't swallow popular conjecture is living in a superstitious dream world, and worthy of scorn and ridicule.

4)If you deride someone's faith hard enough, maybe they will give up. Or lash out.

Come to think of it, he behaved exactly like someone whose faith was challenged, didn't he?
19 months ago: OOTB - You articulated it quite eloquently.

That often times is the problem. This individual has swallowed a belief system without question. He has not studied, he has not thought it through, and he has not thoroughly investigated. Yet he he claims to "know" something.

Disagreements happen, but his argument was from total ignorance.

Fortunately, he does not typify the average Rant/Raver at all.

This was way over his head. You can tell that not just by what was written, but in the manner he put it out there. Pretty sad.
19 months ago: Very astute observation OOTB and Huey. Though Owlafaye may not make the connection he/she is doing pretty much precisely what was done to Christ. By attacking he/she hoped for you guys to get down in the ditch with him/her which would be a justification for his or her actions.
I'm sure considering your calm reactions this is not the first time to be attacked in an effort to "prove" that Christians are all hypocrites. My hat is off to you.
I would like to see Owlfaye come back to the debate. Hopefully with something substantial. I wonder if he knows that Christ taught to always seek the "truth". I know I was seeking the truth when I ran straight into Jesus. I feel that if a person is actually and honestly seeking the truth rather than what they wish to believe then they will eventually come to search the scripture and teachings of Christ.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: Thanks for the most numerous replies to my posts. It is very gratifying to see a true demonstration of fear in the face of TRUTH...The Christians here are running scared...They know that somehow, they must neutralize me and my pronouncements...the raving morons of rant and rave have met the TRUTH

and, Yours Sincerely,

Ogden Lafaye
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Uh, we aren't running.

We are still here.

Can you recap, or summarize, if you will, exactly what truths you pronounced that the Christians are so afraid of? Would it be the Emperor's new clothes, perhaps?

It would seem that in all your bluster and saying much without actually saying anything, that the one who is afraid of the truth might be you.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
19 months ago: A recap or summarization? In other words, you were not able to understand it the first time? Like telling a dumb jock joke to a dumb jock?

Another defensive/denial Christian tactic in discussion...Of course, morons do not know what a moron is.
19 months ago: Let's rock.

Olwlafaye - I give you credit for coming back. The Rant/Rave forum is designed for folk who want to share, discuss, argue and debate. It's not a site for jokesters and so far that's all you've shown yourself to be.

Prove me wrong.

Take any statement that I've made and intellectually dissect it. Take it apart and give an intelligent rebuttal.

There are plenty of folk here who disagree with each other yet we still have mutual respect. We don't resort to immature name calling.

I don't run from anyone in case you have not noticed and the only defense mechanisms I use are intelligent and well thought out arguments.

Far from running, I welcome your input. Maybe I can see a fresh perspective or actually learn something new from you.

Now, let me ask you, what have I stated in this Rant that is so off, why do you see it as being incorrect, and what should be our collective understanding of the truth as you see it?

This will be a good start if you are really serious.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: "...Of course, morons do not know what a moron is. ..."

Painfully obvious. You continue to only attack Christians, while refusing to defend your intellectual position. Do you even understand the Rant? So far, you have not addressed anything in the Rant, you have only attacked the comments of the Christians contributing here.

I think if you were to stick around for a few volleys, you'd be arguing the other side without even realizing it.
markbyrn
markbyrn
 Moderator
19 months ago: Owlafaye, while you and I are probabbly on the same side of the fence with respect to this topic, you have to do better than the looking up the girls dress, forging mama's signature, son, boy, and moron smack.

Your opponents are merely using your juvenile retorts and insults as a factitious victory of their position. You signed up for this service on 8 Oct and your profile states, "Retired Marine Electrician...practical, rational, sensible and kind." So far, you've provided precious little evidence of that profile and you need to read our community guidelines. Calling your fellow Rant Ravers boy, son, and moron won't fly but welcome aboard and lets hope that you have some cogent contributions in the future.

Now in my last contribution on this topic, I quoted Adolph Hitler from Meim Kampf:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

That quote is reflective of Martin Luther and his Christian fueled hatred of Jews not Darwinism. I also asked for a quote by Darwin making a similar remark that Hiter and the Nazis used in their genocidal madness. Unless I missed something, the only response I got was Sieg Heil, Markenbergenstein.
19 months ago: O-Man - See? There are others here with opposing view points. That's okay.

MarkByrn is showing you how to respond both intellectually and intelligently. Even though I sometimes disagree with him, I know he has done his homework. Even if we don't see eye to eye he never comes with junk (at least not most of the time). *TWEET*

You need to do the same. Some issues are too important to skate around.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
19 months ago: You know, Huey Newton, evolution goes on every day. Agriculturists have worked for 1000s of years to produce better fruit and foodstuffs by selecting the best produce and replanting it.

Mankind takes the best seed and replants it. Today we have corn 100s of times better than original. Fruits and veggies, much much better than the original. This is due to many small evolutionary changes over a long period of time. And we selected the sorts of changes we wanted to reproduce, rather than selecting the stunted plants that tasted bad, and reproducing those.

Evolution is happening every day in small ways. Not just agriculture, but biochemistry works to make better microscopic organisms. In a lab, biologists grow many generations of microscopic life in a few weeks and select the survivors and put those into another dish. This is the evolution of life in action.

And of course, there is the most obvious fact of all. People today are larger than people of yesteryear. This is evolution personified. The idea of evolution can be science, it can be studied. But in Darwin's time, it wasn't even recognized. He was he who realized that life changes towards better survival. But he didn't hide his realization, he published it.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
Content Removed by Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Terryeo
"...Agriculturists have worked for 1000s of years to produce better fruit and foodstuffs by selecting the best produce and replanting it...".

You have confused the two topics, I think. There is definitely observable progression within species. There always has been.

Survival of the fittest, also known as natural selection, is also a proven fact, whether that be the best able to hibernate through hard times, or having the longest tongue to get more ants out of the anthill, or being able to produce millions of offspring. We can choose dogs who have certain characteristics and breed them to accentuate those characteristics, but so far we cannot breed a dog that gives honey, or grows feathers. The characteristics we choose to amplify by selective breeding are already there in the genes.

So more accurately, selective breeding, and not evolution, is what you are referring to.


"People today are larger than people of yesteryear."

Better nutrition, and better medicines have contributed more to this than anything. Lifespans are also double what they were a few hundred years ago. This is not evolution, it's better maintenance. More resources lead to higher birth rates and larger specimens of almost any animal. Look at the Mexicans and Asians and tell me they are larger than they were a hundred years a
19 months ago: Then again we are mixing apples and oranges.

Some changes in plants and animals are due to man's manipulation of the genes through selective breeding but you can not attribute all changes to this, sure the ones that are documented as being done to get a better apples are not evolution, it's the ones that happen due to environmental changes and the species does not just cease to exist but changes to better utilize that new environment without man intervening to help the change come about, these are evolution at work, even if you must call it natural selection a change occurred that will be passed to the next generation as long as conditions remain the same, or more adaption will occur if conditions change even more. The failure of evolution is when the environment changes faster than the species can adapt and entire species cease to exist, which has happened many times in the past 360 million years, sometimes it is millions of species.

Darwin's Finches, the rest of the story:
http://txtwriter.com/Backgrounders/Evolu...

Natural selection, evolution, they lead to the same thing, a change in the species that is repeated, some changes take a few years, some decades, some eons, it is a process that is ill understood but still goes on and on. I'm not smart enough to make the call between natural selection and evolution, to call one real and the other myth so I must treat natural selection as a function of the main process of evolution. When man subverts how the process progresses by trying to speed it up or bypass it entirely, he is taking a chance, sometimes it is worth it, sometimes he is rightly condemned as a fiend.

As for getting a dog that gives honey, well don't bet the house they can't figure it out someday! They already manipulate some genes to get bigger fruit or no seeds, who's to say they can't get a honeybee's honey making gene into a dog's mammary glands and have honey come out instead of milk!

They can make male flies try to get it on with other male flies simply by suppressing one gene that other species of flies do not have, so not much telling what will happen in the future:
http://www.nhne.org/news/NewsArticlesArc...

Oh yeah, that particular species of fly "evolved" to have this new gene 25 to 30 million years ago, guess they had too much fooling around with same sex and needed to clear the air for purely male/female games.

Oh yeah, no one "selectively breed" those flies all those millions of years ago.....
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Natural selection bred those flies, I'm guessing?
I know we're getting off the subject, but read this excerpt for content:

"Male-male courtship might have been common in the ancestral D. melanogaster population," Long said. "Sphinx appears to have evolved to reduce this in one single species."

This is what's wrong with evolution theory, as opposed to a rational view on natural selection. Even assuming that new genes are created, (whose to say the gene wasn't already there in some form, but we just haven't found it yet from that time period?)

Anyway, even assuming that entirely new genes are created, to say "gene x appears to have evolved in order to do whatever" implies that the gene, or the fly itself, saw a problem inherent in the species, and deliberately mutated itself, or invented itself to solve the problem.

I really have a problem with that.
19 months ago: Meld the two, natural selection is part of evolution in that something "natural" caused the organism to somehow seek a solution that is repeated from there on. The Sphinx gene came into being to solve a problem that may have been preventing the species from achieving its place in the natural order. Ain't saying I know how it happened, just that something in the environment encouraged it to occur and from then on, it proved to be a benefit that didn't need more change.

It wasn't even a big change, nor was it one that solved all such actions by all of the species, just helped improve it over other members of that type of fly.

Rational view on natural selection......... and evolution isn't in there too?

Research that observes many examples of long dead flies genome says that the gene wasn't there and then it was and then they figured out what it did, or didn't do for the fly, lots of research, lots of thought and lots of flies.

Could there have been some form of the gene hidden that suddenly came to the attention of the researchers? Not likely. Kind of like having a thousand stacks of a thousand pennies and one day you find that you have a thousand stacks of a thousand pennies, except one of them is taller by one penny, so now you have 999 and 1 stack with 1001 pennies. Still have a thousand stacks, just one is made up of 1001 pennies and everyday it multiplies until all the stacks have 1001 pennies and they never ever lose one. Horrible way to explain it, but best I can do for now.

I view nature as something fluid, able to bend and mutate itself to get from one point to the other, drop a big enough rock in the stream and the medium must make major changes to get around it and when it does, it might change something else as well, those changes may be permanent or temporary, just depends on the rock and whether it can be eroded or must just be tolerated.

Open mindedness can be a good thing, especially if you have to grasp ideas that require some imagination without being lock in to preconceived limitations based on someone else's bounderies.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: So let me get this straight.
You are saying that nature is a cognizant entity,
"...I view nature as something fluid, able to bend and mutate itself to get from one point to the other..."

and you are saying that just because things don't make sense, there's no harm in making things up to help you understand those things.
"...Open mindedness can be a good thing, especially if you have to grasp ideas that require some imagination..."

Not trying to make this a "gotcha" moment. I'm just wondering how someone can be open minded enough to believe that there is some unknown or misunderstood cosmic force (what many refer to as "nature") driving\guiding the development of life and making order out of chaos, and yet totally discount the possibility of God's existence. That is not being open minded.

To give Life (or Nature) sentient qualities, as in the statement "Life\Nature will find a way to adapt to its environment" means that Life\Nature would be a force or entity capable of rational, conscious decisions and would be capable of acting on those decisions. That hardly reconciles with the notion that life was just a gigantic set of random coincidental circumstances.
19 months ago: Does a fluid have a brain? Does it think? When a fluid comes to a bend in the channel does it go straight or does it have to stop and contemplate the bend before it follows it? You may feel the need to give a fluid a brain; I'll let it flow un-impeded, without needing to think on its own.

To be open-minded so that you can grasp a new idea does not require you to create something else to make it possible, it pretty much means you don't. Many people want to give it some all powerful deity that controls it's every shape or form, open-mindedness allows you to do it without such a being.

Being open-minded and not believing in some all powerful being controlling every little teeny tiny thing in the entire universe is better for my well being, than being closed-minded and insisting that every little teeny tiny thing is absolutely controlled by some all powerful being.

Nature finding a way to adapt does not require rational, conscious decisions and the ability to act on those decisions. This is your attempt to make nature into your God, or a being like your God.

When a raindrop falls on a leaf, does the leaf think "I must move away from the direction of the object that struck me", or does it just move? In your scenario, the leaf has to think, then move, in mine it just moves. I don't need to get into the physics of why it moves, I don't need to have the leaf "think" and I don't need the raindrop to be yelling at the leaf to get out of the way, the leaf just needs to move when struck by the leaf. Your scenario, your need for there to be a God, would require that your all powerful being reach out and push, pull or otherwise cause the leaf to move when struck by the raindrop and in a forest of billions of leaves with billions of raindrops falling, that would be a lot of conscious thought, especially in a universe of billions upon billions upon billions of leaves and raindrops. I prefer the nature of leaves and raindrops and how they naturally interact without thought.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Stream=simple physics. Water being pulled by gravity through the path of least resistance.

raindrop on leaf, action and reaction

new gene spontaneously appearing=?
19 months ago: You are simplifying your Deity's hand in this? Please! Maintain your stance and that of all Christians and other believers in the "One God". NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING happens without his ok. That is the message taught, preached, and otherwise passed to any and all who may or may not be interested in hearing it. Why do you think I can't believe in such a being? Why do you think I doubt his existence? Way to much is put on his plate and "faith" is the only method a person is to use to help believe in His power.

Your personal view is a bit different than others; you've said so in the past. It still doesn't get you off the hook by just falling back on simple physics, especially since simple physics may be the key to how that gene came into existence, the proximity of a compound to another compound and the mingling of their electrons to create a new gene could have come from simple physics, yet you would deny that that is how the gene formed because you would have to insist that your God created it, not that nature and all it's processes could have had anything to do with it. What you would say is that God caused the compounds to be in proximity at just the right time and gave the electrons a nudge in the right direction to form the gene, thus "creating" it. That would make your God the thinking being behind nature and evolution, just because you have to have some conscious, thinking being to make it all happen.

I live in the Bible Belt, I've heard the arguments for creation and I've heard the explanation of how your God works and how He can do any and every thing, how He is responsible for every thing down to the parts of the atom and how they spin.

Still doesn't make Darwin a man who started a religion like Darwinism.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
19 months ago: Sixholdens

I want to address several points. First and foremost, no one tells me what or how to think. I don't toe the line of dogma any more than I accept unproven science. I believe many differing religions have received a small piece of the puzzle, and they try to make an entire philosophy based on that small piece of Truth. I guess it's going to take Jesus's return to piece them all together. I'm not the only one, there are many more like me who are constantly in search of the truth.

Incidentally, I don't believe God has much of a manipulative role in the mundane happenings here in our reality. He doesn't tell each raindrop where and when to fall. He set things up in the beginning, and when man came about, he pretty much left us to our own devices, except when we invite Him into OUR world. Yes, this is our world, he is more of a landlord than a resident, and just as a landlord usually won't come into a renters house without asking, God will come when invited in the right way. (See the Lord's Prayer, where Jesus said "Pray LIKE this." Notice he didn't say "Recite these words." It's a formula to get you in the right frame of mind to approach God from the correct stance.

As far as getting me off the hook, I was never on the hook. Whatever millions of people believe, it does not mean that I have to think the same or believe what they believe. I believe you are stereotyping me to fit your preconceived notions of all Christians lumped into one basket.

"simple physics may be the key to how that gene came into existence, the proximity of a compound to another compound and the mingling of their electrons to create a new gene "

I love it!!! Now that beats the tar out of "nature created a new gene to solve a problem in a species". " Nature" cannot solve any problems. "Nature" cannot "do" anything. Genes are not created to solve problems, unless you want to give credit to some intelligent designer. This is the flaw in evolution theorists' explanations. From your article:

"...Long said. "Sphinx appears to have evolved to reduce this (homosexualty in flies) in one single species...."

This statement implies that a there was a problem, it was recognized, and steps were taken to remedy the problem. By who, or what, may I ask? They can't have it both ways. Either everything is a total accident, or there is an intelligence behind it. Which is it?

If you choose accident, then be consistent. There is no "cosmic force", no karma, no nothing except an astronomically incalculable accident. If there is an intelligence behind it, some unseen misunderstood force at work, why is so hard to believe that it just might be God, probably the most mis-represented being ever.
19 months ago: OOTB - your contributions to this post are much appreciated.

Ours is a position of solid faith based upon facts and universal laws versus faith based upon unprovable guesses, denial of the obvious and an attempted escape from reality. Darwin himself would not follow the dogma he believed then if he were alive today.
Content Removed by Huey Newton
19 months ago: Terryo - In case you missed it....

Science 101 -

Natural selection and evolution are not the same thing. Some animals are simply more fit to survive in a certain environment. Also, adaptations are not evolution. They are just that, adaptations. Fish never produce frogs and lizards do not produce birds. They are genetically different species.

Artificial selection also is not evolution. If you want to purposely breed stock or vegetation fine. You will produce a wide variety within a kind but you will not change one kind into another. No new genetic material, no new type.

Darwin was wrong. It is not a scientific fact that life began from a single organism and has evolved into all the life we see. That is unprovable and is as much a religious statement as is anything I have ever heard.

Humanity is really the focus of this Rant in the first place.

The full title for Darwin's work published in 1859 is "The Origin of Species: Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle of Life." For obvious reasons they have mostly dropped the subtitle of the book these days.

There are no "favored races" so your Prophet is wrong again. There are no genetically superior or inferior races of people. That is a lie.
Gregoire
Gregoire
19 months ago: Unnatural selection is more an issue and concern
Hybrid seed.
E-coli, merrily making Insulin, might also be recruited to manufacture some toxic agent that could somehow find its way into your bowel, or easier still (with some already taking curtain calls) the ascendancy of some super bug we have inadvertently trained to be resistant to all forms of pharmaceuticals.
So far, as a species, we have been able to keep a step or two ahead of the reaper, but eventually we'll find out we were too clever by half.
19 months ago: Agreed. Man must be cautious in his meddling in nature's course. Even in the way they modify beachfront property they have found they have done more harm than good. That fluid ocean tends to erode around the manmade things and then consume the whole beach.
18 months ago: People do worship something, don't kid yourselves. Some worship a god, or the government, power, money and some even worship themselves. So to follow evolution and buy it, yes it is a religion, of sorts. Great post.
18 months ago: Thanks.
11 months ago: Huey Newton,

Awesome post!
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
10 months ago: @Truthbrary...thanks for the "awesome post" compliment.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
10 months ago: This article is titled: "Darwinism, the Religion of Genocide"

A rather hilarious title but easily explained. Religionists, not familiar with Darwin or Atheism, simply assert that they are religions and now, in familiar territory, they simply try to tear the ism apart with their religious experiences.

I do not waste any part of my life in daydreams. There is simply no reason to postulate the existence of any powers in the universe other than those revealed by science and rational thinking. Sort of a good old "show me" Missouri attitude.

Reality is far more fantastic than anything dreamed up by a religious believer. Unaided human imagination takes a back seat to reality in other words. Believers are simply manipulating a limited combination, of elements already experienced and when it comes to Jesus the redundancy cycles about every 6th Sunday.

Uncovering the truth is the function of science. Never doubt for a moment the intent of science. Would a scientist stumble upon irrefutable proof of God;s existence he would be the most famous man in history. Someone "believing" in God or having "faith" that there is a God is no more than a subjective opinion with nothing to compel the scientific world to institute a search. Men of narrow, unsubstantiated beliefs are the weirdest phenomena in our world today, not to say there are just a few nor could your claims be justified by millions upon millions believing as you do for if 500 million people believe a foolish thing it is still a foolish thing. Belief in God is considered "normative insanity" in psychological circles.

A belief in an afterlife and heaven is a consolation for those who can't face death. So, what does this all have to do with Darwinism?

Darwinism remains one of the most successful scientific theories ever promulgated. There is hardly an element of humanity; neither capitalism, nor gender relations or biology that can be fully understood without its help.

Darwinism is an authentic cultivation of truths and physical laws that help us to define life...whereas religion is a dogma that denies life and the knowledge that pours through life.

Rational beings do not accept irrationality to guide them through life. If your external reality is created by your internal opinion, attitude and prejudice then you must certainly think yourself to be far above anything anyone else can offer?

The compass points for a true seeker are logic, knowledge, wisdom and the unknown. You can bow to the unknowable but never the unknown.

The universe is an entirely natural structure with an exceptionally vicious attitude towards life and therefore a comprehensive, intense and constant study is certainly called for and this is what Darwinism does. If you leave it all up to a God in the sky then you will certainly be run over by a bus one day...reality is carefully looking both ways.

A casual observation of the world shows that the great quanity of misery present is certainly not the designed product of a benevolent, kind and loving God and so you had better find out what produces all that misery and the less time spent on your knees is that much more time you can devote to a worthwhile pursuit. We each have a personal responsibility to our fellow man and this "civilization" we aspire to. If you are so irresponsible as to lay it all on an invisible friend in the sky's shoulders, you are just not living life to its fullest.

Ignorance is worse than evil intent.

In seeking truth it is important that you often doubt all things. Religion contains insufficient knowledge of all affairs and clouds the mind with assumptions of an external power having everything under control. That is most certainly not the case. Everything is NOT under control and each and every one of us is needed in this seeking of the truth.


Evolutionist and atheists rely on belief in that their reliance is on the veracity of other
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
10 months ago: continued:

Evolutionist and atheists rely on belief in that their reliance is on the veracity of other human beings, who have recorded and reported their findings in the laboratory and in the field. Those who have come after or who have repeated the experiments in confirmation, are the "icing on the cake". You either believe these people and support their conclusions or you suffer confusion, delusions and severe paranoia.

Everything we can know about the world derives only from our sensory perceptions and that, anything else we might THINK exists, ranging from physical objects to metaphysical beliefs - is merely a mental construct that may help predict our perceptions but cannot be known as objectively true.

The more you feel in charge of your life the less likely you are to be hooked on astrology, prayer, spells, crystals, Christ, religion, prophets and other superstitious behaviors.
10 months ago: Guess it took 8 months for you to get your research together. Kudos for having the guts to come back here.

It is really the insecure and those who feel the need to escape from moral and ethical responsibility that deny even the possibility of a loving Creator who has made human kind in His image. That's just really sad.

owlafaye - If you prefer a religion of pseudo-science and ultimate meaninglessness, that is your prerogative. I just happen to know there is a better way.
owlafaye
owlafaye
Dayton, WA
10 months ago: Atheists are noted for their heightened intelligence, awareness, morals and ethics. Thats a FACT...

Huey Newton is noted for trying to tear down the TRUTH and anyone that disagrees with him and doing so by outright LIES and manufactured data to suit and support his points of view. That a FACT also son.

If I wasn't right I wouldn't have 35 or 40 posts every 24 hours from you and your sycophants jamming my e-mail box. You people are running scared.

I have checked your other "posts" here at Rant & Rave and I am the noly one getting such a response.

I am right and you folks know, late in the night when you lie in bed doubting everything that has passed...you know deep deep down that you are wrong and it is all my fault...laughter...and I am glorying in it thanks.
Out Of The Box
Out Of The Box
 Moderator
10 months ago: Now THAT is a prime example of delusion. Jeez, get over yourself, you sound a bit insane.

By the way, uncidentally, a post about male circumcision got five times as many responses. But hang around anyway. You might amount to something one day.
10 months ago: "Atheists are noted for their heightened intelligence, awareness, morals and ethics. Thats a FACT..."

Wrong again.

Atheists tend to be moral parasites because they have no basis for objective truth and end up having to "borrow" from other belief systems. This is done because they have no basis for creating an absolute code on their own. All is relative so one person's truth may be another person's non-truth. Irrational to the max.

In that regard agnostics have far more intellectual superiority and awareness than atheists because at least the agnostic has not stopped thinking.

You need to re-read "On The Issue of Faith..." Maybe if you take another look, the light will come on.
10 months ago: Huey,

DANG! "Atheists tend to be moral parasites because they have no basis for objective truth and end up having to "borrow" from other belief systems. This is done because they have no basis for creating an absolute code on their own. All is relative so one person's truth may be another person's non-truth. Irrational to the max." ...you might want to copyright that... fer-darn-sure I wanna use that statement !:]
Mars Hill
Mars Hill
Waynesboro, MS
10 months ago: That would be an opinion given by one athiest to another. No, atheist are not any more intellectual than any other group. I have watched a few debates between atheist and creationist. I have never seen an atheist win. I have even seen a comment, that I believe Christopher Hitchens made, advising atheist not to debate creationist because the outcome would likley be negative for the atheist. There is a tremendous book entitled "And Their Words Will Be Used Agaist Them." It was compiled by Dr. Henry Morris, the Creation Movement founder. It is about a 570 page book of exerts from many scientific publications over a long period of time, from the 1800's through the 90's. Most of these exerts are from atheist, or agnostics. In their own words and in their own science journals and quarterlies, they make many statments that contradict each other and even themselves, often from one paragraph to the next. Science is only proven when it is observable and replicatable. If you have neither, then all you have is a theory. I am not aware of another theory that was postulated over 150 years ago that is still in theory form. They have either been proven or have been dismantled. I think that Evolution is well past being dismantled. It just needs to be thrown out as garbage. Darwin himself stated that given time the fossil record would bear out his theory. It has!!!! It is junk!!! The fossil record has shown the truth. Some are just blind. It takes more faith to be an atheist than a Creationist. Anyone that wants to hear an alternative view to evolution should go to the following website: icr.org

Order some of the books and read them. I ordered 17 titles a couple of months ago and am over half way through them now.

This site will really make you go, hmmmmmm!!!! I was taught evolution in grade school and college. Now I know why it never made sense. If it weren't for evolution many scientist would not have a 6 figure job. Money corrupts!!! Look what it has done in Washington. It does the same in science. If we all believed in a Creator, we would not be spending countless billions on pseudo-science. That, son, is a fact!!!!
Mars Hill
Mars Hill
Waynesboro, MS
10 months ago: I encountered a young Polish student in 2003 on an airplane from Albania to Amsterdam. I shared my Christian faith with him. Afterwards he asked me, "What if you are wrong?" I stated, "If I am wrong, then many people will show up at my funeral and speak of me as a good person and talk of all the deeds I have done to help humanitairian causes. They will speak possitively of me and I will have left a great legacy. Sadly, I will be as you, pushing up daisies." I then said, " But, what if I am right? Where will I, and you be then?" I saw a look of great distress upon his face. I pray that he has made a right decision. It takes great faith to persevere in this world. However, It takes greater faith to be an atheist than a believer in the Way, Jesus Christ, the Redeemer.

It is obvious, I am not as great an intellect as some on here, but I do know in Whom I have believed, and am sure that He is able to keep that which I have entrusted to Him.
10 months ago: Your intellect is just fine. Thank you for your heartfelt contribution.
10 months ago: Darwanism, where does this come from? Oh, someone read Darwin and thought it would be safest to put all of his ideas into a lockbox.. And label that lockbox "darwanism". Oh, okay, now we have his ideas safely locked away.

In a single cabnet, box, cell or prison. Anyway, all in one kettle, so to speak. Now we can play games with the kettle and call it black, we can call it false, we can say it sprouts from Nazi roots, or it has bombs in the kettle. This is fun, don't you think?

Next, let us examine Pluots, okay?
10 months ago: Darwin's ideas are not locked away. But they are trying to do that to the truth. Not on my watch.
Mars Hill
Mars Hill
Waynesboro, MS
10 months ago: Ideas have consequences. They always have and always will. Your world view will affect the way you carry out your life, as will mine. It was the very religious that killed Jesus, becasue of their world view. Their view of the coming Messiah was as a warrior king that could deliver Israel from her Roman persecutors, as well as other enemies. Israel has always had many enemies, but that is prophesied in the Bible. When this Carpenter showed up with his band of misfits, well, that is just not what the Pharisees wanted for a savior. But, He was The Savior. You see. Your worldview does affect the way you live your life and the way you treat others. Darwinism has had very negative consequences. And, yes, Christians have killed, too. Sometimes people forget that the crusades were about Christians taking back land that had been formerly taken from them by the Muslims, forceably, I may add. The Christian faith lived out as Jesus did is what is needed in this world. That would entail loving our fellow man. I do not condemn anothers ideas, I just make attempts to shed some light. I am swayed by the opinions of others myself sometimes. I am certainly not a "know-it-all." I do have my views, though, and have researched my origins. You just can't get something from nothing, unless you are God. Nothing ever created anything, no matter how many eons of time you give it.
10 months ago: Very well said.

Ideas do have consequences. That is why it is so vitally important that we question everything and only hold fast to that which is good.
sunny2
sunny2
10 months ago: Mars, you are totally right and well said. During that time, it was a political war. There was power and greed just like today among those who ruled and controlled. Jesus was the sacrifice, but he did bring a light, as you mention, with him for the rest of us to follow and get us through. There were Christians that died for Him. Remember they died in an arena a savage death for their beliefs. There are good and bad in all. In all faiths they have to stumble along the way to get to where they are today which I would hope it to improve and be more civil and logical to keep the people without being torn apart.

Post a Comment
Sign in or sign up to post a comment.
All Categories | Arts & Entertainment  |  Culture & Lifestyle  |  Economy  |  Food  |  Health  |  News & Politics  |  Offbeat  |  People  |  Products  |  Science & Technology  |  Sports  |  Travel

Frequently Asked Questions  |  Community Guidelines  |  Editorial Reviews  |  Get Paid to Post  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use  |  Contact Us  |  Sitemap  |  Report Spam/Abuse

©2012 RantRave