True to his form, Charles Darwin married his first cousin... Emma Wedgwood... Atheists and Incestuous ' science '...
Sammy
here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
when it comes to the things of God an Atheist is the last person on
earth to consult with... Atheists hate God and their hate is real, not
some delusion. God made Himself evident to all persons but because
they are haughty in their heart of hearts, they've suppressed this
truth rendering themselves inexcusable liars. ( Ro. 1:18-20 )
Darwin, going one step further, adding incest to the demonstration
of his ill will toward God and his fellow man by marrying his first
cousin...
***********************************************************************
marrying and having children by incest was allowed by God for the
purpose of producing the human race up until the time the law of God
was handed down to Moses over 3,000 years ago. since then incest
became forbidden to all people worldwide... but why should someone who
believes and teaches children they came from monkeys care what others
think about his marrying his own first cousin ?
by the same Darwinian logic he could have married his own mother and
had children by her as well... incest is incest...
in review... here we have Charles Darwin, incestuous Atheist
desperately trying to prove with words alone, but never with
scientific proof, that there is no God ( which perfectly describes God
charge against Darwin types 2000 years before Darwin was even born )..
and here we have a Catholic priest Atheist desperately trying to
prove there is no God by his concoction of the Big Bang theory.
let see now... if you bake bread for a living you're a baker...
if you're a Darwin disciple you're an Atheist with the potential for
incest...
if you're a Big Bang theorist you're a Catholic Atheist...
sure doesn't sound like a bunch of believable people just by seeing
their low-life way of life.
Alexander
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
Think you'll find it wasn't that uncommon in ultra conservative
Christian Victorian England. Wasn't illegal before Darwin's time
either. So what does that tell you?
Probably the same thing as how it was legal to marry off 13/14 year
olds in certain US states for quite some time. Pretty conservative
Christian states I do believe as well. Funny that. People in glass
houses and that sort of thing.
>
> when it comes to the things of God an Atheist is the last person on
> earth to consult with... Atheists hate God and their hate is real, not
> some delusion. God made Himself evident to all persons but because
> they are haughty in their heart of hearts, they've suppressed this
> truth rendering themselves inexcusable liars. ( Ro. 1:18-20 )
Can't really hate something I don't believe in. I don't hate anyone
to be honest. I get quite passionate about certain things - but I see
no reason to hate either a fictional entity or the people that choose
to worship said fiction.
>
> Darwin, going one step further, adding incest to the demonstration
> of his ill will toward God and his fellow man by marrying his first
> cousin...
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> marrying and having children by incest was allowed by God for the
> purpose of producing the human race up until the time the law of God
> was handed down to Moses over 3,000 years ago. since then incest
> became forbidden to all people worldwide... but why should someone who
> believes and teaches children they came from monkeys care what others
> think about his marrying his own first cousin ?
>
> by the same Darwinian logic he could have married his own mother and
> had children by her as well... incest is incest...
>
> in review... here we have Charles Darwin, incestuous Atheist
> desperately trying to prove with words alone, but never with
> scientific proof, that there is no God ( which perfectly describes God
> charge against Darwin types 2000 years before Darwin was even born )..
>
> and here we have a Catholic priest Atheist desperately trying to
> prove there is no God by his concoction of the Big Bang theory.
>
> let see now... if you bake bread for a living you're a baker...
>
> if you're a Darwin disciple you're an Atheist with the potential for
> incest...
>
> if you're a Big Bang theorist you're a Catholic Atheist...
>
> sure doesn't sound like a bunch of believable people just by seeing
> their low-life way of life.
Nice troll by the way - not very original, but full marks for
intensity and off the bat ranting.
richardal...@googlemail.com
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
>
Of course, you can find the True Story™ of how this happened here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/9baf1e6744ed60cf/ff18aa8dd691cd17
(http://www.plesiosaur.com/scribblings/chapter_2.php)
RF
<snipped>
bul...@bellsouth.net
> On Apr 22, 9:53 am, Sammy <s...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> > Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> > likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> > wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
>
> Of course, you can find the True Story™ of how this happened here:
>
> (http://www.plesiosaur.com/scribblings/chapter_2.php)
>
> RF
>
> <snipped>
If "Sammy" was really interested in the truth, do you think he'd have
posted his blather to begin with? I don't think so.
Boikat
wf3h
Sammy wrote:
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
>
> when it comes to the things of God an Atheist is the last person on
> earth to consult with... Atheists hate God
ah, the sweet bigotry of christianist/islamist fanatics. fresh from
2000 years of jew hatred, 400 years of enslaving africans, now it's
the atheists' turn.
sammy have a concentration camp in mind for atheists, perhaps?
christianists have done it before.
>
> if you're a Big Bang theorist you're a Catholic Atheist...
>
and anti catholic bigotry as well...neat!
stew dean
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
Newton was a nut case but gravity is still a valid concept. Darwin
could have been as nasty a bit of work as Newton and his ideas would
still have been as valid. Evolution is not Darwin's work anymore but
the collective work of countless bright minds and a constant barrage
of skeptism driven mostly by ignorance.
> when it comes to the things of God an Atheist is the last person on
> earth to consult with... Atheists hate God and their hate is real, not
> some delusion.
Atheists do not hate god. How can they? They don't think a god exists,
much like me. So my 'hate' for god is not real. Religion I don't like
much but I wouldnt describe it as hate.
Do you want to dredge up any other overly used failed arguments?
Stew Dean
Frank J
Greetings, new TO poster. Because there are a lot of post-&-run trolls
these days, it helps for new posters to say specifically what their
alternative to evolution is, without reference to their problems with
atheism, Darwin, etc.
To start, please tell us how many years life has existed on Earth. An
order of magnitude will suffice. Then please tell us if you think
humans are biologically related to dogs, dogwoods, both or neither.
Note that those questions neither rule out God nor commit you to a
Darwinisn explanation for species change.
Frank J
I have to vote for "atheists hate God" as the Chez Watt of the
millennium.
Robert Carnegie
Sammy wrote:
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
And a Christian.
Anyone know some other notable Christians who had relationships
"incestuous" by this standard - Popes for instance...
Oh, and of course any rule through Moses (did he marry a cousin, I
forget) doesn't apply to Christians at all, only to the Jews. When I
look up "Darwin was Jewish" online it would appear that that was an
extremely well kept secret - most commentators are still sceptical.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin !
I hear Darwin kicked his dog, too.
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
Bobby Bryant
Sammy <sa...@home.com> writes:
>
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
Darwin isn't my hero. I merely subscribe to the side that has truth
behind it.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Lorentz
20:11-21) does not forbid cousins to marry.
2) English law at the time of Darwin did not forbid first cousins to
marry.
loua...@yahoo.com
> when it comes to the things of God an Atheist is the last person on
> earth to consult with... Atheists hate God and their hate is real, not
> some delusion. God made Himself evident to all persons but because
> they are haughty in their heart of hearts, they've suppressed this
> truth rendering themselves inexcusable liars. ( Ro. 1:18-20 )
I have a tune stuck in my head with the refrain "And they'll know we
are Christians by our love." I suppose it's a coincidence of religion
names.
Ron O
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
SNIP:
Glad to see that the screw ups really have improved on their grasp of
the relevant arguments.;-)
Just imagine if there were legitimate arguments, why aren't they being
used?
High probablilty of this being a post and run troll. I give it two
loki points.
Ron Okimoto
Cheezits
[etc.]
> Darwin, going one step further, adding incest to the demonstration
> of his ill will toward God and his fellow man by marrying his first
> cousin...
So, who did Noah's grandkids marry?
Sue
--
"It's not smart or correct, but it's one of the things that
make us what we are." - Red Green
Pip R. Lagenta
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
>Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
>likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
>wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
Ad hominem
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem>
<http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html>
<http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/adhom.html>
<http://www.cuyamaca.edu/bruce.thompson/Fallacies/abusive.asp>
<http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem>
<http://philosophy.missouri.edu/show-me/?p=343>
<http://www.answers.com/ad+hominem&r=67>
<http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Ad_Hominem>
<http://www.goodart.org/attack.htm>
<http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20hominem>
Good luck with that.
>
--
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
raven1
>
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
>Atheist
Darwin was not an atheist.
> but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
>likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
>wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
Hardly uncommon in his society.
> when it comes to the things of God an Atheist is the last person on
>earth to consult with... Atheists hate God and their hate is real, not
>some delusion.
Atheists, by definition, don't believe in "God", so it would appear
that the delusion is on your part...
> God made Himself evident to all persons but because
>they are haughty in their heart of hearts, they've suppressed this
>truth rendering themselves inexcusable liars. ( Ro. 1:18-20 )
But it's not "haughty" to issue blanket accusations that others are
"inexcusable liars", presumably...
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
CreateThis
>
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
>Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
>likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
>wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
And in the Creationism corner we have... Ray Martinez, whose own
family wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.
(I could go on, of course, but Ray will do.)
CT
Joe Cummings
Didn't the just man, Lot, (you know, Sodom and Gomorrah) offer
his daughters as playthings and then screwed them? While pissed,
forsooth?
Have fun,
Joe Cummings
Kelsey Bjarnason
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
Whether true or not, this is wholly irrelevant. His theories stand or
fall on their own merits, not on his personal habits. Just as an argument
from authority fails because it focuses upon the person instead of the
argument, so too does an ad hominem fail because it focuses on the person
instead of the argument.
Of course you knew that, raising the obvious question: why bother?
--
Do not contact me at kbjar...@ncoldns.com
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Sammy <sa...@home.com>:
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
>Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
>likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
>wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
Edition No. 3,436,853 of "Attack the Messenger". Can't you
idiots come up with any material actually *relevant*?
(Rhetorical question...)
> when it comes to the things of God an Atheist is the last person on
>earth to consult with... Atheists hate God and their hate is real, not
>some delusion.
The delusion is the one shared by those morons who don't
understand the simple, and true, claim that atheists *have
no belief that any deities exist*. Try to let that concept
sink in, then consider whether one can "hate" a being one
does not believe exists. Do you "hate" Odin? How about the
Invisible Pink Unicorn Who Created All That Is?
<snip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Emma Pease
Actually Moses married a foreigner. Abraham on the other hand married
his half sister (Sarah and he had the same father). His son Isaac
married his first cousin once removed, and his grandson Jacob married
two of his first cousins.
Laws in Europe varied. At times in the Middle Ages marrying anyone
nearer than a fifth cousin (a common great great great great
grandparent) was considered incest (made it very convenient when a
noble or king tried dissolving their marriage as they likely were
within the forbidden degree to their spouse).
Laws in England allowed first cousin marriages during Darwin's time
and even allow it now and it was not unusual then. It happens several
times in 19th century literature for instance in Jane Austen's
Mansfield Park the heroine, Fanny, marries her first cousin. There is
some concern within the novel not because they are first cousins but
because her economic circumstances are quite poor. Legally it was a
lot more problematic to marry your dead brother's widow.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Tom McDonald
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
Have you ever done any genealogy research? I have.
In the US, and IIRC in Scotland, in the 1800's and perhaps later,
first-cousin marriage was quite common. In fact, if you look at
marriage documents, you will sometimes see that the couple to be
married were 'Cousins German.'
This means 'first cousins.'
In my own family, my great- and great-great grandfathers married
'cousins German'. (Cue jokes. I can wait.)
The fact is that first-cousin marriage was very common amongst
people at least as devotedly and strictly religious as you.
But of course, you have already run away, so you won't respond to
this.
<snip>
Pfusand
> Op Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:53:08 -0400, schreef Sammy:
>
> > here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> > Atheist
>
> dearly, and that counts for something, no?
>
> > but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the likes of
> > him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a wife... his
> > own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
>
>
> Relationships between fist cousins are perfectly legal in most civilised
> countries even today, if I'm not mistaken. If both agree to be in the
> relationship, then what is the harm?
Yes. They are legal in Rhode Island. In fact, Rhode Island goes one
better, and allows Jews to marry within the degree of consanguinity
that the Bibble allows them; i.e., an uncle may marry his niece.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
-- Unspoken motto of the pantope crew
John Wilkins
So long as there are not too many previous marriages of this kind in
your family, *genetics* does not contraindicate first cousins to marry.
In fact, I think it is *still* legal, at least here.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Paul Ciszek
In article <1177297076....@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
>
>Yes. They are legal in Rhode Island. In fact, Rhode Island goes one
>better, and allows Jews to marry within the degree of consanguinity
>that the Bibble allows them; i.e., an uncle may marry his niece.
I have heard this repeatedly, and each time have asked for proof that
the law grants this liberty only to jews. Do you have a cite?
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Gerry Murphy
"CreateThis" <Creat...@yippee.con> wrote in message
news:dd8n23p30fqf8gs81...@4ax.com...
"Let's strike a flint and see." 8-}
Walter Bushell
Alexander <alexand...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Probably the same thing as how it was legal to marry off 13/14 year
> olds in certain US states for quite some time. Pretty conservative
> Christian states I do believe as well. Funny that. People in glass
> houses and that sort of thing.
What the Japanese learned from WWII; People who live in paper houses
should not throw bombs.
Kermit
Hi, Sammy! Did you know that every time you lie, you make baby Jesus
cry?
> here we have the followers of Darwin,
1. Darwin has no "followers". He did not found a religion or political
movement. He came up wit ha theory which explained a large set of
puzzling facts. The theory has been modified since Darwin's time.
There are evolutionary scientists who have never read Darwin, just as
there are chemists who have not read Lavoisier, and physicists who
have not read Newton.
> not only proud of his being an Atheist
2. Was he an atheist? He did seem to doubt later in life. Why on Earth
would I or anyone else be proud of his personal religious beliefs (or
lack of them)?
> but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him...
3. What evidence do you have that few women would want him? He was
well-to-do, well-educated, and gentle, by all accounts. He'd be a good
catch by many standards.
> so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
>
Perhaps he had trouble finding women smart enough! Anyway, I won't
count this one, because it seems to be part of the last lie.
> when it comes to the things of God an Atheist is the last person on
> earth to consult with...
4. Why? Many are quite knowledgeable. More to the point, "things of
God" have nothing to do with science, except in the sense that those
who believe there are gods assume science studies some of what they
do.
> Atheists hate God and their hate is real, not some delusion.
5. Umm... atheists don't believe in gods. How can they hate any?
> God made Himself evident to all persons
6. He didn't make himself evident to me, and I looked for years.
> but because
> they are haughty in their heart of hearts,
7. Because we didn't come to the same conclusion *you did? Pardon me
for asking, but who's the "haughty" one here? Stereotypical, stupid,
ill-mannered, worse-educated, boor! Tsk.
> they've suppressed this
> truth rendering themselves inexcusable liars. ( Ro. 1:18-20 )
8. I happen to be atheist. How am I lying by not believing in things
for which I have seen no persuasive evidence? And I looked. I may be
mistaken, but I do not lie about this.
>
> Darwin, going one step further, adding incest to the demonstration
> of his ill will toward God and his fellow man by marrying his first
> cousin...
9. Marrying his cousin was against neither biblical nor English law.
It's been quite common until recently in American states where
fundamentalist Christianity still holds sway. Marrying you girls,
too.
10. And there is an implied lie here, which must be mentioned. WTF
does this have to do with whether or not the ToE is correct? A
scientific theory is judged on whether or not it fits the facts and
makes successful predictions. Newton's character does not change the
laws of motion.
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> marrying and having children by incest was allowed by God for the
> purpose of producing the human race up until the time the law of God
> was handed down to Moses over 3,000 years ago. since then incest
> became forbidden to all people worldwide... but why should someone who
> believes and teaches children they came from monkeys care what others
> think about his marrying his own first cousin ?
11. Like all those good 'ole boys in the American South? this is a
multiple lie; it's hard to count them all. Marrying a cousin in 19th
century UK was not incest, by either secular or biblical standard.
12. This is not unique to atheists, or even particularly common among
them.
13. What on Earth makes you think that anyone who is scientifically
literate would be less sensitive to the opinions of others than the
average person?
>
> by the same Darwinian logic he could have married his own mother and
> had children by her as well... incest is incest...
14. Please provide any evidence that young men who marry their cousins
would be particularly inclined to marry their mothers. This is stupid,
and perverse.
>
> in review... here we have Charles Darwin, incestuous
No incestuous. Repeat lie.
> Atheist
> desperately trying to prove with words alone,
15. Most atheist spend no more time "Trying to prove" there is no
Yahweh than they do trying to prove there is no Zeus.
> but never with
> scientific proof, that there is no God ( which perfectly describes God
> charge against Darwin types 2000 years before Darwin was even born )..
16. Science does not try to prove there is no God. Most Christians
around the world, and perhaps half in the US, have no trouble with
evolutionary science.
>
> and here we have a Catholic priest Atheist
17. This seems unlikely in general, doncha think? In any event,
assuming you're still talking about Darwin, he went to school to study
theology. He was on the path to becoming a clergyman in the Anglican
Church, but not the Catholic priesthood.
> desperately trying to
> prove there is no God by his concoction of the Big Bang theory.
Oh, wait... You must have changed subjects. I guess we should assume
you are talking about Georges Lemaitre. He was trying to understand
how the universe works, as all scientists do. Most theists assume the
Big Bang was how and when God did it all. This is still lie 17, I
suppose.
>
> let see now... if you bake bread for a living you're a baker...
>
> if you're a Darwin disciple you're an Atheist with the potential for
> incest...
No. These are repeats, and I won't count them. should we add to the
list: Creationists lie, insult, are ignorant of their own religion,
know nothing of law, despise knowledge and hold civil behavior in
contempt?
>
> if you're a Big Bang theorist you're a Catholic Atheist...
Bwahahahaha!
18. Atheist don't believe in gods, dufus.
>
> sure doesn't sound like a bunch of believable people just by seeing
> their low-life way of life.
I spent the day gardening. My wife was reading, then she gardened.
Yesterday we exercised and played on our computers. I won't count this
as a lie, since I suppose you might consider exercise, knowledge,
play, and beautifying the world to be low-life activity. Oh, hell,
I'll count it anyway. Most people wouldn't consider this "low-life" -
19.
Nineteen lies! Will you be back to defend *any of them? I doubt it!
Not a bad troll post, though.
Kermit
Earle Jones
Sammy <sa...@home.com> wrote:
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
>
> when it comes to the things of God an Atheist is the last person on
> earth to consult with... Atheists hate God and their hate is real, not
> some delusion. God made Himself evident to all persons but because
> they are haughty in their heart of hearts, they've suppressed this
> truth rendering themselves inexcusable liars. ( Ro. 1:18-20 )
>
> Darwin, going one step further, adding incest to the demonstration
> of his ill will toward God and his fellow man by marrying his first
> cousin...
>
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> marrying and having children by incest was allowed by God for the
> purpose of producing the human race up until the time the law of God
> was handed down to Moses over 3,000 years ago. since then incest
> became forbidden to all people worldwide... but why should someone who
> believes and teaches children they came from monkeys care what others
> think about his marrying his own first cousin ?
>
> by the same Darwinian logic he could have married his own mother and
> had children by her as well... incest is incest...
*
....you mean the way that Adam and Eve's children did it.
Who, by the way, did they have sex with to keep the population of
the world going?
earle
*
bec...@alumni.caltech.edu
> In article <1177297076.971680.13...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
>
> >Yes. They are legal in Rhode Island. In fact, Rhode Island goes one
> >better, and allows Jews to marry within the degree of consanguinity
> >that the Bibble allows them; i.e., an uncle may marry his niece.
>
> I have heard this repeatedly, and each time have asked for proof that
> the law grants this liberty only to jews. Do you have a cite?
>
Domestic Relations, Chapter 15-1 Persons Eligible to Marry:
§ 15-1-1 Men forbidden to marry kindred. - No man shall marry his
mother, grandmother, daughter, son's daughter, daughter's daughter,
stepmother, grandfather's wife, son's wife, son's son's wife,
daughter's son's wife, wife's mother, wife's grandmother, wife's
daughter, wife's son's daughter, wife's daughter's daughter, sister,
brother's daughter, sister's daughter, father's sister, or mother's
sister.
§ 15-1-2 Women forbidden to marry kindred. - No woman shall marry
her father, grandfather, son, son's son, daughter's son, stepfather,
grandmother's husband, daughter's husband, son's daughter's husband,
daughter's daughter's husband, husband's father, husband's
grandfather, husband's son, husband's son's son, husband's daughter's
son, brother, brother's son, sister's son, father's brother, or
mother's brother.
§ 15-1-3 Incestuous marriages void. - If any man or woman
intermarries within the degrees stated in § 15-1-1 or § 15-1-2, the
marriage shall be null and void.
§ 15-1-4 Marriages of kindred allowed by Jewish religion. - The
provisions of §§ 15-1-1 - 15-1-3 shall not extend to, or in any way
affect, any marriage which shall be solemnized among the Jewish
people, within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by
their religion.
dali_70
So when god knocked up mary, he was commiting incest, and JC is the
result of it ;)
jet
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 04:53:08 -0400, the following appeared
>
> > here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> >Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> >likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> >wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
>
> Edition No. 3,436,853 of "Attack the Messenger". Can't you
> idiots come up with any material actually *relevant*?
> (Rhetorical question...)
>
> > when it comes to the things of God an Atheist is the last person on
> >earth to consult with... Atheists hate God and their hate is real, not
> >some delusion.
>
> The delusion is the one shared by those morons who don't
> understand the simple, and true, claim that atheists *have
> no belief that any deities exist*. Try to let that concept
> sink in, then consider whether one can "hate" a being one
> does not believe exists. Do you "hate" Odin? How about the
> Invisible Pink Unicorn Who Created All That Is?
>
Well, hate may be strong, but I do find the whole "Pink" bit on the
pretentious side. Being invisible isn't good enough, she has to be
pink as well?
<snip>
Desertphile
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
If mister Darwin had consumed human babies every morning for breakfast
and ran around Europe burning down orphanages with children inside,
evolutionary theory would still be correct and evolution would still
have occured and occur.
I am not a good judge of what women admire and desire, but looking
over Darwin's journals and his biographies, Charles Darwin was
handsome, kind, polite, compassionate, intelligent, witty, and a stud
muffin: he had great physical stamina and mental fortitude; he went
out of his way to avoid giving offense.
Kermit
He didn't necessarily know that. Fundamentalists typically are so
conditioned to accept assertions by authority figures, and only those
assertions, that he may truly find it incomprehensible that scientists
are not just followers in another cult.
Similarly, he may not understand that there is an external reality
that he can actually confirm himself. Everything he experiences is
filtered thru the "truth filters"
of his doctrine.
>
> --
> Do not contact me at kbjarna...@ncoldns.com
Kermit
skyeyes
It's one of Her Divine Mysteries (TM).
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Mike Dworetsky
news:1177314516.7...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Curiously, the first two clauses do not make illegal marriage between first
cousins (the subject of the thread). And interestingly, some of the
relationships excluded are not "blood" relations at all, such as daughter's
son's wife.
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Ferrous Patella
> marrying and having children by incest was allowed by God for the
> purpose of producing the human race up until the time the law of God
> was handed down to Moses over 3,000 years ago.
This sounds like a expedisous case of moral (ahem) relativism on God's
part to get over the hump in start-up mode.
--
"Her vocabulary was as bad as, like, whatever."
Annual English Teachers' awards for best student
metaphors/analogies found in actual student papers
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 10:43:35 -0700, Kermit wrote:
> He didn't necessarily know that. Fundamentalists typically are so
> conditioned to accept assertions by authority figures, and only those
> assertions, that he may truly find it incomprehensible that scientists
> are not just followers in another cult.
You might have a point. If they really cannot fathom the notion of a
system run other than on the dictates of authority, they'll never "get"
science and they'll presumably remain forever confused over why, for
example, we'd be so quick to dismiss appeals to some random scientist. It
would also explain their persistence in tossing bible passages at us:
"This is what the authority says..."
Blech.
Pfusand
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
> <beck...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's not "curious;" it's just as I said. Grump, grump.
Paul Ciszek
In article <1177314516.7...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
<bec...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> ง 15-1-4 Marriages of kindred allowed by Jewish religion. - The
>provisions of งง 15-1-1 - 15-1-3 shall not extend to, or in any way
>affect, any marriage which shall be solemnized among the Jewish
>people, within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by
>their religion.
And has the constitutionality of this law ever been challanged?
As I recall, a city in Florida tried to outlaw the killing of animals
for religious purposes, but found that they could not ban the sort of
practices they wanted to ban without also shutting down kosher meat
suppliers, since the law could not specify or exempt a particular
religion without violating the first amendment.
Jim Willemin
news:1177365921.4...@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
I just want to say that it is one of the great joys of this newsgroup
to see the fruits of the labors of those who go out and get the sources
to settle questions like this. I thank you all for such an
intellectually satisfying exchange (as opposed to, say, anything
involving Ray or Dale or someone).
Robert Carnegie
Ferrous Patella wrote:
> news:mi8m23dbdg2psk2b9...@4ax.com by Sammy:
>
> > marrying and having children by incest was allowed by God for the
> > purpose of producing the human race up until the time the law of God
> > was handed down to Moses over 3,000 years ago.
>
> This sounds like a expedisous case of moral (ahem) relativism on God's
> part to get over the hump in start-up mode.
For that matter, why did God decide to stop close family marriages
then, if they were okay before?
Btw, do you mean "expeditious" or "expedient"?
Robert Carnegie
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
At least some of this might have to do with inheritance tax evasion?
Or with some kinds of arranged marriages? Or both?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest (several quality-
control warnings at the top), "The Bible, primarily in Leviticus,
[...] prohibits sexual relations between aunts and nephews, but not
between uncles and nieces. Christians interpret it to include the
latter by implication [i.e. as prohibited?], though Jews traditionally
do not."
Incidentally, what would be the implication of this law being
unconstitutional? Would the whole thing be struck out, and all the
prohibited marriages allowed?
Gerry Murphy
"Ferrous Patella" <mail1...@pop.net> wrote in message
news:Xns991B79E5D86FC...@130.81.64.196...
Wouldn't "hump in start-up mode" ( or possibly "humpin' start-up mode")
be a good name for a rock band? 8-}
bec...@alumni.caltech.edu
> In article <1177314516.793874.152...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <beck...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > ง 15-1-4 Marriages of kindred allowed by Jewish religion. - The
> >provisions of งง 15-1-1 - 15-1-3 shall not extend to, or in any way
> >affect, any marriage which shall be solemnized among the Jewish
> >people, within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by
> >their religion.
>
> And has the constitutionality of this law ever been challanged?
>
constitutional challenge, so I can
only guess that they have never been challenged. When I came accross
this I imagined that
this was some old law that is still on the books but not enforced nor
defended any longer. However,
I found that as of March 2007, a bill has been intrduced that rewrites
these laws to accomodate
same sex marriages, but the weird 15-1-4 part is still there (see
http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText07/HouseText07/H6081.pdf )
Pfusand
> In article <1177314516.793874.152...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> <beck...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
>
> > ง 15-1-4 Marriages of kindred allowed by Jewish religion. - The
> >provisions of งง 15-1-1 - 15-1-3 shall not extend to, or in any way
> >affect, any marriage which shall be solemnized among the Jewish
> >people, within the degrees of affinity or consanguinity allowed by
> >their religion.
>
> And has the constitutionality of this law ever been challanged?
Cleary, you missed Tony and me nattering about this in the NESFA
clubhouse. Lucky you. Er, I mean, what a shame.
I can't imagine it being successfully challenged; it goes right to the
basics. You see, Rhode Island refused to join the Union until the
Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. One of our chief
reasons was the protection of our Jewish community, and this law was
already a part of that.
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
Has made its last mistake.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by jet <jtr...@cox.net>:
Absolutely! "Pink" is what She *is*, not Her color. After
all, She's invisible; invisible deities have no color.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Throwback
Just testing the moderation policy.
Tom McDonald
> And ejaculated in a donkey's ear.
>
> Just testing the moderation policy.
>
Sorry, your post has been rejected because it is icky. And
because you are lame. And stink. And you momma so fat, when she
sat around the house, she sat *around* the house. And you're glue
and the ng is rubber.
Thank you for your interest in posting to talk.origins. Never
post here again.
Seamus
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
>
Though the inbreeding may go a long way to explain WW1 :-)
(Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Victoria#Marriage )
Woland
No, no no. Her color is 'invisible-pink,' a wavelength to which only
the truly faithful are privy.
Seamus
> likes of him...
was an heiress to one of the great fortunes of Victorian Britain; also
from her portraits I can say, though she was no raving beauty, she
definitely was not bad looking.
J.J. O'Shea
(in article <1177429004....@n35g2000prd.googlegroups.com>):
> And ejaculated in a donkey's ear.
>
> Just testing the moderation policy.
>
Which part of "There's no moderation for content" is unclear, moron?
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by nmp <add...@is.invalid>:
>Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:17:14 -0700, schreef Bob Casanova:
>
>[IPU]
>
>> Absolutely! "Pink" is what She *is*, not Her color. After all, She's
>> invisible; invisible deities have no color.
>
>But she does.
Heretic! Her pinkness is an ineffable part of Her
exquisiteness! Nothing so crass as "color" can touch Her!
> And she is *so* pink, you just can't see it. That's because
>we humans are so inadequate. And that's why we must have faith.
>
>I'll have that funny spaghetti monster and its pirate meatballs for
>dinner any time. But don't you dare speaking wrongly about our invisible
>pink unicorn. She is the sweetest, the best, the pinkiest, the
>unicorniest of all.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Woland <jerr...@gmail.com>:
Another heretic! She has no color; Her pinkness is, as I
told another heretic, an ineffable part of Her
exquisiteness. "Color" is for lower beings!
Mark VandeWettering
> And ejaculated in a donkey's ear.
>
> Just testing the moderation policy.
And the patience and decorum of the groups members.
Mark
Emma Pease
Actually considering everything the number of Wedgwood women who
married was fairly small. Charles Darwin's mother, Susannah Wedgwood,
was the only sister of the three who lived to adulthood who married.
Emma was 30 (she was older than Charles) when she married him.
Admittedly given the financial and legal status of married women in
Victorian England, not marrying, unless you were very sure of your
future spouse and assuming you could afford not to marry, was a good
idea.
Emma herself was well educated, spoke Italian, French, and German (she
translated German articles for her husband), played the piano well,
proofread her husband's books, and raised a large family. She had
done the grand tour including staying with her aunt in Italy whose
husband was a well-known Italian historian.
As for pictures, one can try emma darwin at http://images.google.com/
Her diaries are also online now
http://darwin-online.org.uk/EmmaDiaries.html
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Walter Bushell
Emma Pease <em...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
> Legally it was a
> lot more problematic to marry your dead brother's widow.
You mean they forced people into the sin of Onan?
Walter Bushell
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> And has the constitutionality of this law ever been challanged?
>
> As I recall, a city in Florida tried to outlaw the killing of animals
> for religious purposes, but found that they could not ban the sort of
> practices they wanted to ban without also shutting down kosher meat
> suppliers, since the law could not specify or exempt a particular
> religion without violating the first amendment.
And it raises thorny problems, for example, according to Scripture
Jesus's parents sacrificed two birds.
Chris Thompson
4ax.com:
>
> here we have the followers of Darwin, not only proud of his being an
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin ! ( Source : Wikipedia.com )
>
snip
You're just jealous because no Wedgwood would cross the street to piss on
you if you were on fire, let alone allow you to marry into the family.
Chris
Seamus
> Op Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:55:47 -0700, schreefSeamus:
http://tinyurl.com/2gt4pw
Ignore the pix of Chuck; modern Emma ain't bad lookin' either.
Paul Ciszek
In article <1177391309....@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
>
>Cleary, you missed Tony and me nattering about this in the NESFA
>clubhouse. Lucky you. Er, I mean, what a shame.
I remember it being discussed in the NESFA clubhouse. The way I
remember the law being cited, though, was that it permitted marriages
permitted by Judaism, but did not apply only to Jews. The guy I was
arguing with said that if effectively did, since Christians would be
bound by their own rules and unable to take advantage of the law;
I pointed out the existance of atheists.
Instead, the law as cited here seems to specifically give permission
to Jews to do something other people are not allowed to do, and that
would not stand up to constitutional challenge.
>I can't imagine it being successfully challenged; it goes right to the
>basics. You see, Rhode Island refused to join the Union until the
>Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. One of our chief
>reasons was the protection of our Jewish community, and this law was
>already a part of that.
1) Recent additions to the SCOTUS may not believe that freedom
of religion applies to non-Christians
2) The concept of states rights was nullified by the Lee vs. Grant
decision of 1865.
Pfusand
> In article <1177391309.376193.81...@o40g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
>
> >Cleary, you missed Tony and me nattering about this in the NESFA
> >clubhouse. Lucky you. Er, I mean, what a shame.
>
> I remember it being discussed in the NESFA clubhouse. The way I
> remember the law being cited, though, was that it permitted marriages
> permitted by Judaism, but did not apply only to Jews. The guy I was
> arguing with said that if effectively did, since Christians would be
> bound by their own rules and unable to take advantage of the law;
> I pointed out the existance of atheists.
First, there is that squick factor: You pretty much have to be brought
up in an ultra-orthodox environment to think that an uncle-niece
marriage isn't incest.
Also, atheists can't claim that an uncle-niece marriage is part of
their religious tradition.
Actually, it sounds like the guy you were talking to is suffering from
Guy Syndrome: Any group that gets [to do] something that he doesn't
get -- even if he doesn't want it -- is somehow oppressing him. (My
friend, Annie J. once demonstrated such a fellow's unreasonableness to
him by bringing him some of the *free* feminine hygiene products from
the women's bathroom. She handed him some tampons, and, after
exposing the adhesive strip, slapped a menstual pad on the wall of his
cubby. After that, he stopped complaining that the women got more
than the toilet paper and paper towels that the men got.)
> Instead, the law as cited here seems to specifically give permission
> to Jews to do something other people are not allowed to do, and that
> would not stand up to constitutional challenge.
Well, do you think you could get a minister or priest to perform an
uncle-niece marriage? No, it violates their religion. It would
probably be applied to anyone who wanted it applied to them -- but
there is still that squick factor.
> >I can't imagine it being successfully challenged; it goes right to the
> >basics. You see, Rhode Island refused to join the Union until the
> >Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. One of our chief
> >reasons was the protection of our Jewish community, and this law was
> >already a part of that.
>
> 1) Recent additions to the SCOTUS may not believe that freedom
> of religion applies to non-Christians
Tough on them. Actually, tough on certain conservatives. All the
Justices should know better. It's part of the original discussion on
the First Amendment; e.g.:
Objection: "But that would open the door so wide that even a Jew or
Turk might enter!"
Response: "Yes."
(That first comment is pretty much a direct quote; they really wrote
like that back then.)
> 2) The concept of states rights was nullified by the Lee vs. Grant
> decision of 1865.
Remember, Rhode Island did not have to join the Union in the first
place. The Bill of Rights was the modification to the Civil Contract
it took to get us in. Violate the contract by reducing the Bill of
Rights and...
Pfusand
That which does not destroy us
has made its last mistake.
Paul Ciszek
In article <1178591018.8...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
>
>> Instead, the law as cited here seems to specifically give permission
>> to Jews to do something other people are not allowed to do, and that
>> would not stand up to constitutional challenge.
>
>Well, do you think you could get a minister or priest to perform an
>uncle-niece marriage? No, it violates their religion.
Would a judge, justice-of-the-peace, or county clerk (I don't know how
it works in Rhode Island) marry such a couple? That is the question.
Mark Nutter
> Atheist but also so incapable of finding a woman who would want the
> likes of him... so he had to stay inside his own family to find a
> wife... his own first cousin !
I guess it would have been more saintly of him to marry his sister
instead, like Abraham, the man of God.
m
Pfusand
> In article <1178591018.828036.165...@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Pfusand <a...@szczesuil.com> wrote:
>
> >> Instead, the law as cited here seems to specifically give permission
> >> to Jews to do something other people are not allowed to do, and that
> >> would not stand up to constitutional challenge.
>
> >Well, do you think you could get a minister or priest to perform an
> >uncle-niece marriage? No, it violates their religion.
>
> Would a judge, justice-of-the-peace, or county clerk (I don't know how
> it works in Rhode Island) marry such a couple? That is the question.
You'll have to define "such a couple." It could not be a Christian
couple; to refuse to marry them would not be a violation of their
Freedom of Religion. It could not be a Jewish couple; that is already
accepted. You need a non-Jewish couple who none-the-less have a
religion which permits such matrimony.
Now. Whether it's allowed or not, the average clerk is going to say
"no," but that's just because of the prevailing problem of "everybody
knows you can't do that." (I'm basing this on the travails of an
atheist who sought to become a Notary Public in some Southern state,
described in some issue of "Free Inquiry.") My belief is that the
legal determination would be that the answer should be "yes."
The real problem involves a couple without religious beliefs. I don't
*think* an atheist or agnostic couple would work. Since they don't
have religious beliefs, (the argument would go) they must be judged by
secular mores -- which say it's too squicky.
But first, you have to produce your couple.