Racist Darwin
Ray Martinez
Darwin produced ToE/atheist creation story. The theory of choice for
Nazi's, fascists, and Marxists:
Nazi's: Jews were not fit to survive.
Fascists: Everyone but them were not fit to survive.
Marxists/atheists: Murdered at least 100 million persons in the Soviet
Union, China, Southeast Asia.
The issue is ORIGINS and the origins of ToE/Darwinism is racism = why
the scant evidence is further refuted as bunk.
Darwin and company were racists.
This is ToE ORIGIN - its source.
Darwinism = "similarity" between apes and Africans = why it was
postulated to begin with. The racist features that Darwinian artists
place on hypothetical transitional hopeful monsters is sickening.
http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/pictures/Piltdown_Men/front2_restorationofpiltman.jpg
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/hoaxes_and_frauds.html
It doesn't matter what Darwinists claim - the origin of the idea that
humans evolved came about when the God of the Bible was rejected THEN
from this departure Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the similarity and the
theory was born - out of their racist minds.
Notice AFTER God is rejected then racist theory developed.
http://www.goodschools.com/darwin.htm
"The first hint that Darwin was a racist can be seen in the subtitle
selected for his "Origin." The words chosen were: "The Preservation of
Favored Races in the Struggle for Life". Whom do you suppose Darwin
tagged the "Unfavored Races?" This subtitle has been eliminated from
all modern printings of the book, but it remains on the original"
"At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break
between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will
intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even
than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178).
"No rational man (writes Thomas Huxley, a contemporary evolutionist),
cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal,
still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is
simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our
prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no
oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his
bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be
carried out on by thoughts and not by bites." (Thomas H. Huxley, "Lay
Sermans, Addresses and Reviews" (New York: Appleton, 1871) p. 20.
Huxley was arguing that blacks could not compete intellectually with
Caucasians, even under equal and fair conditions.)
It should be no surprise that no lesser racist villain than Adolf
Hitler picked up on Darwin's evolutionary theories. Karl Schleunes
writes: "Darwin's notion of struggle for survival was quickly
appropriated by the racist ... such a struggle, legitimized by the
latest scientific views, justified the racists' conception of superior
and inferior peoples ... and validated the conflict between them."
(Karl A. Schleunes, The Twisted Road To Auchwitz (Urbana, IL:
University of Illinois Press, 1970)p. 30 , 32. Cited by J. Bergman,
"Eugenics and Nazi Racial Policy," p. 118.)
Before 1859 (before Darwin's Origin), many scientists had questioned
whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no
scientific basis for that notion. Things changed once Darwin presented
his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that African-Americans
could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let
alone being able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin,
the African was inferior because he represented the missing-link"
between ape and Teuton. (John C. Burham, Science, vol. 175 (February 4,
1972) p.506).
What is ToE/Darwinism ?
Answer: A snowball originating from racism. The atheist and apostate
NEED for the God of Genesis to not be the Creator required a theory for
the origin of species and man.
After flipping God off the departure from Him went to racism to answer
the question.
The scant highly subjective evidence "supporting" human evolution and
the racist mind seeing the "similarity" between Africans and apes is
how Darwinism was born.
Today only the need for Genesis to be wrong fuels the success of ToE.
Of course, I could support the departure from God by Darwin in the
Bible which makes things Darwin said about God a lie.
It is no stretch for a racist to also be a liar.
RAY MARTINEZ
Robert J. Kolker
> Racist Darwin
>
> Darwin produced ToE/atheist creation story. The theory of choice for
> Nazi's, fascists, and Marxists:
Also for English pro-capitalists like Herbert Spencer not so say
anything about American capitalists who are the very opposite of
fascists and marxists.
>
> Nazi's: Jews were not fit to survive.
Well, the Nazis sure were wrong about that weren't they. Had they looked
at the situation more closely they would have realized that Jews who had
the shit kicked out them for 1900 years developed some intereresting
coping and survival skills. It isn't evolution, but it is adaptation.
>
> Fascists: Everyone but them were not fit to survive.
>
> Marxists/atheists: Murdered at least 100 million persons in the Soviet
> Union, China, Southeast Asia.
So what? People like Herbert Spencer who also were "Social Darwinists"
did nothing of the kind. The social darwinist stance taken in America
was in opposition to certain welfare schemes like operation Head Start.
The theory is that you can't put in what God or Evolution left out.
>
> The issue is ORIGINS and the origins of ToE/Darwinism is racism = why
> the scant evidence is further refuted as bunk.
Evolution theory has nothing to say about the origins of life, but only
on modifications over time.
>
> Darwin and company were racists.
Nonsense. Darwin was no racist.
>
> This is ToE ORIGIN - its source.
>
> Darwinism = "similarity" between apes and Africans = why it was
> postulated to begin with. The racist features that Darwinian artists
> place on hypothetical transitional hopeful monsters is sickening.
Darwin did not draw those pictures.
>
> http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/pictures/Piltdown_Men/front2_restorationofpiltman.jpg
>
> http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/hoaxes_and_frauds.html
>
>
> It doesn't matter what Darwinists claim - the origin of the idea that
> humans evolved came about when the God of the Bible was rejected THEN
> from this departure Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the similarity and the
> theory was born - out of their racist minds.
Nonsense. Darwin actually got his ideas of modification through
selection from animal breeders. Where do all those different breeds of
dog come from. There is a common ancestor of all the various breeds. Now
extend that to other kinds of animals and regard natural selection (by
fitness to reproduce) as the filtering agent and some kind of genetic
variation (which Darwin did not have) as the driving agent of change.
>
> Notice AFTER God is rejected then racist theory developed.
Nonsense. The Israelites regarded any Cana'anites they spared as hewers
of wood and drawers of water (it is in the Bible). The Israelites were
from time to time worshipers of the God Abreham, Isaac and Jacob, and
they had some pretty racist ideas. How does Chose People sound to you?
The Brits had a totally racist attitude toward India well before Darwin
ever published a word about descent with modification. American regarded
aboriginals a human garbarge long before Darwin published and slavery by
American and English go back well before 1700.
Believing Jews and Christians have had their racist moments. Crusades
anyone? And also the Bible was used to justify nigger slavery in the
South, before Darwin ever published. The Slave Lords of Dixie were all
Christian Gentlemen, every last one of them.
You are a very silly person.
bob Kolker
Dave
> Racist Darwin
What a pathetic bunch of stinky blather. Darwin was schooled as an
Angelican clergyman and received his divinity degree from Christ's
College, Cambridge in 1831.
John Wilkins
race date from well before any evolutionary account. They were developed
in the late eighteenth century on the basis of common (Christian)
prejudice. There is a lovely image of this in one of Gould's essays,
from around 1800 by Blumenbach.
It should also be pointed out that modern taxonomies of race were
demolished, point for point, by Buffon, also in the late 18thC.
Racism developed out of Christian slavery, European self-inflation, and
ethnic rivalries. Evolution had nothing to do with it - I mean the
theory; I am sure we evolved in ways that make xenophobia more or less
inevitable.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Geoff
news:1115251035.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
IIRC he never finished...
R. Tang
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
White boy, why DO you prattle on 'bout something y'all got no idea
about?
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> IIRC he never finished...
He preferred studying beatles.
Bob Kolker
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115248304.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Racist Darwin
>
snip of fraudulent claims of Darwin's racism.
I originally posted this in T.O. back in July of last year. I think it's
appropriate to post it again.
Creationists love to play the race card with all the enthusiasm of a penny
ante gambler drawing to an inside straight. A creationist tract isn't
complete without some attempt to link racism and evolution. Darwin is often
presented as being a vicious racist, and by implication anything he touches
is tainted by association. "Evolutionists" are compared to Nazis, and it's
not uncommon to see creationists trying to blame the Holocaust on the
teaching of evolution. Like most Creationist claims, the link between
evolution and racism is based on nothing but fraud and deceit.
The theory of evolution is a scientific theory. It's an attempt to
describe the workings of living organisms, and how they have diversified
over generations. As a scientific theory, it's no more racist than any
other scientific theory. A theory is a description of what is, not how
things "ought to be". Even the suggestion that evolution supports racist
attitudes is nonsense. Racism existed long before there was a theory of
evolution, and the theory itself does not support the idea that one
population of humans is "superior" to any other population.
There is no support for the idea of racial superiority in the theory of
evolution, which holds that variety is the key to survival of a population.
Success in evolutionary terms depends on reproductive success in an
enviroment, so any one individual or group cannot be seen as "superior" to
any other individual in the population. Part of the reason this is often
misunderstood is the common misconception that evolution is a process of
improvement, or progression toward a particular goal. Anyone who is
familiar with the real theory of evolution knows that evolution is not
improvment, but change. Another misconception about evolution is the
retention of the idea of the "Chain of Being", an idea that predated
evolutionary theory by centuries.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/苟ngl174b/chain.html
That was the concept that there is a rigid hiearchy of life, from higher to
lower, with humans (of course) being at or near the top. The idea that
evolution is a progression from "lower" forms to "higher" forms is a very
tough image to shake, and we are all familiar with the cartoons of "progress
of evolution" showing man "rising" from the cave man. That image is
entrenched the popular culture, but is not an accurate depiction of the real
evolutionary theory. This unfortunately leads to the idea that there are
some populations of humans that are "lower" than others. This of course is
not an idea unique to misunderstandings of evolution. Many religious
beliefs include an idea that some of the races are more blessed by God, and
that some are meant to be servants. See the "Hamic Hypothesis" for an
example of how supposedly "Christian" people can apply racism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamitic
http://www.brainyencyclopedia.com/encyclopedia/h/ha/hamitic.html
So, was Darwin a racist? By modern standards, yes he was. That being
said, Darwin, it should be remembered that in the culture that Darwin was
raised, and the time he was living in, one would hardly expect him to be
anything else. Other naturalists at the time were just as racist, if not
more. Agazzi, probably the last of the genuine Creation Scientists, for
example was a great deal more racist in his attitudes than was Darwin.
Even Abraham Lincoln can be found to have made statements, that by modern
standards appear viciously racist. The point is that Darwin never proposed
race hatred. He was stauchly abolitionist, and had friendships with black
and other native peoples.
Creationists are fond of pointing to the full title of Darwin's most
famous work, "Origin of Species by Natural Selection or the Preservation of
Favored Races in the Struggle for Survival", ignoring the fact that the
phrase "Favored Races" does not refer to any of the human "races", but to
populations of individual organisms. Darwin barely touched on the ancestory
of humans in his first book. Another out of context quote often used often
by Creationists is a passage from Darwin's "Descent of Man". In this
quote, Darwin is discussing why there aren't any living intermediates
between humans and other apes, closer than Chimps and Gorillas.
Unfortunately, Darwin uses language that in modern times sounds offensively
racist, especally when taken out of context. Creationists usually quote
only:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the
civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the
savage races throughout the world."
The full quote gives a better picture of what Darwin was discussing.
"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species,
has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is
descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear
of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the
series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in
various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies-
between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and
in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna,
and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised 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 civilised 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"
Clearly, in the above passage, Darwin is not proposing that "savage races"
be exterminated (as some Creationists claim),. but was making an observation
that civilization was encroaching into areas where pre-industral people
lived, and would soon drive them to extinction, much as we will have driven
other anthropoid apes to extinction.
For more on Darwin and Race, see:
http://www.princeton.edu/~jcon衍ey/DarwinRacism
http://home.att.net/~troybrita虹n/articles/darwin_on_race.htm
So, even if Darwin were a vicious, unrepentant racist, (which he clearly was
not) what would that mean for his theory ? Nothing. A scientific theory
stands or falls on it's own merits. As I've already pointed out above,
evolutionary theory is not any more racist than the theory of gravity.
Guilt by association doesn't work for science.
DJT
John Wilkins
John Harshman
> Racist Darwin
Sure he was. And so was another famous man born on the same day, Abraham
Lincoln, to about the same degree. Are you going to reject everything
Lincoln did too?
Here's a fine, racist Lincoln quote for you: "I have no purpose to
introduce political and social equality between the white and black
races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my
judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the
footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that
there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of
the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never
said any thing to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all
this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to
all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence -- the
right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is
as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas
that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color --
perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to
eat the bread without the leave of any body else which his own hand
earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of
every other man (Lincoln 1858)."
Sixth debate with Stephen A. Douglas, at Quincy, Illinois, Oct. 13.
http://www.nps.gov/liho/debate6.htm
(Once again Mark Isaak's Index to Creationist Claims is invaluable; I
pulled the quote from CAA005.3, "Thomas H. Huxley was racist." Mark, you
really should stick this same quote in the "Darwin was racist claim too.)
[snip rant]
chris.li...@gmail.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Racist Darwin
[snip very silly stuff]
Has Ray posted on alt.atheism? He's a perfect candidate for their
net.kook list (but a little too easy-- like using a hand grenade to go
fishing in a barrel).
Chris
Mateo
Evolution is not a moral or political philosophy, it is a biological theory
of the development of life on earth. Charles Darwin is not responsible for
people using his theory for perverted things, just as William Boeing is
not responsible for people flying airplanes into buildings. Stop blaming
people for the immoral actions of others; blame the person who actually
acted immorally.
VoiceOfReason
Life evolves. We evolve. And most of the world's Christians have no
problem with that.
Posting silly nonsense about Darwin won't change it one bit.
John Vreeland
<j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>> Geoff wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>IIRC he never finished...
>>
>>
>> He preferred studying beatles.
>>
>> Bob Kolker
>>
>Because the beatles were more popular than Jesus amongst his set?
I would have thought he preferred the other four.. You know, the
Monkeys.
__
John Vreeland
If you cannot ever admit to being wrong, then you will never be right.
John Wilkins
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 11:07:51 +1000, John Wilkins
> <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>
>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>
>>>Geoff wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>IIRC he never finished...
>>>
>>>
>>>He preferred studying beatles.
>>>
>>>Bob Kolker
>>>
>>
>>Because the beatles were more popular than Jesus amongst his set?
>
>
> I would have thought he preferred the other four.. You know, the
> Monkeys.
>
selection of promoters.
Ronin
etc... that used justifications from the bible and figure out if the
author (you know who I mean, the big G) was racist (against even his
chosen people!). I guess we should throw the bible out too. Hey let's
throw Shakepeare out! Have you ever seen the way he lampoons the
french? And what about Shylock?
2nd point (oh why do I bother when original poster will never never
never read this). Around Darwin's time, we all know that others had
openly discussed evolution, but there wasn't a theory about it's
driving force. Many scientists of the day saw their role in science as
finding ways to reconcile what they saw in the natural world with their
concept of the godly, perfect world they were raised to believe in.
Gould has an article on this to explain why a particular scientist
analyzed his data the way he did (and it's killing me that I can't
figure out which scientist, it's in the 1st half of "Eight Little
Piggies", it's Edmond Halley, or Prescott or Paley or something.)
Darwin was one of very very few to make the break away from divine
intent and, again, evolution had already been bandied about. So to say
that the atheism had to come 1st seems like some major BS to me.
Steven J.
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115248304.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Racist Darwin
>
>
> Darwin produced ToE/atheist creation story. The theory of choice for
> Nazi's, fascists, and Marxists:
>
from lower animals by natural mechanisms (Hitler, according to _Hitler's
Table Talk_, did not believe that naturalistic mechanisms could account for
the differences between humans and apes), and while they emphasized natural
selection, they rarely credited it with being able to change one species
into another. Marxists, on the other hand, seem to me to tend to downplay
natural selection (Darwin's mechanism), although one should not accuse
Marxists in general with Stalin's fondness for antiDarwinian mechanisms of
evolution.
>
> Nazi's: Jews were not fit to survive.
>
expulsions, often fueled by the charge that the Jews were "Christ-killers,"
were a recurrent feature of Christian Europe. Martin Luther published
screeds against the Jews not much milder than those favored by Hitler, and
vowed that if any Jew came to him for baptism, he would do so by tying a
millstone about the Jew's neck and dropping him in a river.
>
> Fascists: Everyone but them were not fit to survive.
>
> Marxists/atheists: Murdered at least 100 million persons in the Soviet
> Union, China, Southeast Asia.
>
of Lysenko's rather peculiar biological theories.
>
> The issue is ORIGINS and the origins of ToE/Darwinism is racism = why
> the scant evidence is further refuted as bunk.
>
even if evolutionary theory had the implications, or the origins, you wish
to claim, that would not invalidate it or weaken the evidence for it.
>
> Darwin and company were racists.
>
> This is ToE ORIGIN - its source.
>
> Darwinism = "similarity" between apes and Africans = why it was
> postulated to begin with. The racist features that Darwinian artists
> place on hypothetical transitional hopeful monsters is sickening.
>
> http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/pictures/Piltdown_Men/front2_restorationofpiltman.jpg
>
> http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/hoaxes_and_frauds.html
>
>
> It doesn't matter what Darwinists claim - the origin of the idea that
> humans evolved came about when the God of the Bible was rejected THEN
> from this departure Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the similarity and the
> theory was born - out of their racist minds.
>
> Notice AFTER God is rejected then racist theory developed.
>
> http://www.goodschools.com/darwin.htm
>
nonwhite races were inferior and destined to servitude because they had
inherited the "curse of Ham." This idea still showed up as late as 1974, in
Henry M. Morris's _The Genesis Record_. It antedates Darwin by a
considerable number of years.
>
> "The first hint that Darwin was a racist can be seen in the subtitle
> selected for his "Origin." The words chosen were: "The Preservation of
> Favored Races in the Struggle for Life". Whom do you suppose Darwin
> tagged the "Unfavored Races?" This subtitle has been eliminated from
> all modern printings of the book, but it remains on the original"
>
_Origin of Species_ does not even mention human evolution until one sentence
at the end of the book ("light will be shed on human origins"). Rather, the
term referred to different varieties of various species, animal and plant,
that were "favored" by different environments.
>
> "At some future period (Darwin writes), not very distant as measured by
> centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate
> and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the
> anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break
> between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will
> intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even
> than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as
> now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Charles Darwin,
> The Descent of Man 2nd ed (New York: A. L. Burt Co., I 874), p. 178).
>
a policy. You have perhaps heard the question, why, if humans are descended
from apes, are there still apes? Darwin was, in this paragraph, considering
the converse problem: why, if gorillas survived alongside humans, did
"apemen" not survive? Why couldn't he point to a living "pithecanthropus"
in the jungles of Africa or Asia as the "missing link" (at that time,
fossils of _Homo erectus_ or australopiths were unknown) between humans and
gorillas, as gorillas were between humans and monkeys?
His answer was that the great apes survived by living in the jungle where
humans did not like to live, and even so they were in danger of extinction.
As for the apemen, even stone-age modern humans as intelligent as white
Europeans (but with inferior weapons) were being wiped out and displaced by
white Europeans. Darwin assumed that the apemen, unlike gorillas, competed
for the same lands and resources used by more advanced humans, and had lost
out even more totally than "savage races" of our own species. Based on what
he saw in the world around him, Darwin inferred that, too soon, we would not
even be able to point to gorillas as living intermediates between humans and
monkeys.
Note, by the way, that many modern creationists assume that humans cannot be
older than written language, as though preliterate societies had not existed
right up to the present. Hank Hanegraaf, for example, argues that "the
distance between a human who can read and write and an ape is the distance
of infinity" as though there were no humans who could read and write.
Living societies without written languages challenge both the assumption
that humans cannot exist before recorded history, and that being human must
mean living in cities, reading and writing, and having high technology. So
creationists themselves seem to buy into Darwin's assumption that it would
be easier to imagine a link between humans and apes when one can see with
one's own eyes humans living a stone-age existence.
>
> "No rational man (writes Thomas Huxley, a contemporary evolutionist),
> cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal,
> still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is
> simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our
> prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no
> oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his
> bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be
> carried out on by thoughts and not by bites." (Thomas H. Huxley, "Lay
> Sermans, Addresses and Reviews" (New York: Appleton, 1871) p. 20.
> Huxley was arguing that blacks could not compete intellectually with
> Caucasians, even under equal and fair conditions.)
>
That is quite bad, really. Note, though, that both the assumption that
blacks were less intelligent than whites, and the assumption that measures
of intelligence were also measures of some innate ability and competence to
succeed, were widely shared in the late 19th century, by creationists as
well as by evolutionists. Note also that there is nothing in the theory of
evolution (the ideas of common descent or adaption through natural
selection) that actually implies differences in intelligence between
different "races." The idea that if there are different "races" some must
be "higher" than others is a relic of the "great chain of being" idea;
Darwin's "evolutionary tree" implies that different races, like different
species, can be equally "high" albeit adapted in slightly different ways to
different conditions.
However, let me point out that Huxley refers to "the average Negro," and
asserting that *fewer* blacks than whites would reach high levels of
achievement under equal and fair conditions. A really committed racist
would hold that *no* black could be the equal of any white. He would see
"race" as the essence of a person, a quality shared by all members of one
"race" and no members of another. Inherited curses are consistent with this
sort of idea; "Darwinism" is not.
I bring this up because central to Darwin's theory is that variation exists
in every population, and that variation within "races" can be greater than
variation between "races." Over time, races can change into other races;
species can even change into other species. There can't be any sort of
"essence" of a race that could serve as the basis for a genuinely "racial"
superiority. Darwin himself saw this; he noted that there was no trait on
which one could rest a claim of racial superiority that was possessed by all
members of one race and no members of any other race.
There is one other point that should be made here: Darwin's theory does not
concern itself with "superiority" or "inferiority" (a note to himself in
Darwin's notebooks warns not to use the words "higher" and "lower" to refer
to biological categories). It deals with "fitness," and different traits
are "fitter" in different environments. The same traits that are fitter in
one set of conditions may be less fit in another. Note that "fitness" is
not at all equivalent to "good" or "superior" or "deserving." Natural
selection does not have goals towards which humans can work, or purposes
with which we can cooperate.
>
> It should be no surprise that no lesser racist villain than Adolf
> Hitler picked up on Darwin's evolutionary theories. Karl Schleunes
> writes: "Darwin's notion of struggle for survival was quickly
> appropriated by the racist ... such a struggle, legitimized by the
> latest scientific views, justified the racists' conception of superior
> and inferior peoples ... and validated the conflict between them."
> (Karl A. Schleunes, The Twisted Road To Auchwitz (Urbana, IL:
> University of Illinois Press, 1970)p. 30 , 32. Cited by J. Bergman,
> "Eugenics and Nazi Racial Policy," p. 118.)
>
As noted above, Darwin's idea of natural selection does not legitimize the
idea of "superior" and "inferior" peoples. It denies the possibility that
*all* members of one "race" are "inferior" in any respect to all members of
another (and, of course, "fitness" is not the same as "superiority").
Darwinism does not teach that might makes right; it holds that might (which
can take many forms depending on the environment and how one copes with it)
makes multiplicity. And, again, Hitler does not seem to have been
interested in *evolution*; he saw (as many modern creationists do) natural
selection as a conservative force that keeps populations for deteriorating,
not one that changes them over time.
>
> Before 1859 (before Darwin's Origin), many scientists had questioned
> whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no
> scientific basis for that notion. Things changed once Darwin presented
> his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that African-Americans
> could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let
> alone being able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin,
> the African was inferior because he represented the missing-link"
> between ape and Teuton. (John C. Burham, Science, vol. 175 (February 4,
> 1972) p.506).
>
One does not need the theory of evolution to decide that, e.g. lions are a
different species from tigers, or wolves from coyotes. Before Darwin, most
creationists assumed that God had created these as separate species. Some
creationists assumed that God had equally created different races of humans
as separate species. If "God created them separately" is not a possible
scientific basis for racism, then it is not a possible scientific basis for
explaining *any* difference between "kinds."
Darwin, by the way, is well-known as an opponent of slavery, and on several
occasions he remarked on the intelligence and ability of persons of African
descent whom he had met. I do not recall him ever stating that
African-Americans could not survive competition with whites. For what it's
worth, Darwin considered the question of whether the races of humanity were
separate species, and advanced arguments that they were, in fact, all one
species.
>
-- [snip of hateful tirade]
>
> RAY MARTINEZ
>
-- Steven J.
Pithecanthropus Erectus
> John Vreeland wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 11:07:51 +1000, John Wilkins
>><j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Geoff wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>IIRC he never finished...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>He preferred studying beatles.
>>>>
>>>>Bob Kolker
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because the beatles were more popular than Jesus amongst his set?
>>
>>
>>I would have thought he preferred the other four.. You know, the
>>Monkeys.
>>
>
> They didn't develop on their own. It was all an artifice of the
> selection of promoters.
>
The Monkees were evidence of Design. Whether the designer in that case
was intelligent is an open question.
We can make the case that including Michael Nesmaith is an indication of
intelligence, but then the addition of Peter Tork, Mickey Dolenz and
Davey Jones seems to contraindicate intelligence.
--
"The pope should lift the ban on condoms immediately in order to err on
the side of life."
Catholics for Free Choice
AC
> Racist Darwin
>
> Darwin produced ToE/atheist creation story. The theory of choice for
> Nazi's, fascists, and Marxists:
>
> Nazi's: Jews were not fit to survive.
Which has nothing to do with evolution.
>
> Fascists: Everyone but them were not fit to survive.
I don't even think you actually know what fascism is, but curiously the
countries most directly effected by it were European with overwhelming
numbers of Christians.
>
> Marxists/atheists: Murdered at least 100 million persons in the Soviet
> Union, China, Southeast Asia.
Stalin rejected Darwinian evolution. Boy, you are completely ignorant. How
sad it is to be you.
>
> The issue is ORIGINS and the origins of ToE/Darwinism is racism = why
> the scant evidence is further refuted as bunk.
>
> Darwin and company were racists.
You aren't a Christian. A Christian isn't supposed to bear false witness.
>
> This is ToE ORIGIN - its source.
>
> Darwinism = "similarity" between apes and Africans = why it was
> postulated to begin with. The racist features that Darwinian artists
> place on hypothetical transitional hopeful monsters is sickening.
We're all apes, and we all came out of Africa in the very near past.
>
> http://www.clarku.edu/~piltdown/pictures/Piltdown_Men/front2_restorationofpiltman.jpg
>
> http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/hoaxes_and_frauds.html
Good grief.
>
>
> It doesn't matter what Darwinists claim - the origin of the idea that
> humans evolved came about when the God of the Bible was rejected THEN
> from this departure Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the similarity and the
> theory was born - out of their racist minds.
>
> Notice AFTER God is rejected then racist theory developed.
>
> http://www.goodschools.com/darwin.htm
Oh yeah, those Christians harassing Jews, Gypsies and Moors for centuries
must have seen Origin of the Species through their time machine.
<snip>
I can't read any more. I am now firmly convinced that you lack morals. I
pity your family, and if you were a member of mine, there'd be standing
orders to call the cops when you showed up at the door.
AC
John Vreeland <vree...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 11:07:51 +1000, John Wilkins
><j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>> Geoff wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>IIRC he never finished...
>>>
>>>
>>> He preferred studying beatles.
>>>
>>> Bob Kolker
>>>
>>Because the beatles were more popular than Jesus amongst his set?
>
> I would have thought he preferred the other four.. You know, the
> Monkeys.
Ah yes, the Prefab Four.
Deadrat
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3dt50v...@individual.net...
I assume this was meant to say "the God" OF "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
The Jews of the Bible certainly treated their neighbors no better or worse
than anybody else in the area, but their enmities were political and
religious,
not "racist" in the modern sense.
I assume the next sentence was meant to say "How does 'Chosen People'
sound to you?" Who cares what it sounds like? What Jews take it to mean
is that they were chosen to deliver the message of monotheism to the world
they saw around them, which was a world of idolatry. Jews may take a
chauvinistic pride in what they claim is God's choice, but being "chosen"
conveys no special privileges, only extra duties. Not being chosen brings
carries no inherent penalties.
Deadrat
Stuart
John Wilkins wrote:
> Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> > Geoff wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>IIRC he never finished...
> >
> >
> > He preferred studying beatles.
> >
> > Bob Kolker
> >
> Because the beatles were more popular than Jesus amongst his set?
The Beatles thought so.
Stuart
John Wilkins
> John Wilkins wrote:
>
>
>>John Vreeland wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 11:07:51 +1000, John Wilkins
>>><j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Geoff wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>IIRC he never finished...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>He preferred studying beatles.
>>>>>
>>>>>Bob Kolker
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Because the beatles were more popular than Jesus amongst his set?
>>>
>>>
>>>I would have thought he preferred the other four.. You know, the
>>>Monkeys.
>>>
>>
>>They didn't develop on their own. It was all an artifice of the
>>selection of promoters.
>>
>
>
> The Monkees were evidence of Design. Whether the designer in that case
> was intelligent is an open question.
>
> We can make the case that including Michael Nesmaith is an indication of
> intelligence, but then the addition of Peter Tork, Mickey Dolenz and
> Davey Jones seems to contraindicate intelligence.
>
>
>
Stuart
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Racist Darwin
>
> Darwin produced ToE/atheist creation story. The theory of choice for
> Nazi's, fascists, and Marxists:
>
> Nazi's: Jews were not fit to survive.
>
> Fascists: Everyone but them were not fit to survive.
>
> Marxists/atheists: Murdered at least 100 million persons in the
Soviet
> Union, China, Southeast Asia.
>
> The issue is ORIGINS and the origins of ToE/Darwinism is racism = why
> the scant evidence is further refuted as bunk.
>
> Darwin and company were racists.
What company was that?
>
> This is ToE ORIGIN - its source.
Really? You mean anti-Semitism didn't exist prior to Darwin?
I didn't know that.
By the way, does "Bob Jones" university mean anything to you?
Stuart
Robert J. Kolker
> they saw around them, which was a world of idolatry. Jews may take a
> chauvinistic pride in what they claim is God's choice, but being "chosen"
> conveys no special privileges, only extra duties. Not being chosen brings
> carries no inherent penalties.
Really? When Joshua and the Israelites entered the Holy Land they laid
waste to 33 cities and spilled much blood. Read it. It is in the Book of
Judges.
At a later stage in Israelite history Ezra and Nehamiah importuned the
Israelites to put away (divorce) their foreign (non-Jewish) wives. That
sounds bigoted if not racist. But I am not here to beat up on Jews,
since I am Jewish myself. I mearly point out that racist (in the broad
sense) attitudes existed long, long before Darwin. Humans have a
tendency to bifurcate the world into Us and Them. That is human nature
at work, not Darwinism.
Bob Kolker
AC
Robert J. Kolker <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> At a later stage in Israelite history Ezra and Nehamiah importuned the
> Israelites to put away (divorce) their foreign (non-Jewish) wives. That
> sounds bigoted if not racist. But I am not here to beat up on Jews,
> since I am Jewish myself. I mearly point out that racist (in the broad
> sense) attitudes existed long, long before Darwin. Humans have a
> tendency to bifurcate the world into Us and Them. That is human nature
> at work, not Darwinism.
Not just humans. Wild chimp behavior is a pretty good indicator that our
tribalism has very deep roots.
Deadrat
> Deadrat wrote:
>
> > they saw around them, which was a world of idolatry. Jews may take a
> > chauvinistic pride in what they claim is God's choice, but being
"chosen"
> > conveys no special privileges, only extra duties. Not being chosen
brings
> > carries no inherent penalties.
>
> Really? When Joshua and the Israelites entered the Holy Land they laid
> waste to 33 cities and spilled much blood. Read it. It is in the Book of
> Judges.
First of all, the Bible isn't accurate history any more than it is accurate
science. No doubt these conflicts took place, but they were political
(maybe tribal is a better word) struggles for territory.
>
> At a later stage in Israelite history Ezra and Nehamiah importuned the
> Israelites to put away (divorce) their foreign (non-Jewish) wives. That
> sounds bigoted if not racist.
If you're Jewish, then you ought to have this one figured out. Only
children of Jewish women are Jewish. It's a tribal identity thing. Is it
narrow-minded and exclusionary? Sure. But it's a mistake to conflate
these attitudes to what we in our age call racism.
> But I am not here to beat up on Jews,
> since I am Jewish myself. I mearly point out that racist (in the broad
"Racist" doesn't have a "broad sense." It's a very particular thing: the
belief that people with a different skin color are inferior. And it plays
a very particular part in modern history.
> sense) attitudes existed long, long before Darwin. Humans have a
> tendency to bifurcate the world into Us and Them. That is human nature
> at work, not Darwinism.
I'm gonna go with human nature as a product of evolution. YMMV.
Deadrat
>
> Bob Kolker
>
Michael Siemon
John Wilkins <j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
> Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> >
> >
> >>John Vreeland wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 11:07:51 +1000, John Wilkins
> >>><j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Geoff wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>IIRC he never finished...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>He preferred studying beatles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Bob Kolker
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Because the beatles were more popular than Jesus amongst his set?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I would have thought he preferred the other four.. You know, the
> >>>Monkeys.
> >>>
> >>
> >>They didn't develop on their own. It was all an artifice of the
> >>selection of promoters.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The Monkees were evidence of Design. Whether the designer in that case
> > was intelligent is an open question.
> >
> > We can make the case that including Michael Nesmaith is an indication of
> > intelligence, but then the addition of Peter Tork, Mickey Dolenz and
> > Davey Jones seems to contraindicate intelligence.
> >
> >
> >
> If the Monkees were designed, what was the Designer smoking at the time?
Something adulterated, no doubt.
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
> Racist Darwin
Trolling idiot Ray Martinez.
--
Regards
Thore "Tocis" Schmechtig
cub...@aol.com
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> Geoff wrote:
> >
> >
> > IIRC he never finished...
>
> He preferred studying beatles.
TomS
<117j2ve...@corp.supernews.com>, Steven J. stated..."
>
>
>"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1115248304.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Racist Darwin
>>
>Well, at least posting here gets you attention.
>>
>> Darwin produced ToE/atheist creation story. The theory of choice for
>> Nazi's, fascists, and Marxists:
>>
>The interesting thing is that Nazis were not certain that humans had evolved
>from lower animals by natural mechanisms (Hitler, according to _Hitler's
>Table Talk_, did not believe that naturalistic mechanisms could account for
>the differences between humans and apes), and while they emphasized natural
>selection, they rarely credited it with being able to change one species
>into another. Marxists, on the other hand, seem to me to tend to downplay
>natural selection (Darwin's mechanism), although one should not accuse
>Marxists in general with Stalin's fondness for antiDarwinian mechanisms of
>evolution.
One thing to add to this is that many of anti-evolutionists
make a major point about distinguishing between "micro=" and
"macro-" evolution. In their view of things, they fully accept
micro-evolution.
This is of great interest, when topics like these come up.
Do the creationists (or whatever they're calling themselves
these days) accept the consequences of *micro*evolution? Is
there anything about *macro*evolution that has consequences like
these? Isn't the operation of natural selection and common
descent operating on a *micro*level when we're talking about
humans?
How can someone reconcile the acceptance of *micro*evolution
with the complaint against the evil consequences of accepting
*micro*evolution?
*Macro*evolution, as the creationists complain about, covers
things like: The appearance of the bacterial flagellum; The
descent of birds from dinosaurs; The Cambrian Explosion; and ...
most famously ... "The Eye". Nothing like this is involved when
anyone speaks of supposed evil consequences of accepting evolution.
Everyone who speaks of the supposed evil consequences of
accepting evolution is speaking about *micro*evolution.
This includes those creationists who *insist* upon their
acceptance of micro-evolution.
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"Can you even assert this, Lucullus, that there is some force, united I supposed
with providence and design, that has moulded or, to use your word, fabricated a
human being? What sort of workmanship is that? where was it applied? when? why?
how?" Cicero, Academica Priora II (Lucullus) xxvii.87
Augray
wrote in news:<1115248304.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>:
[big snip]
> Before 1859 (before Darwin's Origin), many scientists had questioned
> whether blacks were of the same species as whites, but they had no
> scientific basis for that notion. Things changed once Darwin presented
> his racist evolutionary schema. Darwin stated that African-Americans
> could not survive competition with their white near-relations, let
> alone being able to compete with the white race. According to Darwin,
> the African was inferior because he represented the missing-link"
> between ape and Teuton. (John C. Burham, Science, vol. 175 (February 4,
> 1972) p.506).
The above is a grotesque distortion of what Burham actually wrote.
Reviewing the book "Outcasts from Evolution: Scientific Attitudes of
Racial Inferiority, 1859-1900" by John S. Haller, he writes that:
Before 1859 many scientists had questioned whether blacks were of
the same species as whites. After 1859, the evolutionary schema
raised additional questions, particularly whether or not
Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white
near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no. Racial
inferiority, according to post-Civil-War scientists, included
marked physical defect. In 1903 a physician voiced the common
conclusion that "the American negro [would] never become firmly
established ... before disease and death ... thinned his ranks and
there would be no race problem." The Victorians and Progressives
took few actions to upgrade the status of blacks, therefore,
partially because every authority assured them that "the Negro
problem" would disappear--the inferior minority would perish
naturally and inevitably because it was inferior.
Some of the impact of Darwinism in buttressing racial suppression
was of this theoretical kind. The African was inferior because he
represented the "missing link" between ape and Teuton (a satisfying
resolution of the polygenist-monogenist debate about the origin of
races).
Note that there's no mention of Darwin being a racist (nor is there
elsewhere in the article), merely that Darwinism was used to buttress
racism. But that doesn't mean that it was appropriate to do so.
Ray's rant seems to be lifted from
http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=9544
but the use of the "=" in the original is pure Ray. Are Willowtree and
Ray Martinez the same person? I'd bet money on it. So why does
Ray/Willowtree need to lie to make a point?
[snip the rest]
cars...@webtv.net
excuse me, the apes has been found. They were discovered some time ago
working behind the counter at the department of motor vehicles.
Robert J. Kolker
>
>
> I'm gonna go with human nature as a product of evolution. YMMV.
I agree. Much of our Nature is wired in and a product of our genetic
heritage. We spend a good part of our lives overcomming the instrinsic
urges and getting past what our genes are telling us. We are, at best,
only partially successful at overcoming our inherencies.
Bob Kolker
AC
I don't really see that way at all. We are social animals, not tamed
solitary hunters. Our urges, by and large, appear to be to fit in with the
tribe (however big or small that may be). We tend to put ourselves in orbit
around individuals we see as strong leaders. Murdering members of our
tribe is counterproductive to our own survival, but murder of outsiders (for
various reasons trumped-up or real) has often been acceptable.
Robert J. Kolker
>
> I don't really see that way at all. We are social animals, not tamed
> solitary hunters.
Primates are generally not solitary hunters. Baboons work in packs in
defense of their children and mates. So do chimps. Ocassional
co-operation is a characteristic of many primates species including humans.
> Our urges, by and large, appear to be to fit in with the
> tribe (however big or small that may be). We tend to put ourselves in orbit
> around individuals we see as strong leaders. Murdering members of our
> tribe is counterproductive to our own survival, but murder of outsiders (for
> various reasons trumped-up or real) has often been acceptable.
Diplomacy is an indication of the opposite tendency (it does not always
work). Rather than kill the stranger on sight we sometimes try to sit
down and figure out what he wants and how we might arrange an accomodation.
Bob Kolker
AC
>>
>> I don't really see that way at all. We are social animals, not tamed
>> solitary hunters.
>
> Primates are generally not solitary hunters. Baboons work in packs in
> defense of their children and mates. So do chimps. Ocassional
> co-operation is a characteristic of many primates species including humans.
Looking at our very closest relatives, we see a lot more than occasional
co-operation. We see societies of some order, with hiearchies and complex
relationships between various members. We and the other African great ape
species are not occasional co-operators, but deeply social animals.
>> Our urges, by and large, appear to be to fit in with the
>> tribe (however big or small that may be). We tend to put ourselves in orbit
>> around individuals we see as strong leaders. Murdering members of our
>> tribe is counterproductive to our own survival, but murder of outsiders (for
>> various reasons trumped-up or real) has often been acceptable.
>
> Diplomacy is an indication of the opposite tendency (it does not always
> work). Rather than kill the stranger on sight we sometimes try to sit
> down and figure out what he wants and how we might arrange an accomodation.
Well, I don't think you can extrapolate this all the way up, and I'm not
going to try. I'm merely saying that our basic urges aren't necessarily
simply bloody and murderous, but that because of our hierarchical social
nature, we can as groups be manipulated into violent behavior.
Ray Martinez
The issue is ORIGINS and the origins of ToE/Darwinism is racism = why
the scant evidence is further refuted as bunk.
ROBERT K:
Evolution theory has nothing to say about the origins of life, but only
on modifications over time.
RAY M:
ET has nothing to say about origins ?
Lying with a straight face.
Or, obscene ignorance.
ToE says the God of the Bible is not the Creator.
In His place you Darwinists assert created things are our origin (apes,
reptiles, birds, etc etc.)
RAY M:
Darwin and company were racists.
ROBERT K:
Nonsense. Darwin was no racist.
RAY M:
The OP quotes refute you.
I noticed you completely ignored them.
RAY M:
This is ToE ORIGIN - its source.
Darwinism = "similarity" between apes and Africans = why it was
postulated to begin with. The racist features that Darwinian artists
place on hypothetical transitional hopeful monsters is sickening.
ROBERT K:
Darwin did not draw those pictures.
RAY M:
Never claimed he did as you know.
I said "Darwinian artists" did.
But Darwin was openly racist and the "transitional depictions" reflect
Darwin and the origin of his theory.
RAY M:
It doesn't matter what Darwinists claim - the origin of the idea that
humans evolved came about when the God of the Bible was rejected THEN
from this departure Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the similarity and the
theory was born - out of their racist minds.
ROBERT K:
Nonsense. Darwin actually got his ideas of modification through
selection from animal breeders.
RAY M:
The evidence and logic are irrefutable.
You, a Darwinist, would whitewash the origin of his idea for obvious
reasons.
Darwin is an admitted racist and if you can deduce obscure fossil
scraps to be anthropon transitional then you can deduce his racist mind
"seeing" the "similarity" between Africans and apes = idea born.
Its not a matter of opinion - just honesty.
Darwin's quotes, the racist features of transitional monsters, and the
God-less apostacy of Darwin logically demand the idea was rooted in
racism.
Darwin was a lip-service "theist" AKA atheist in reality. Funny how
after God is rejected as Creator his racist theory is born.
ROBERT K:
The Israelites regarded any Cana'anites they spared as hewers
of wood and drawers of water (it is in the Bible). The Israelites were
from time to time worshipers of the God Abreham, Isaac and Jacob, and
they had some pretty racist ideas. How does Chose People sound to you?
RAY M:
Severe illogic resorted to out of rage.
You are obviously an ignorant Darwinist lashing out at the Bible.
The Bible says Moses married an Ethiopian woman, Joseph married an
Egyptian which means the birthright children of Ephraim and Manasseh
were half black going out the gate.
Where is the racism ?
The book of Acts says Phillip (at the behest of the Spirit/God)
converted the Ethiopian eunuch and Mark was the Bishop of Alexandria
prior to being martyred there.
Where's the racism ?
ROBERT K:
The Brits had a totally racist attitude toward India well before Darwin
ever published a word about descent with modification. American
regarded
aboriginals a human garbarge long before Darwin published and slavery
by
American and English go back well before 1700.
RAY M:
Agreed.
You are arguing, "so were they" which implies our subject (Darwin) was
too, yet you have spent the entire content of your post asserting
Darwin was not a racist.
You can assert obscure fossils to be as needed but the quotes of Darwin
are not racist = liar or moron.
ROBERT K:
Believing Jews and Christians have had their racist moments. Crusades
anyone? And also the Bible was used to justify nigger slavery in the
South, before Darwin ever published. The Slave Lords of Dixie were all
Christian Gentlemen, every last one of them.
RAY M:
Agreed.
There are many sinners among christianity, but the issue is ORIGINS.
Christian origins show no racism, unlike the origins of Darwinism.
But then again, your rage has you saying, "what about...." which
implies guilt of our subject - Darwin.
Ray Martinez
Walter Bushell
> Pithecanthropus Erectus wrote:
> > John Wilkins wrote:
> >
> >
> >>John Vreeland wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 11:07:51 +1000, John Wilkins
> >>><j.wil...@uq.edu.au> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Geoff wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>IIRC he never finished...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>He preferred studying beatles.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Bob Kolker
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>Because the beatles were more popular than Jesus amongst his set?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I would have thought he preferred the other four.. You know, the
> >>>Monkeys.
> >>>
> >>
> >>They didn't develop on their own. It was all an artifice of the
> >>selection of promoters.
> >>
> >
> >
> > The Monkees were evidence of Design. Whether the designer in that case
> > was intelligent is an open question.
> >
> > We can make the case that including Michael Nesmaith is an indication of
> > intelligence, but then the addition of Peter Tork, Mickey Dolenz and
> > Davey Jones seems to contraindicate intelligence.
> >
> >
> >
> If the Monkees were designed, what was the Designer smoking at the time?
The point is the designer made a _lot_ of money, and gave further proof
that humans had other apes as their ancestors.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> ToE says the God of the Bible is not the Creator.
Please tell us the book & chapter where this is stated. Otherwise
reveal yourself as a liar.
Ray Martinez
RAY M:
Where does any Darwinist credit God as Creator ?
This is not a matter of opinion.
This is what the age-old debate is about.
You must resort to questioning the main disagreement of the evo-creo
debate.
In fact, if a Darwinist would assert or imply that ToE does not attempt
to falsify God as Creator, then by this we know you are a liar and
would not hesitate to lie about anything that proves God like IC
systems.
Ray Martinez
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>Racist Darwin
Nothing to post which hasn't been refuted many times? OK.
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bill Hudson
I see... the "Darwinists" must credit God as creator, but if they do, or
if they take a position that there is no conflict, then they are liars.
Seems to me you've just ducked the question, and attempted to
marginalize your opponents by calling them names. Please show us where
the ToE says that God doesn't exist.
Ray Martinez
It should be pointed out that the origins of the modern taxonomies of
race date from well before any evolutionary account.
MARTINEZ:
I didn't claim Darwin invented racism.
I supported the origins of Darwinism were racist.
You too have completely evaded the OP quotes by Darwin and his bulldog
Huxley.
I wonder why ?
But you can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be whatever but the clear
quotes of racism by Darwin and your deduction abilities evaporate.
My point: The refusal to admit Darwin a racist = dishonesty.
IF Darwinists are willing to lie to your face in lieu of irrefutable
evidence (quotes), then just think of what lies ToE contains packaged
as science.
What we don't know Darwinists will use against you.
Ray Martinez
Walter Bushell
> The Slave Lords of Dixie were all
> Christian Gentlemen, every last one of them.
None of them were Jewish? Have you checked. Thomas Jefferson seems to be
more of a Deist.
Walter Bushell
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Deadrat wrote:
>
> > they saw around them, which was a world of idolatry. Jews may take a
> > chauvinistic pride in what they claim is God's choice, but being "chosen"
> > conveys no special privileges, only extra duties. Not being chosen brings
> > carries no inherent penalties.
>
> Really? When Joshua and the Israelites entered the Holy Land they laid
> waste to 33 cities and spilled much blood. Read it. It is in the Book of
> Judges.
>
Modern scholarship refutes the conquest saga.
> At a later stage in Israelite history Ezra and Nehamiah importuned the
> Israelites to put away (divorce) their foreign (non-Jewish) wives. That
> sounds bigoted if not racist. But I am not here to beat up on Jews,
> since I am Jewish myself. I mearly point out that racist (in the broad
> sense) attitudes existed long, long before Darwin. Humans have a
> tendency to bifurcate the world into Us and Them. That is human nature
> at work, not Darwinism.
>
> Bob Kolker
Of course, one could become Jewish, but that required not only have part
on one's penis amputated, but even more the rejection of one's parents
as parents. What kinda Jew would do such a thing?
Ray Martinez
White boy, why DO you prattle on 'bout something y'all got no idea
about?
MARTINEZ:
I am Mexican.
But your comment equates to the inability to refute.
IOW, you are saying that these facts should be swept under the rug.
I agree in concept, BUT it is you Darwinists who have incessantly
argued the man/attempted poisoning the well in repsonse to refutation
of your theory.
I am giving you a taste of your own medicine.
Looks like you cannot take what you dish out.
When you all stop - I will stop.
I am a product of my environment - you can understand that can't you ?
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
Modern scholarship refutes the conquest saga.
RAY:
You mean atheist minimalists - what else could they conclude ?
The Conquest is long proven fact of history: Starting, 1414 BC
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
I see... the "Darwinists" must credit God as creator, but if they do,
or
if they take a position that there is no conflict, then they are liars.
MARTINEZ:
You are confusing and/or conflating Darwinists and TEists.
I will wait for your clarification.
Ray Martinez
AC
> WILKINS:
>
> It should be pointed out that the origins of the modern taxonomies of
> race date from well before any evolutionary account.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> I didn't claim Darwin invented racism.
>
> I supported the origins of Darwinism were racist.
>
> You too have completely evaded the OP quotes by Darwin and his bulldog
> Huxley.
>
> I wonder why ?
>
> But you can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be whatever but the clear
> quotes of racism by Darwin and your deduction abilities evaporate.
>
> My point: The refusal to admit Darwin a racist = dishonesty.
If Darwin had been a cannabilistic child molestor it wouldn't make a
difference to te theory. And certainly Darwin was no more racist than any
man of his day, an age when Irishmen were considered a different race and
left to starve while Christians in the British Parliament sat on storehouses
of corn.
I'm sorry, it just don't wash. If the personality and beliefs of scientists
were to be used against a theory, then can you imagine the state of things?
Galileo was an arrogant prick, and Sir Isaac Newton may very well stand as
being the most ill-tempered, mean-spirited and veangeful scientist in
history. Why aren't you railing on against geocentrism and Newtonian
mechanics?
But please, continue to show us how anti-science and how anti-Christian you
are.
<snip>
Matthew Isleb
> I am giving you a taste of your own medicine.
>
> Looks like you cannot take what you dish out.
>
> When you all stop - I will stop.
>
> I am a product of my environment - you can understand that can't you ?
Oh, I get it! You are some kind of Zen robot usenet puppet programmed to
to dish out karmic justice. It all makes sense now...
-matthew
Lt. Kizhe Catson
> HUDSON:
>
> I see... the "Darwinists" must credit God as creator, but if they do,
> or
> if they take a position that there is no conflict, then they are liars.
>
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> You are confusing and/or conflating Darwinists and TEists.
I think you are using a private definition of "Darwinist". Perhaps you
could share it with us?
-- Kizhe
Mark Isaak
wrote:
>Racist Darwin
Sorry. He was very much less of a bigot than you are.
>Nazi's: Jews were not fit to survive.
At least one creationist group, the BAV, has published a Holocaust
denial book, _The Holocaust Hoax_ by Harun Yahya. From the
introduction:
"In short, with the Holocaust story we are confronted by a very
fishy version of history. This "history" is a hoax, devised by the
state of Israel and its Western collaborators to veil Israel's illicit
policies, and to justify its sordid actions. When the actual
historical facts are exposed, the history of Israel and Zionism stands
revealed as even more corrupt than ever suspected."
I downloaded the first edition from www.harunyahya.org. It doesn't
appear to be there anymore, but a version in Turkish is still there at
http://www.harunyahya.org/kitap/soykirimp/soykirimicindekiler.html. I
cannot read Turkish, but I do find it interesting that Yahya cites
modern American creationists in the introduction (Henry Morris, The
Long War Against God; and Francis Schaeffer, How Shall We Then Live?).
Can anyone here give the context for the citation? They do not appear
in the first edition that I downloaded, which was written before the
American creationists started supporting Yahya's group.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Robert J. Kolker
> None of them were Jewish? Have you checked. Thomas Jefferson seems to be
> more of a Deist.
That is true, but the Slave Lords of Dixie 50 years up the line (circa
1850) were Christian Gentlemen. They even used the bible to justify
their Abomination.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
> TANG:
>
> White boy, why DO you prattle on 'bout something y'all got no idea
> about?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> I am Mexican.
You have my condolences.
Bob Kolker
AC
AC
> TANG:
>
> White boy, why DO you prattle on 'bout something y'all got no idea
> about?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> I am Mexican.
How I pity Mexico.
>
> But your comment equates to the inability to refute.
Why, because you say so?
>
> IOW, you are saying that these facts should be swept under the rug.
We're saying you should be swept under a rug.
>
> I agree in concept, BUT it is you Darwinists who have incessantly
> argued the man/attempted poisoning the well in repsonse to refutation
> of your theory.
Thus far I haven't seen a refutation, particularly not from you.
>
> I am giving you a taste of your own medicine.
Like anyone's scared.
>
> Looks like you cannot take what you dish out.
All we have to do is sit here and marvel at your arroganc and, dishonesty.
>
> When you all stop - I will stop.
We're not going to stop, Ray.
>
> I am a product of my environment - you can understand that can't you ?
I have no doubt of that.
Deadrat
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115329319.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Ray, the curse of the Pharaoh has blinded you to the fact that Darwin's
quotes about primitive tribes was said with *regret* Your refusal to
admit this shows that the curse is still upon you. Admit that the GP is
manmade
and your eyes will be open to the truth.
Deadrat
Deadrat
"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:3dvk5p...@individual.net...
Deadrat
R. Tang
AC <mightym...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 5 May 2005 14:49:03 -0700,
>Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> TANG:
>>
>> White boy, why DO you prattle on 'bout something y'all got no idea
>> about?
>>
>> MARTINEZ:
>>
>> I am Mexican.
Yeah. Suuuuuure.
Talking about Darwin being a racist, and never noticing his fellow
Englishmen?
Yeah, right. Pull the other one.
--
-
-Roger Tang, gwan...@u.washington.edu, Artistic Director PC Theatre
- Editor, Asian American Theatre Revue [NEW URL][Yes, it IS new]
- http://www.aatrevue.com
Boikat
> OPPONENT:
>
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> ToE says the God of the Bible is not the Creator.
>
> Please tell us the book & chapter where this is stated. Otherwise
> reveal yourself as a liar.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Where does any Darwinist credit God as Creator ?
Read the last paragraph of the last chapter of The Origin of Species".
>
> This is not a matter of opinion.
True. It's there in black and white.
>
> This is what the age-old debate is about.
Then the debate is over.
>
> You must resort to questioning the main disagreement of the evo-creo
> debate.
The "main disagreement" in the "evo-creo" debate is "why should the
religious beliefs of a bunch of bronze aged sheep herders be taken as
science?"
>
> In fact, if a Darwinist would assert or imply that ToE does not attempt
> to falsify God as Creator, then by this we know you are a liar and
> would not hesitate to lie about anything that proves God like IC
> systems.
The way creationists lie about practically everything?
Boikat
--
<42><
Deadrat
> TWEEDY:
>
> Creationists love to play the race card with all the enthusiasm of a
> penny ante gambler drawing to an inside straight.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Only in response to your ad homs as is seen in your quote above.
>
> Seems you cannot tolerate a taste of your own medicine.
>
> When the presentation of the voluminous evidence of history proving the
> descendants of 10 Tribe Israel ended up in Britain and Scandanavia,
Funny. They don't *look* Swedish.
> which prove God kept all His promises to Abraham and David, atheists
> spam the evidence with British Israelism race card.
>
> Nevermind that BI are racists who adopt certain evidence for their
> racist endeavors, but atheists don't care, they want the whole thing
> branded as racist because it proves the Deity of the Bible in control
> of history.
>
> All evidence to this end PREDATES BI but once again, atheists don't
> care, they assassinate by innuendo because the truth of who the
> British peoples are and the fact that it proves the entire O.T.
> infuriates them.
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> Darwin is often presented as being a vicious racist, and by
> implication anything he touches is tainted by association.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> The OP quotes and arguments prove he was just that - not a matter of
> opinion.
>
The OP thinks that the word "Races" in the title of Darwin's book refers
to different skin colors of human beings. That's wrong. Why should we
take anything as evidence from something that ignorant?
> You have conspicuously evaded the quotes and logical conclusions.
>
> You are asserting Darwin not a racist contrary to the OP.
>
The OP's assertions don't make Darwin a racist, as though it mattered.
> Assertions do not negate the OP quotes nor will they make them go away.
>
> Whitewashing the quotes will not release Darwin from being a racist.
>
Refusing to understand the language that Darwin employed makes you
ignnorant, not Darwin.
> Richard Milton (atheist): "Darwin was openly racist" "Shattering the
> Myths of Darwinism" [1997]
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> Like most Creationist claims, the link between
> evolution and racism is based on nothing but fraud and deceit.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Bare assertion.
>
> Where is your argument/evidence ?
>
> Tweedy provided none because he wants us to take his word on it despite
> the quotes of Darwin admitting he was a racist.
>
What? The quote about civilized people wiping out primitive tribes?
It was an observation that turned out to have a lot of truth. Darwin
wasn't endorsing it.
> TWEEDY:
>
> The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> It is atheist philosophy packaged as science.
>
> It presupposes the God of the Bible does not exist and every conclusion
> reflects this philosophic assumption.
>
> Assumptions are not evidence.
That sound was the irony meter exploding.
>
> ToE is an explanation of scientific data as opposed to being a
> scientific theory.
>
> Creationism is the same: Explanation of the same scientific facts
> presupposing the God of the Bible the Creator.
>
You see, Ray, as soon as you presuppose God, it ain't science.
By definition.
> TWEEDY:
>
> Racism existed long before there was a theory of
> evolution
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Deliberate misrepresentation.
>
> Nobody argued ToE originated racism.
>
> The evidence says racism is the origin of Darwinism/ToE.
>
If you knew anything about Darwin, you'd know that the
ToE had more to do with barnacles than with human beings.
> If Tweedy is willing to misrepresent this, then watch out - the devil
> is in the details of his atheist creation myth.
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> There is no support for the idea of racial superiority in the theory of
> evolution
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> The OP quotes of Darwin and his cohorts refute you.
>
Sorry, Ray. Darwin didn't say that civilized people were superior
to primitives. He just pointed out that contact with civilized people
generally doomed primitive tribes. Was he wrong?
> Why have you evaded these quotes ?
>
> Perhaps they don't mean what they say ?
>
> According to you the Bible does not mean what it says, maybe Darwin
> didn't mean what he said ?
>
> If Darwin didn't mean what he said about Africans, then why do you take
> him at face value in his scientific postulations ?
>
> You must assert something does not mean what it says when it is not
> politically correct, but when it supports something you like it
> evidently does = corruption of a hypocrite.
>
> Funny how you are only a "literalist" when it is seen to support
> something that is interpreted against the Bible ?
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> So, was Darwin a racist? By modern standards, yes he was.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Finally admitted with the whitewash qualification.
>
> But the ONLY issue is the origin of the idea of human evolution:
>
> The OP arguments and evidence show Darwin's racist mind conceived the
> idea AFTER God was rejected as Creator - my only point.
No, no Ray. Your "arguments" and "evidence" were conceived only
after you rejected the fact that the Great Pyramid was manmade -- *my* only
point.
>
> My next point: ToE has scant evidence and is philosophic
> presuppositional based on a worldview NEED for the Bible to be seen as
> falsified.
>
> This starting premise predeterimines the conclusions each step of the
> way.
>
> God is excluded under the phony guise of neutrality (Rational
> Enquiry/Methodological Naturalism), this exclusion produces all of its
> conclusions assuming atheist philosophy as settled empirical fact.
>
> The only reason Darwin went looking for another explanation for the
> origin of species is because he rejected God as Creator.
>
And then he did all that unnecessary gathering of evidence, huh?
I hate it when that happens.
> This rejection is seen in every Darwinian conclusion and of course the
> dishonesty here is the naturalist philosophy assumed as scientific
> fact.
>
> Well, the Bible says believing created things to be the product of
> other created things and not God is a penalty from God = scant evidence
> for ToE held as fact explained.
>
Well, no it doesn't as I've pointed out to you before. You've
fallen under the Pharaoh's curse.
> TWEEDY:
>
> Creationists are fond of pointing to the full title of Darwin's most
> famous work, "Origin of Species by Natural Selection or the
> Preservation of
> Favored Races in the Struggle for Survival", ignoring the fact that the
>
> phrase "Favored Races" does not refer to any of the human "races", but
> to
> populations of individual organisms.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> You just admitted Darwin a racist now here comes the intelligence
> insulting whitewash.
>
> IOW, you are attempting to portray the racism of Darwin a lesser shade
> of gray = whitewash.
Because whatever prejudices Darwin adopted had nothing to do with
the title of his book? Just a guess.
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> The point is that Darwin never proposed race hatred.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> His quotes are the epitome of hatred - only a Darwinist would attempt
> this gross slap in the face.
>
Whatever prejudices Darwin held (and you are hopeless at actually
documenting them), he was not a hater (He opposed slavery.), and
I challenge you to show anything hateful in anything he wrote.
> If we were talking about a Protestant preacher you would be making my
> argument in reverse you hypocrite.
>
> Subsequent Darwinists like the Nazi's used his theories as the
> rationale to conduct genocide.
>
Darwin (and Darwinists, by which I take it you mean biologists) aren't
responsible for ignorant people who misuse science. Just as Egyptologists
aren't responsible for the beliefs of Pyramidologists.
> What extremes a person will resort to in order to rationalize racism
> for the single intent of preserving the indefensible philosophy of
> Darwinism and its nefarious origin.
>
Heisenberg worked for the Nazis. Do we thereby abandon the
exclusion principle?
Deadrat
> Ray Martinez
>
shane
Von Braun worked for them also, so in fact the U.S. couldn't land men on
the moon. :)
--
shane
And the truth shall set you free.
Ray Martinez
What does Darwin's racism have to do with Lincoln ?
Answer: What you are saying: "Lincoln too" which implies Darwin was.
The difference between Darwin and Lincoln:
Lincoln freed the slaves under the authority of a legal document called
the Constitution, a contract produced by men who owned slaves.
The Constitution has preserved the greatest nation of all time.
Darwin's racism was the origin of his theory: He saw the "similarity"
between Africans and apes AFTER rejecting God as Creator/dropping out
of Divinity school.
His theory produced the Nazi's, fascists, and muderous Marxists.
His theory empowered and educated a phony theist judge to deem T.
Schiavo unfit to survive.
Darwin produced rationale for death.
The F.F. under God produced a contract that all races enjoy freedom
under.
Your argument is:
"So was thus and such".
At least you admitted - thats all I wanted.
Ray Martinez
Matthew Isleb
>> There is no support for the idea of racial superiority in the theory of
>> evolution
>>
>> MARTINEZ:
>>
>> The OP quotes of Darwin and his cohorts refute you.
>>
>
> Sorry, Ray. Darwin didn't say that civilized people were superior
> to primitives. He just pointed out that contact with civilized people
> generally doomed primitive tribes. Was he wrong?
Darwin didn't call them "primitive." He called them "savages."
Although I do understand taht this may not have been quite the negative
statement it is today (relatively speaking). He also goes on to place
negros as a "link" between Teutons and apes. I don't think he used
the word "superior," but what he did say is pretty darn close. Darwin's
regret about the extinction of the "savages," as
far as I can tell, was that we wouldn't be able to study them as
the link between white people and apes.
I'm not defending Ray, mind you. I don't think that Darwin being a
racist in any way makes his theories wrong or bad, but it does sound like
you are trying to whitewash the quotes. The Huxley quotes are particularly
damning. But that is neither here nor there.
-matthew
Augray
wrote in news:<1115329319.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> WILKINS:
>
> It should be pointed out that the origins of the modern taxonomies of
> race date from well before any evolutionary account.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> I didn't claim Darwin invented racism.
>
> I supported the origins of Darwinism were racist.
>
> You too have completely evaded the OP quotes by Darwin and his bulldog
> Huxley.
>
> I wonder why ?
Because at least one of them is a lie, and the others probably are as
well. See news:3q3k71d65ee1o6cm0...@4ax.com
> But you can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be whatever but the clear
> quotes of racism by Darwin and your deduction abilities evaporate.
>
> My point: The refusal to admit Darwin a racist = dishonesty.
Are you claiming to have been scrupulously honest?
> IF Darwinists are willing to lie to your face in lieu of irrefutable
> evidence (quotes), then just think of what lies ToE contains packaged
> as science.
Hence, your own lies are ample reason to discount everything you post.
> What we don't know Darwinists will use against you.
Why are you describing yourself?
> Ray Martinez
Robert J. Kolker
> Lincoln freed the slaves under the authority of a legal document called
> the Constitution, a contract produced by men who owned slaves.
He only freed some of the slaves, those in the Confederate States in a
state or rebellion. Slaves in Delware and West Virginia were not freed.
>
> The Constitution has preserved the greatest nation of all time.
>
> Darwin's racism was the origin of his theory: He saw the "similarity"
> between Africans and apes AFTER rejecting God as Creator/dropping out
> of Divinity school.
>
> His theory produced the Nazi's, fascists, and muderous Marxists.
Nonsense. Fascists modelled themselves after the Romans, particularly
the Italian Fascists. Marx never used Darwin as a jump off point. He
turned Hegel on his head.
>
> His theory empowered and educated a phony theist judge to deem T.
> Schiavo unfit to survive.
Nonsense. Terri expressed a desire not to be maintained in a vegitative
state. The courts upheld her wish.
>
> Darwin produced rationale for death.
Nonsense.
>
> The F.F. under God produced a contract that all races enjoy freedom
> under.
Jefferson, the slave owner who never freed a single slave he owned was
one of the Founders. He had a bad conscience about slavery, but not
enough to give it up. In fact we had to have the bloodiest war in our
history, the Civil War, to finally resolve the matter of slavery. Half
the founders were Slave Lords.
Your grasp of history leaves something to be desired. But what the hell,
you are a Mexican Grease Ball. What do you know? You have too much oil
in your head and it is clogging up your brains.
Bob Kolker
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1115334642.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> TWEEDY:
>
> Creationists love to play the race card with all the enthusiasm of a
> penny ante gambler drawing to an inside straight.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Only in response to your ad homs as is seen in your quote above.
What ad hominem is that? Do you deny that Creationists attempt to play the
race card?
>
> Seems you cannot tolerate a taste of your own medicine.
Such as?
>
> When the presentation of the voluminous evidence of history proving the
> descendants of 10 Tribe Israel ended up in Britain and Scandanavia,
> which prove God kept all His promises to Abraham and David, atheists
> spam the evidence with British Israelism race card.
What "voluminous" evidence is that? Is this something else you have made
up? What is the "British Israelism" race card? I've never heard of such
a thing.
>
> Nevermind that BI are racists who adopt certain evidence for their
> racist endeavors, but atheists don't care, they want the whole thing
> branded as racist because it proves the Deity of the Bible in control
> of history.
What does this have to do with the fact you are playing (rather badly at
that) the "race card" in your accusations about evolution?
>
> All evidence to this end PREDATES BI but once again, atheists don't
> care, they assassinate by innuendo because the truth of who the
> British peoples are and the fact that it proves the entire O.T.
> infuriates them.
What does this have to do with your accusations of racism against Charles
Darwin? What "evidence" do you have for your assertions?
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> Darwin is often presented as being a vicious racist, and by
> implication anything he touches is tainted by association.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> The OP quotes and arguments prove he was just that - not a matter of
> opinion.
the "OP" quotes are taken out of context, a form of lie of omission.
>
> You have conspicuously evaded the quotes and logical conclusions.
Actually, if you had read my post, you'd see I took on the misquotes
directly. They were taken out of context, and do not indicate that Darwin
spread race hatred.
>
> You are asserting Darwin not a racist contrary to the OP.
Actually, if you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I admit that by
modern standards, Darwin was racist. That does not mean that his theory is
based on racism.
>
> Assertions do not negate the OP quotes nor will they make them go away.
Likewise assertions do not support the "OP" quotes that were taken out of
context.
>
> Whitewashing the quotes will not release Darwin from being a racist.
Again, if you'd read what I wrote, you'd see I don't "whitewash" either the
quotes, or Darwin's racial attitudes. The simple fact is they aren't what
you are trying to make them.
>
> Richard Milton (atheist): "Darwin was openly racist" "Shattering the
> Myths of Darwinism" [1997]
Again, this quote appears to be taken out of context. In any case,
Darwin's racial opinions have nothing to do with the validity of the theory.
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> Like most Creationist claims, the link between
> evolution and racism is based on nothing but fraud and deceit.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Bare assertion.
Supported by evidence.
>
> Where is your argument/evidence ?
You have to read the article, not just go on a rant without any
understanding.
>
> Tweedy provided none because he wants us to take his word on it despite
> the quotes of Darwin admitting he was a racist.
Apparently you didn't read what I wrote.
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> The theory of evolution is a scientific theory.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> It is atheist philosophy packaged as science.
No, it's a scientific theory. Mere assertions don't change that fact.
>
> It presupposes the God of the Bible does not exist and every conclusion
> reflects this philosophic assumption.
Wrong. It does not presuppose any such a thing. The conclusions of the
theory are based on physical evidence.
>
> Assumptions are not evidence.
Neither are bald assertions. Darwin provided evidence to support his
theory. You have offered nothing but assertions.
>
> ToE is an explanation of scientific data as opposed to being a
> scientific theory.
A scientific theory is an explanation of scientific data, which is testable
and falsifiable. That's what the term means.
>
> Creationism is the same: Explanation of the same scientific facts
> presupposing the God of the Bible the Creator.
Creationism is a religious belief, that is not testable,or falsifiable.
It's not anything like a scientific theory.
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> Racism existed long before there was a theory of
> evolution
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Deliberate misrepresentation.
No, simple truth.
>
> Nobody argued ToE originated racism.
Ray, are you calling yourself a nobody?
>
> The evidence says racism is the origin of Darwinism/ToE.
No, that's your assertion, which you have not supported.
>
> If Tweedy is willing to misrepresent this, then watch out - the devil
> is in the details of his atheist creation myth.
I'm not an atheist, as I've told you before. Why are you misrepresenting
Darwin and his beliefs?
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> There is no support for the idea of racial superiority in the theory of
> evolution
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> The OP quotes of Darwin and his cohorts refute you.
The "OP" quotes say nothing of the sort. If you disagree, please show me
where they say that.
>
> Why have you evaded these quotes ?
I have not. I explained the context of the quotes, and why they don't say
what you want them to.
>
> Perhaps they don't mean what they say ?
Perhaps you have quoted out of context to alter the meaning.
>
> According to you the Bible does not mean what it says, maybe Darwin
> didn't mean what he said ?
When did I ever say either? You, by the way are the one claiming the
Bible contains heresy, and doesn't mean what it says.
>
> If Darwin didn't mean what he said about Africans, then why do you take
> him at face value in his scientific postulations ?
Darwin said nothing about Africans being inferior to any other population of
humans. You are believing your own lies. And I don't take anything at
face value, I expect to see evidence.
>
> You must assert something does not mean what it says when it is not
> politically correct, but when it supports something you like it
> evidently does = corruption of a hypocrite.
I never claimed that Darwin was politically correct. And may I remind you,
it's you who claimed that the book of James was heresy when it was something
you didn't like. Again, Darwin was a man of his times. He was racist,
by modern standards, but he never supported race hatred, and he was much
less racist than many other naturalists of his time, including many
Creationists. His words have been taken out of context by liars and
charlatains to create a false impression.
>
> Funny how you are only a "literalist" when it is seen to support
> something that is interpreted against the Bible ?
When did I ever claim to be a literalist? And where did I ever support
anything against the Bible?
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> So, was Darwin a racist? By modern standards, yes he was.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Finally admitted with the whitewash qualification.
Read what I wrote. No whitewash was offered.
>
> But the ONLY issue is the origin of the idea of human evolution:
Which was based on Darwin's observations of the natural world, not on his
racial beliefs.
>
> The OP arguments and evidence show Darwin's racist mind conceived the
> idea AFTER God was rejected as Creator - my only point.
The out of context quotations show that modern people can lie by omission.
Darwin did not reject God as a creator, and racism was not what influenced
his theory. You are simply wrong, and too prideful to admit you error.
>
> My next point: ToE has scant evidence and is philosophic
> presuppositional based on a worldview NEED for the Bible to be seen as
> falsified.
That point is false, like your other claims. Darwin did not seek to
falsify the Bible. The theory of evolution is supported by a great deal of
evidence, from many different fields. Your rejection of that evidence is
beside the point. You have blinded yourself to the evidence, so it cannot
exist for you.
>
> This starting premise predeterimines the conclusions each step of the
> way.
However your premise is faulty. Darwin did not seek to deny God. He
wasn't influenced by racist motives, as even the most open minded individual
can see the obvious similarites between all humans and other apes.
>
> God is excluded under the phony guise of neutrality (Rational
> Enquiry/Methodological Naturalism), this exclusion produces all of its
> conclusions assuming atheist philosophy as settled empirical fact.
God is not excluded by science. Science simply does not deal with God at
all.
>
> The only reason Darwin went looking for another explanation for the
> origin of species is because he rejected God as Creator.
The reason Darwin went looking was his insatiable curiousity about life.
The evidence had already contradicted a literal reading of Genesis, long
before Charles Darwin was even born.
>
> This rejection is seen in every Darwinian conclusion and of course the
> dishonesty here is the naturalist philosophy assumed as scientific
> fact.
Your premise is faulty. Scientists do not reject God, they just do not
make any assumptions about a untestable supernatural influence.
>
> Well, the Bible says believing created things to be the product of
> other created things and not God is a penalty from God = scant evidence
> for ToE held as fact explained.
There is an enormous amount of evidence that supports evolution. You simply
ignore that evidence because it proves you wrong.
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> Creationists are fond of pointing to the full title of Darwin's most
> famous work, "Origin of Species by Natural Selection or the
> Preservation of
> Favored Races in the Struggle for Survival", ignoring the fact that the
>
> phrase "Favored Races" does not refer to any of the human "races", but
> to
> populations of individual organisms.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> You just admitted Darwin a racist now here comes the intelligence
> insulting whitewash.
The fact remains, Darwin was not talking about human races by the use of
that term. He was talking about populations of organisms. You are aware,
are you not that language changes over time, and the language that Darwin
used in the mid 1800's has altered it meanings slightly. By "Races"
Darwin meant populations, which is obvious from the context. Alas,
Creationists love to ignore context.
>
> IOW, you are attempting to portray the racism of Darwin a lesser shade
> of gray = whitewash.
No, I'm pointing out that your assertion is based on a falsehood. Darwin
did not mean human races, it's that simple.
>
> TWEEDY:
>
> The point is that Darwin never proposed race hatred.
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> His quotes are the epitome of hatred - only a Darwinist would attempt
> this gross slap in the face.
How are they "the epitome of hatred"? Look what he said, in the proper
context. Darwin was not advocating race hatred, the suggestion that he was
is based on hatred of Darwin, and his successful theory.
>
> If we were talking about a Protestant preacher you would be making my
> argument in reverse you hypocrite.
My father was a Protestant preacher. I don't make accusations like that
lightly, and neither should you.
>
> Subsequent Darwinists like the Nazi's used his theories as the
> rationale to conduct genocide.
No scientist is responsible for the misuse of his work. In any case, the
Nazis were using a bastardized version of Lamarckian evolution, based on the
"chain of being" nonsense, which I described in my post. Describing the
Nazis as "Darwinists" is a gross misunderstanding of both Darwin and the
Nazis.
>
> What extremes a person will resort to in order to rationalize racism
> for the single intent of preserving the indefensible philosophy of
> Darwinism and its nefarious origin.
What indeed. Look how much hatred of a good man, and his life's work has
warped you.
DJT
Ray Martinez
So let's talk about the pogroms, genocides, mass murders, tortures,
etc... that used justifications from the bible and figure out if the
author (you know who I mean, the big G) was racist (against even his
chosen people!). I guess we should throw the bible out too.
RAY M:
Good point.
But you are evading what the OP said and evidenced:
Kooks invading the Bible for rationale is a non-sequitur to the fact
that racism is the origin of the Darwinian idea of human evolution.
This fact further supports how false the idea is especially since it is
"supported" by scant evidence entirely existing in a naturalist/atheist
presuppositional philosophy packaged as science.
Strip away the assumptions of naturalist viewpoints and we have
literally scant highly subjective fossils which only say what a
prejudicial storyteller wants said.
The need for the naturalist to falsify the Bible accounts for their
interpretation of this diminutive inventory of bones.
Then we have similarity at the molecular level = evolution if your
presuppositions are naturalist and one Almighty Creator if they are
supernaturalist.
The explanation for Darwinism/atheism in the Bible trumps the
naturalist view and interpretation.
RONIN:
Darwin was one of very very few to make the break away from divine
intent and, again, evolution had already been bandied about. So to say
that the atheism had to come 1st seems like some major BS to me.
RAY M:
Your statement above contradicts:
Darwin broke away from Divine intent
Atheism first = bs.
Why are atheists so ashamed of the fact that Darwin was an atheist
convert/theist apostate ?
Answer: You are not ashamed - you just want Biblical support or
neutrality for your theory.
Where is God in your theory ?
RM
Geoff
> TANG:
>
> White boy, why DO you prattle on 'bout something y'all got no idea
> about?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> I am Mexican.
Oh...I thought you lived in LA
Matthew Isleb
> RONIN:
>
> So let's talk about the pogroms, genocides, mass murders, tortures,
> etc... that used justifications from the bible and figure out if the
> author (you know who I mean, the big G) was racist (against even his
> chosen people!). I guess we should throw the bible out too.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Good point.
>
> But you are evading what the OP said and evidenced:
>
> Kooks invading the Bible for rationale is a non-sequitur to the fact
> that racism is the origin of the Darwinian idea of human evolution.
First you acknowledge that he has a good point. Then you go on some rant
having nothing to do with what was said. What do you think that says about
your position?
-matthew
Matthew Isleb
>> The F.F. under God produced a contract that all races enjoy freedom
>> under.
>
> Jefferson, the slave owner who never freed a single slave he owned was
> one of the Founders. He had a bad conscience about slavery, but not
> enough to give it up. In fact we had to have the bloodiest war in our
> history, the Civil War, to finally resolve the matter of slavery. Half
> the founders were Slave Lords.
>
Then there is the problematic issue of Native Americans. Not
only is "the greatest country in the world" based on slavery, but also
genocide. Where the heck did Ray learn his history?
-matthew
John Harshman
> John:
>
> What does Darwin's racism have to do with Lincoln ?
>
> Answer: What you are saying: "Lincoln too" which implies Darwin was.
If you hadn't snipped everything I said, you would have seen I didn't
imply anything. Darwin was racist, just like Lincoln. What of it?
> The difference between Darwin and Lincoln:
>
> Lincoln freed the slaves under the authority of a legal document called
> the Constitution, a contract produced by men who owned slaves.
>
> The Constitution has preserved the greatest nation of all time.
>
> Darwin's racism was the origin of his theory: He saw the "similarity"
> between Africans and apes AFTER rejecting God as Creator/dropping out
> of Divinity school.
>
> His theory produced the Nazi's, fascists, and muderous Marxists.
>
> His theory empowered and educated a phony theist judge to deem T.
> Schiavo unfit to survive.
>
> Darwin produced rationale for death.
This is all merely the product of your psychotic imagination, including
the stuff about Lincoln. Pretty much nothing you say above is true.
Lincoln freed the slaves only in those states then in rebellion, and his
authority for doing it was nebulous; if it had undergone a test in the
supreme court, I have no idea how it would have gone, and neither do
you. Darwin's racism had nothing to do with his theory. He came up with
it long before rejecting god. And he graduates from divinity school.
Nazis, fascists, and marxists have nothing to do with Darwin, nor does
the judge in the Schiavo case. Darwin's theory is not a rationale for
anything except scientific research.
> The F.F. under God produced a contract that all races enjoy freedom
> under.
F.F.? Fantastic Four? Oh, founding fathers. No, they produced a contract
under which some races count as 3/5 of a person for purposes of
determining electoral votes, but were otherwise entirely
disenfranchised, not to mention being enslaved. It took a civil war and
three constitutional amendments before that freedom was even theoretical.
> Your argument is:
>
> "So was thus and such".
>
> At least you admitted - thats all I wanted.
You are oblivious to rational argument. Was Lincoln racist? Does
Darwin's racism invalidate his science? If so, why?
John Harshman
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>>Lincoln freed the slaves under the authority of a legal document called
>>the Constitution, a contract produced by men who owned slaves.
>
>
> He only freed some of the slaves, those in the Confederate States in a
> state or rebellion. Slaves in Delware and West Virginia were not freed.
Nor Maryland, Kentucky, or Missouri. In fact I don't think the slaves in
those parts of the Confederacy then under Union administration (e.g. New
Orleans) were freed either.
[snip]
John Harshman
From the Great Pumpkin, I mean Pyramid.
Deadrat
"Matthew Isleb" <mis...@lNO.SPAMonshore.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.05.06...@lNO.SPAMonshore.com...
I have no doubt that Darwin held many of the views of his society,
especially as regards the superiority of things English. It is a mistake
however, to view Darwin through the lens of our own society's race
relations. It's as large a mistake to impute our views of Darwin's
inner convictions totally based on modern parsing of Darwin's language.
Did Darwin regret that "savages" would become extinct because he
wouldn't be able to study them? I don't know. Neither do you. All
he said was that civilization wiped out primitives, a perfectly correct
observation. Ray, of course, makes the more foolish mistake of thinking
that "Races" in the Darwin's title refers to human skin color.
In Darwin's time the divide of enlightenment was the issue of slavery.
I wonder when Ray will get around to addressing Darwin's position on
that.
Deadrat
> -matthew
>
>
Deadrat
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
<snip>
> Your grasp of history leaves something to be desired. But what the hell,
> you are a Mexican Grease Ball. What do you know? You have too much oil
> in your head and it is clogging up your brains.
>
Sorry, but you're out of bounds. Ray's mind is clogged by fundamentalism.
This has nothing to do with his being Mexican, and you've got no business
deriding his background.
Deadrat
> Bob Kolker
>
VoiceOfReason
Ray Martinez wrote:
> OPPONENT:
>
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> ToE says the God of the Bible is not the Creator.
>
> Please tell us the book & chapter where this is stated. Otherwise
> reveal yourself as a liar.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Where does any Darwinist credit God as Creator ?
I do. God is the creator of our souls. But that isn't what I asked,
is it?
> This is not a matter of opinion.
>
> This is what the age-old debate is about.
>
> You must resort to questioning the main disagreement of the evo-creo
> debate.
>
> In fact, if a Darwinist would assert or imply that ToE does not
attempt
> to falsify God as Creator, then by this we know you are a liar and
> would not hesitate to lie about anything that proves God like IC
> systems.
I asked you for the book & chapter where "ToE says the God of the Bible
is not the Creator," and you dodged it and quickly changed the subject.
You reveal yourself to be a liar, and all your God talk is shameless
hypocrisy.
You think IC will "prove" God exists? Why do you need PROOF? Is your
faith so pitifully weak? Of all the Christians I know who accept the
fact of evolution, *none* of them has faith so weak as the average
creationist here.
Deadrat
> John:
>
> What does Darwin's racism have to do with Lincoln ?
>
> Answer: What you are saying: "Lincoln too" which implies Darwin was.
>
> The difference between Darwin and Lincoln:
>
> Lincoln freed the slaves under the authority of a legal document called
> the Constitution, a contract produced by men who owned slaves.
>
Lincoln didn't free any slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation applied
only to the CSA, which, of course, didn't recognize it as force of law and
ignored it.
> The Constitution has preserved the greatest nation of all time.
>
> Darwin's racism was the origin of his theory: He saw the "similarity"
> between Africans and apes AFTER rejecting God as Creator/dropping out
> of Divinity school.
Darwin's racism had absolutely nothing to do with the origin of his
theory. His observations on the voyage of the Beagle, his study of
barnacles, and his study of the breeding of domestic animals led him
to his theory. Do you do any reading?
>
> His theory produced the Nazi's, fascists, and muderous Marxists.
>
So the ToE, rather than, say, the Treaty of Versailles, gave rise to
Nazism? Do you ever read anything?
> His theory empowered and educated a phony theist judge to deem T.
> Schiavo unfit to survive.
That theist judge was, as I recall, a Southern Baptist. He probably
didn't even belive in the ToE.
>
> Darwin produced rationale for death.
>
> The F.F. under God produced a contract that all races enjoy freedom
> under.
>
The FF produced a contract that only white males enjoyed the benefits
from. Do you ever, ever do any reading?
> Your argument is:
>
> "So was thus and such".
>
> At least you admitted - thats all I wanted.
>
The Pharaoh's curse, Ray. Beware!
Deadrat
> Ray Martinez
>
Ray Martinez
They were not the first to hold that idea, alas. Anti-Jewish pogroms
and
expulsions, often fueled by the charge that the Jews were
"Christ-killers,"
were a recurrent feature of Christian Europe. Martin Luther published
screeds against the Jews not much milder than those favored by Hitler,
and
vowed that if any Jew came to him for baptism, he would do so by tying
a
millstone about the Jew's neck and dropping him in a river.
RAY M:
You are attempting to rationalize Darwin's racism.
God used Luther to spark the Protestant Reformation.
Newton was a slave trader. Just off the coast of Africa he got caught
in a storm and cried out to God for mercy. When ashore he let his human
cargo go free. Then he penned the most famous hymn in Church history,
"Amazing Grace".
The point is: Luther, Newton, and myself are pieces of shit.
God forgives and uses pieces of shit.
But if you deny His existence your racism produces the imfamous theory
of human origins which refuses to credit God as Creator. This refusal
triggers the penalty and is the only spectacular fact accounting as to
why so many people believe the most insane notion that man evolved from
an animal over millions of years.
RAY M:
The issue is ORIGINS and the origins of ToE/Darwinism is racism = why
the scant evidence is further refuted as bunk.
STEVEN J:
Strictly speaking, the argument from bad consequences is a logical
fallacy:
even if evolutionary theory had the implications, or the origins, you
wish
to claim, that would not invalidate it or weaken the evidence for it.
RAY M:
You intentionally misrepresented origins as consequences.
The origin is bad (racism).
This further refutes the scant (naturalist) philosophy based
"evidence".
STEVEN J:
You do not seem very familiar with the "Hamitic hypothesis" -- the idea
that
nonwhite races were inferior and destined to servitude because they had
inherited the "curse of Ham."
RAY M:
I am very familiar.
The Bible reports the origin of dark skinned races (Hamites)
collectively seen as suffering servitudinal capacities.
It doesn't say they were inferior, the source says they were cursed
because of Ham's sin. Much like all of mankind being cursed with
oiginal sin because of Adam's disobedience.
But again, you are evading and attempting to blend the racism of Darwin
into a blurry backround of unsavoury historical facts.
STEVEN J:
Note, by the way, that many modern creationists assume that humans
cannot be
older than written language, as though preliterate societies had not
existed
right up to the present. Hank Hanegraaf, for example, argues that "the
distance between a human who can read and write and an ape is the
distance
of infinity" as though there were no humans who could read and write.
Living societies without written languages challenge both the
assumption
that humans cannot exist before recorded history, and that being human
must
mean living in cities, reading and writing, and having high technology.
So
creationists themselves seem to buy into Darwin's assumption that it
would
be easier to imagine a link between humans and apes when one can see
with
one's own eyes humans living a stone-age existence.
RAY M:
I regret the hand-wave, but the above paragraph is utter nonsense.
It is minimalists who assert Israelites did not possess writing skills
in the 15th century, therefore, Biblical chronology must be false.
Why does the Bible fail to mention the name of the Pharoah residing
over the Plagues and Exodus ?
Answer: Official New Kingdom language never mentioned the Pharoah by
name - only his title. This custom supports early Torah 15th century
Mosaic authorship as the Bible does the same - refers to Pharoah only
as Pharoah. [source: Archer, "Survey of O.T. Introduction" page 105]
I must go off line and will respond to the remainder of your OP evading
piece and its whitewash ASAP.
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
Darwin's racism invalidate his science? If so, why?
MARTINEZ:
Redundantly answered John.
With racism as the origin of the human evolution theory, this further
shows that Darwin departed from God THEN saw the "similarity".
The paucity of evidence supporting the racist idea further immerses the
theory in refutation land.
Ray Martinez
Boikat
> STEVEN J:
>
> They were not the first to hold that idea, alas. Anti-Jewish pogroms
> and
> expulsions, often fueled by the charge that the Jews were
> "Christ-killers,"
> were a recurrent feature of Christian Europe. Martin Luther published
> screeds against the Jews not much milder than those favored by Hitler,
> and
> vowed that if any Jew came to him for baptism, he would do so by tying
> a
> millstone about the Jew's neck and dropping him in a river.
>
> RAY M:
>
> You are attempting to rationalize Darwin's racism.
>
> God used Luther to spark the Protestant Reformation.
>
> Newton was a slave trader. Just off the coast of Africa he got caught
> in a storm and cried out to God for mercy. When ashore he let his human
> cargo go free. Then he penned the most famous hymn in Church history,
> "Amazing Grace".
>
> The point is: Luther, Newton, and myself are pieces of shit.
And you are setting out to prove that last bit rather nicely.
>
> God forgives and uses pieces of shit.
So, in order to please God, you act like a piece of shit. I see.
<snip>
Boikat
--
<42><
Boikat
> HARSHMAN:
>
> Darwin's racism invalidate his science? If so, why?
>
> MARTINEZ:
>
> Redundantly answered John.
>
> With racism as the origin of the human evolution theory,
Since your basic premise is wrong, so is your conclusion.
> this further
> shows that Darwin departed from God THEN saw the "similarity".
>
> The paucity of evidence supporting the racist idea further immerses the
> theory in refutation land.
In your dreams.
>
> Ray Martinez
>
Deadrat
> STEVEN J:
>
> They were not the first to hold that idea, alas. Anti-Jewish pogroms
> and
> expulsions, often fueled by the charge that the Jews were
> "Christ-killers,"
> were a recurrent feature of Christian Europe. Martin Luther published
> screeds against the Jews not much milder than those favored by Hitler,
> and
> vowed that if any Jew came to him for baptism, he would do so by tying
> a
> millstone about the Jew's neck and dropping him in a river.
>
> RAY M:
>
> You are attempting to rationalize Darwin's racism.
>
> God used Luther to spark the Protestant Reformation.
>
> Newton was a slave trader.
Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not using calculus
anymore.
> Just off the coast of Africa he got caught
> in a storm and cried out to God for mercy. When ashore he let his human
> cargo go free. Then he penned the most famous hymn in Church history,
> "Amazing Grace".
>
> The point is: Luther, Newton, and myself are pieces of shit.
You mean all this ranting is just low self-esteem?
>
> God forgives and uses pieces of shit.
>
> But if you deny His existence your racism produces the imfamous theory
> of human origins which refuses to credit God as Creator. This refusal
> triggers the penalty and is the only spectacular fact accounting as to
> why so many people believe the most insane notion that man evolved from
> an animal over millions of years.
>
> RAY M:
>
> The issue is ORIGINS and the origins of ToE/Darwinism is racism = why
> the scant evidence is further refuted as bunk.
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> Strictly speaking, the argument from bad consequences is a logical
> fallacy:
> even if evolutionary theory had the implications, or the origins, you
> wish
> to claim, that would not invalidate it or weaken the evidence for it.
>
> RAY M:
>
> You intentionally misrepresented origins as consequences.
You really are clueless. Call it the argument from bad provenance, then.
Your flawed argument goes:
The origin is bad (racism), so the result must be bad (theory).
But that's a fallacy. It's like this: Ray is clueless (plenty of evidence
for that),
therefore eveything he says is false. So if Ray says it's raining, I won't
.
believe him. But if it's raining and I go outside, I'll still get wet.
>
> The origin is bad (racism).
>
> This further refutes the scant (naturalist) philosophy based
> "evidence".
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> You do not seem very familiar with the "Hamitic hypothesis" -- the idea
> that
> nonwhite races were inferior and destined to servitude because they had
>
> inherited the "curse of Ham."
>
> RAY M:
>
> I am very familiar.
>
> The Bible reports the origin of dark skinned races (Hamites)
> collectively seen as suffering servitudinal capacities.
>
> It doesn't say they were inferior, the source says they were cursed
> because of Ham's sin. Much like all of mankind being cursed with
> oiginal sin because of Adam's disobedience.
>
> But again, you are evading and attempting to blend the racism of Darwin
> into a blurry backround of unsavoury historical facts.
>
Darwin's racism seems pretty "blurry" all right. The curse of Ham --
dark skinned people should be slaves -- that seems a fairly clear
case of racism. Mote, beam. Eh, Ray?
Ray Martinez
http://www.infidelguy.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=9544
All TEists:
Go to the above Forum and try to argue your TEist crap to these
atheist-Darwinists.
I am talking to you Mark Isaak.
At least they have the integrity to say in no way does the Bible
support ToE.
Say hello to chief Darwinian Bishop Todangst the Psycho.
RM
Robert J. Kolker
>
> Sorry, but you're out of bounds. Ray's mind is clogged by fundamentalism.
> This has nothing to do with his being Mexican, and you've got no business
> deriding his background.
The hell I don't!
Bob Kolker
Deadrat
Interesting. Why do you think that's properly your business to do?
Deadrat
> Bob Kolker
>
John Harshman
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1115343288....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>John:
>>
>>What does Darwin's racism have to do with Lincoln ?
>>
>>Answer: What you are saying: "Lincoln too" which implies Darwin was.
>>
>>The difference between Darwin and Lincoln:
>>
>>Lincoln freed the slaves under the authority of a legal document called
>>the Constitution, a contract produced by men who owned slaves.
>>
>
>
> Lincoln didn't free any slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation applied
> only to the CSA, which, of course, didn't recognize it as force of law and
> ignored it.
Not true. The CSA did ignore the proclamation, but was in less and less
position to enforce its dissent as time went on. A fair proportion of
the Confederacy was under Union occupation at the time of the
proclamation, and as the armies advanced, so did emancipation. So
Lincoln did free the great majority of the slaves, just not immediately
for most of them.
Steven J.
> STEVEN J:
>
> They were not the first to hold that idea, alas. Anti-Jewish pogroms
> and
> expulsions, often fueled by the charge that the Jews were
> "Christ-killers,"
> were a recurrent feature of Christian Europe. Martin Luther published
> screeds against the Jews not much milder than those favored by Hitler,
> and
> vowed that if any Jew came to him for baptism, he would do so by tying
> a millstone about the Jew's neck and dropping him in a river.
>
> RAY M:
>
> You are attempting to rationalize Darwin's racism.
>
roots that did not rest in natural selection. Now, as for Darwin's racism,
I must insist that you define "racist." I have noted that Darwin explicitly
denied what seems to me the essential premise of racism: that race is some
essential trait that unites all members of one race and distinguishes them
from all members of other races. I have likewise noted that Darwin opposed
slavery, at a time when it was respectable to support it.
>
> God used Luther to spark the Protestant Reformation.
>
> Newton was a slave trader. Just off the coast of Africa he got caught
> in a storm and cried out to God for mercy. When ashore he let his human
> cargo go free. Then he penned the most famous hymn in Church history,
> "Amazing Grace".
>
> The point is: Luther, Newton, and myself are pieces of shit.
>
> God forgives and uses pieces of shit.
>
> But if you deny His existence your racism produces the imfamous theory
> of human origins which refuses to credit God as Creator. This refusal
> triggers the penalty and is the only spectacular fact accounting as to
> why so many people believe the most insane notion that man evolved from
> an animal over millions of years.
>
existence. Many of his earliest supporters were Christians.
>
> RAY M:
>
> The issue is ORIGINS and the origins of ToE/Darwinism is racism = why
> the scant evidence is further refuted as bunk.
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> Strictly speaking, the argument from bad consequences is a logical
> fallacy:
> even if evolutionary theory had the implications, or the origins, you
> wish to claim, that would not invalidate it or weaken the evidence for it.
>
> RAY M:
>
> You intentionally misrepresented origins as consequences.
>
yourself to blame if people think you are discussing the consequences of
evolutionary theory. But it does not matter; the origins of a theory are
irrelevent to how good a theory it is. Kekule famously deduced the
structure of the benzene ring after a dream involving a snake swallowing its
own tale; this doesn't mean that organic chemistry is just a bad dream.
>
> The origin is bad (racism).
>
common descent, the nested hierarchy of life demonstrated (but not
explained) by the (creationist) taxonomist Carrolus Linnaeus, as well as
biogeography, vestigial structures, nonhomologous structures used for
similar purposes, and embryology. What he did *not* use was comparisons of
"Africans" to apes. As noted, Darwin's _Origin of Species_ did not even
mention human evolution or human races.
>
> This further refutes the scant (naturalist) philosophy based
> "evidence".
>
all sorts of things.
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> You do not seem very familiar with the "Hamitic hypothesis" -- the idea
> that
> nonwhite races were inferior and destined to servitude because they had
> inherited the "curse of Ham."
>
> RAY M:
>
> I am very familiar.
>
> The Bible reports the origin of dark skinned races (Hamites)
> collectively seen as suffering servitudinal capacities.
>
races;" the sons of Noah are depicted as the ancestors of the (Caucasian)
peoples ringing the eastern Mediterranean, not the peoples of subSaharan
Africa or eastern or southern Asia. The "curse of Ham" was actually the
"curse of Canaan," and affected only the descendants of Ham's son, Canaan
(alleged eponymous ancestor of the Canaanites, not Africans). Biblical
justifications of racism depended on "literal" interpretations of the Bible
as tendentious as, well, your own.
>
> It doesn't say they were inferior, the source says they were cursed
> because of Ham's sin. Much like all of mankind being cursed with
> oiginal sin because of Adam's disobedience.
>
> But again, you are evading and attempting to blend the racism of Darwin
> into a blurry backround of unsavoury historical facts.
>
>
> STEVEN J:
>
> Note, by the way, that many modern creationists assume that humans
> cannot be
> older than written language, as though preliterate societies had not
> existed
> right up to the present. Hank Hanegraaf, for example, argues that "the
>
> distance between a human who can read and write and an ape is the
> distance
> of infinity" as though there were no humans who could read and write.
> Living societies without written languages challenge both the
> assumption
> that humans cannot exist before recorded history, and that being human
> must
> mean living in cities, reading and writing, and having high technology.
> So
> creationists themselves seem to buy into Darwin's assumption that it
> would
> be easier to imagine a link between humans and apes when one can see
> with
> one's own eyes humans living a stone-age existence.
>
> RAY M:
>
> I regret the hand-wave, but the above paragraph is utter nonsense.
>
paragraph above.
>
> It is minimalists who assert Israelites did not possess writing skills
> in the 15th century, therefore, Biblical chronology must be false.
>
referring to, e.g. the peoples in the interior of Papua New Guinea, or
various tribes of the Amazon rain forest. Although, for what it's worth,
the requirement that the law be *read* to the people, or the fact that the
prophet Jeremiah relied on his secretary Baruch to do all his writing,
suggests that literacy was not widespread in ancient Israel: again, normally
intelligent people do not automatically figure out how to read and write.
>
> Why does the Bible fail to mention the name of the Pharoah residing
> over the Plagues and Exodus ?
>
> Answer: Official New Kingdom language never mentioned the Pharoah by
> name - only his title. This custom supports early Torah 15th century
> Mosaic authorship as the Bible does the same - refers to Pharoah only
> as Pharoah. [source: Archer, "Survey of O.T. Introduction" page 105]
>
> I must go off line and will respond to the remainder of your OP evading
> piece and its whitewash ASAP.
>
above?
>
> Ray Martinez
-- Steven J.
>
Steven J.
"Deadrat" <no...@none.non> wrote in message
news:OoBee.2122$Jz2...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1115348474.7...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>> RAY M:
>>
>> You are attempting to rationalize Darwin's racism.
>>
>> God used Luther to spark the Protestant Reformation.
>>
>> Newton was a slave trader.
>
> Well, I don't know about you, but I'm not using calculus
> anymore.
>
John Newton (1725-1807, author of "Amazing Grace"), not Isaac Newton
(1642-1727, author of the _Principia_).
>
>> Just off the coast of Africa he got caught
>> in a storm and cried out to God for mercy. When ashore he let his human
>> cargo go free. Then he penned the most famous hymn in Church history,
>> "Amazing Grace".
>>
>> The point is: Luther, Newton, and myself are pieces of shit.
>
> You mean all this ranting is just low self-esteem?
>
>
-- [snip]
Mitchell Coffey
>WILKINS:
>
>It should be pointed out that the origins of the modern taxonomies of
>race date from well before any evolutionary account.
>
>MARTINEZ:
>
>I didn't claim Darwin invented racism.
No, but you imply that racism wasn't well-established among
Christians. And you imply Darwin was more racist than most other
white people of this day. That is untrue and hypocritical.
The only modern geographical areas of significant size, dominated
culturally and politically by Protestant Fundamentalists, and which
suppressed the teaching of evolution in schools, were the American
South under segregation, and South Africa under Apartheid.
White Protestant Fundamentalists, as a whole, have historically been
extremely racist, much more than Darwin. They first supported
slavery, and their scientists were inclined to declare black and
white people to be separate species. The Southern Baptist Leadership
Convention, for instance, came into being exactly and only over the
issue of slavery; it believed slavery to be moral, and split with the
northern Baptist organizations, which did not. Darwin, on the other
hand, actively opposed slavery throughout his life, and consistently
advanced the doctrine of human unity.
Once forced to abandon slavery, Southern White Protestant
Fundamentalists supported segregation until finally forced by the
Federal government to give it up, kicking and screaming. Most of
their churches were segregated. They supported laws forbidding
marriages between blacks and whites. Most of their leaders opposed
the Civil Rights Movement. Their elected representatives even
struggled against all attempts to pass and enforce laws against
lynching!
Most White Protestant Fundamentalists opposed the struggle for civil
rights. Now however that it is won, and realizing continuing to
support racism openly would only make them look bad, they claim to be
against it, and, with shocking dishonesty, misrepresent history to
attack their opponents as racist.
>I supported the origins of Darwinism were racist.
You mean, you've posted two quotes, at least one of them
misrepresented, and posted shameful, bald faced lies about the title
of Origins of Species, to support the claim that Darwin and Huxley
were racist, while ignoring all the racially progressive things they
wrote and did. And while ignoring the consistent racism of most
Creationists, virtually to the present day. This you think is
evidence that "he origins of Darwinism were racist"?
What do you make of George Washington holding slaves? Of our founding
documents endorsing slavery? It's certainly arguable that the origins
of American Democracy were racist; I just want to see you be
consistent and say that's what you believe.
Are you actually claiming that Darwin, in 1859, was more racist than
most American White Protestant Fundamentalists were in, say, 1959? Or
do you believe that the origins of modern Creationism are racist?
You posted yet other falsehoods. Your assertions about Marxism and
Darwinism cannot be defended. If they could be defended you could
right now post unambiguously favorable statements by Marx about
Darwinism. You can't, because you are not telling the truth.
Marxists have tended to be critical of Darwinism. Stalin, for
instance, actively opposed Darwinism; he wrote anti-Darwinist articles
before the Bolsheviks came to power; after he came to power he
murdered Darwinists and suppressed their ideas.
Contrary to your claims, I know of no positive statements by the
Fascists (I.e., Mussolini) in favor of Darwin or Darwinism. If you're
telling the truth you could post, say, five. Hitler and other
prominent Nazis had little to say about Darwin or Darwinism either
way. Hitler's own comments about human origins, in Mein Kampf and
elsewhere, are a form of intelligent design.
The historian you cite is either using "Darwinism" in the informal
manner, or is not an good historian.
>You too have completely evaded the OP quotes by Darwin and his bulldog
>Huxley.
>
>I wonder why ?
>
>But you can deduce obscure fossil scraps to be whatever but the clear
>quotes of racism by Darwin and your deduction abilities evaporate.
I repeat you are not telling the truth about the subtitle of Origin of
Species. There is more than one meaning for the word "race." Darwin's
book hardly mentions people at all; is not about humans. It gives one
short, noncommittal passage to the subject of human origins, merely
saying the subject should be thought about some day. Depending on
edition, the book makes two or three references to human races, none
of them racist.
The "races" in the title refer to any subspecies of plants and
animals. The word "race," as used by biologist today and even more in
Darwin's time (Darwinist or not), meant a classification of related
organisms below the species level. You don't have to believe me: go
look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, under "race."
Your other Darwin quote, from Descent of Man, makes the assumption
near the end that his mostly European audience would consider a
"Negro" to look more than a European like a non-human ape. Not long
ago on Talk.Origins, your fellow Creationist "Nowhere Man" made this
same assumption, except he said that *he* thought Africans looked more
like non-human apes, while Darwin wrote about what others would think.
Will you, here and now, make an unequivocal statement that Nowhere Man
is racist? Go check his words, or ask and I'll fetch them.
I suspect your complaint is really about the first sentence in the
quote, it usually is with Creationists. Are you claiming that Darwin
advocated these exterminations and replacements? If so, you cannot
read. Are you claiming that it was unreasonable in 1872 to suspect
that "uncivilized" peoples would eventually be wiped-out or absorbed
by the "civilized" cultures of Europe, Japan, India, etc.? If so, you
are either ignorant of history or as bad as a Holocaust denier and a
racist, wanting to claim what 19th century "Christians" did to Native
Americans, Tasmanians, etc., never happened.
Darwin had witnessed some these exterminations and absorptions nearly
first hand, and had written against them, pointing to European
responsibility. (See: The Voyage of the Beagle.)
>My point: The refusal to admit Darwin a racist = dishonesty.
Virtually every white person was a racist in the 19th century,
Creationist more than most. Name five 19th century Creationist who,
by modern standards, weren't racists. I can name one, John Brown, and
he was a mass murderer.
Why have you not quoted Darwin's many anti-racist quotes in the same
book from which you select, and misrepresent, just one quote?
>IF Darwinists are willing to lie to your face in lieu of irrefutable
>evidence (quotes), then just think of what lies ToE contains packaged
>as science.
As I've shown, you think nothing of lying about Darwin and Darwinism.
What does that show about you?
>What we don't know Darwinists will use against you.
Amusing, given the number of times you've lied in this thread.
If you are not lying you should be able, for instance, to produce
evidence that the subtitle of Origin of Species means what you claim
it to mean. Then you should be able to produce multiple quotes from
Stalin, Hitler and Mussolini that demonstrate your claims about them.
If you refuse to try, then you are tacitly admitting to be a liar.
Mitchell Coffey
Deadrat
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:bVBee.1629$X21...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
I should have said at the time of its proclamation. I'm too lazy to look it
up
(sorry), but how much of the CSA was occupied on 1/1/1863? Parts of
the occupied territory were specifically excluded.
Deadrat
Mitchell Coffey
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>
>> > Racist Darwin
>> >
>> > Darwin produced ToE/atheist creation story. The theory of choice for
>> > Nazi's, fascists, and Marxists:
[snip]>news:3dt50v...@individual.net...
>> > Notice AFTER God is rejected then racist theory developed.
>>
>> Nonsense. The Israelites regarded any Cana'anites they spared as hewers
>> of wood and drawers of water (it is in the Bible). The Israelites were
>> from time to time worshipers of the God Abreham, Isaac and Jacob, and
>> they had some pretty racist ideas. How does Chose People sound to you?
>>
>
>I assume this was meant to say "the God" OF "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."
>The Jews of the Bible certainly treated their neighbors no better or worse
>than anybody else in the area, but their enmities were political and
>religious,
>not "racist" in the modern sense.
>
>I assume the next sentence was meant to say "How does 'Chosen People'
>sound to you?" Who cares what it sounds like? What Jews take it to mean
>is that they were chosen to deliver the message of monotheism to the world
>they saw around them, which was a world of idolatry.
No, you taken Christian doctrine and hung it on Jews as back story.
Every had a Jew knock on your door trying to convert you? No? That's
because we don't see ourselves as "chosen to deliver the message of
monotheism to the world". Most Jewish traditions don't proselytize,
thank you. Jewish doctrine has been that we were chosen by God and
in return had to live in a certain way. Oh, also we got Canaan.
> Jews may take a
>chauvinistic pride in what they claim is God's choice, but being "chosen"
>conveys no special privileges, only extra duties. Not being chosen brings
>carries no inherent penalties.
[snip]
Right on the money, as far as I know.
Mitchell Coffey
Mitchell Coffey
>
>"Robert J. Kolker" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>news:3dtlq2...@individual.net...
[snip]
>> At a later stage in Israelite history Ezra and Nehamiah importuned the
>> Israelites to put away (divorce) their foreign (non-Jewish) wives. That
>> sounds bigoted if not racist.
>
>If you're Jewish, then you ought to have this one figured out. Only
>children of Jewish women are Jewish. It's a tribal identity thing. Is it
>narrow-minded and exclusionary? Sure. But it's a mistake to conflate
>these attitudes to what we in our age call racism.
[snip]
The matrilineal thing is post-Biblical. In the Bible a woman becomes
Jewish by living in a Jewish household and following a whole lot of
rules; if you were a guy, you had to follow a mess o' rules too, but
what really had to concern you, and put a break on conversion up to
today, is you had to have your foreskin cleaved off. Post-puberty
this is said to be a real bitch of an experience.
Mitchell Coffey
AC
Matthew Isleb <mis...@lNO.SPAMonshore.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 00:38:47 +0000, Deadrat wrote:
>
>>> There is no support for the idea of racial superiority in the theory of
>>> evolution
>>>
>>> MARTINEZ:
>>>
>>> The OP quotes of Darwin and his cohorts refute you.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, Ray. Darwin didn't say that civilized people were superior
>> to primitives. He just pointed out that contact with civilized people
>> generally doomed primitive tribes. Was he wrong?
>
> Darwin didn't call them "primitive." He called them "savages."
> Although I do understand taht this may not have been quite the negative
> statement it is today (relatively speaking). He also goes on to place
> negros as a "link" between Teutons and apes. I don't think he used
> the word "superior," but what he did say is pretty darn close. Darwin's
> regret about the extinction of the "savages," as
> far as I can tell, was that we wouldn't be able to study them as
> the link between white people and apes.
>
> I'm not defending Ray, mind you. I don't think that Darwin being a
> racist in any way makes his theories wrong or bad, but it does sound like
> you are trying to whitewash the quotes. The Huxley quotes are particularly
> damning. But that is neither here nor there.
Such a view would have been completely in line with *Christian* Victorian
society of the time. A wide spectrum of people in the West held such views
at the time, and indeed these racist ideas were to put to rest by a better
understanding of human evolution. Since all modern humans are very closely
related and have their origins in Africa around 150k years ago, the idea
that any group is the superior to any other is simply ludicrous.
AC
That even this particular maniac knows very damn well that racism is
ancient, and that Christian civilization was part of the problem for
centuries.
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> MATEO:
>
> Evolution is not a moral or political philosophy, it is a biological
> theory
> of the development of life on earth. Charles Darwin is not responsible
> for
> people using his theory for perverted things, just as William Boeing
> is
> not responsible for people flying airplanes into buildings. Stop
> blaming
> people for the immoral actions of others; blame the person who
> actually
> acted immorally.
>
> RAY M:
>
> Rhetoric/misuse of logic evading the specifics.
No, simply stating that you are wrong.
>
> Also a silent admission of the ugly facts.
Only in your deluded mind.