Darwin the evil atheist
Nando Ronteltap
Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
acknowledges his own evil.
The way he decided to marry his first cousin was incredibly empty and
rationalistic self-interest for not being alone. He did not admit to
love, marriage had no sanctity for him. He just made a shortlist of
pro's and con's to marry or to remain alone, and in the end the pro's
outweighed the con's. In his book "Descent of Man" Darwin projects his
own carelessness in marriage on people in general, saying they marry
foolishly.
Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
of wasp parasites:
"I cannot persuade myself," Darwin wrote, "that a beneficent and
omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
caterpillars."
Which begs the question if these wasps are so utterly worthless evil
creatures to Darwin, then why would he not endavour to eradicate them?
Surely he would see no reason to disbelieve in God, if he believed the
lives of these wasps to have any value.
Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
Nando
Generic454381810
Hey, that read like a 5th grade book report from bizarro world. You should
close with, "And my summer vaction was fun. The end."
Boikat
>
> Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
> of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
> death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
> first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
> acknowledges his own evil.
>
How does that mean he rejected God?
> The way he decided to marry his first cousin was incredibly empty and
> rationalistic self-interest for not being alone. He did not admit to
> love, marriage had no sanctity for him. He just made a shortlist of
> pro's and con's to marry or to remain alone, and in the end the pro's
> outweighed the con's. In his book "Descent of Man" Darwin projects his
> own carelessness in marriage on people in general, saying they marry
> foolishly.
>
Some do, some don't, either way, that was not a
rejection of God, any more than the practice of
many conservative religions that engage in
"arranged marriages". Love has nothing to do with
marriages in those unions either, and they
definitely believe in God. So, again, you display
a stupendous amount of ignorance.
> Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
> of wasp parasites:
>
> "I cannot persuade myself," Darwin wrote, "that a beneficent and
> omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
> the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
> caterpillars."
He does not say he rejects God, just the idea that
God would create parasites. Even many YEC's
believe that, blaming parasitism on The Fall of
Man
>
> Which begs the question if these wasps are so utterly worthless evil
> creatures to Darwin, then why would he not endavour to eradicate them?
> Surely he would see no reason to disbelieve in God, if he believed the
> lives of these wasps to have any value.
As usual, your warped logic leads to meaningless
conclusions and drivel driven nonsensical
babbling.
>
> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
>
Even if your warped and twisted logic had any
bering on reality, which it doesn't, it has no
bering on the validity of the theory of evolution
or natural selection. This is just another warped
and meaningless trollish attempt by you at an ad
hominem attack on Darwin. In other words, you
spout meaningless drivel.
Nothing new there.
> Nando
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
>of wasp parasites:
>
>"I cannot persuade myself," Darwin wrote, "that a beneficent and
>omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
>the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
>caterpillars."
>
>Which begs the question if these wasps are so utterly worthless evil
>creatures to Darwin, then why would he not endavour to eradicate them?
>Surely he would see no reason to disbelieve in God, if he believed the
>lives of these wasps to have any value.
nando reads texts the way butchers treat meat.
this does not imply evil at all... if nature is neither evil nor good,
then the existence and method of these wasps is simply natural.
HOWEVER, if teleology extends throughout nature as creationism implies
(since god created it all), then god created evil, or allows it to
exist. darwin simply states the nature of creationism is disproven
because that theology itself states a test for its own concepts.
>
>Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil
no, he didnt. certainly he was aware of evil before since humans can
be evil. this is unlike st paul who saw GREAT evil (slavery) and
approved of it in glowing terms (read ephesians, colossians, timothy,
philemon). he became aware that the creationist's god could not exist
because they pushed the idea teleology exists in nature. they
themselves set themselves up for the fall. if creationism is correct,
even nature has evil. and that aint an argument for a loving god.
if, however, nature is simply nature, there is no good or evil in
nature.
Alturalan
>From: Nando Ronteltap
Your self-delusions are your own problem and privilege, but please learn how to
write coherently.
-- K-Man
Dave Horn
news:p140lt879emr13h5a...@4ax.com...
[Snip babbling]
[Repost]
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tbm4itgu7gk2hl4fp...@4ax.com...
>
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
>
> >I believe Nando to be an anti-semite.
>
> Dave Horn is lying.
Nando snipped away everything and once again claims there I am lying, but in
the very part he snipped, I challenged this.
There are no lies. When Nando is challenged to explain this, he fails.
[Restored article]
Nando says that his readings of the Bible leave him with the "quite normal
thoughts" that Jews are bad. I have quoted the specific passage several
times - twice in response to claims by Nando that I lied.
Nando has yet to demonstrate a lie, while it is quite clear that he *did*
write about those "quite normal thoughts."
So why won't Nando own up to this? What is he afraid of?
And why won't Nando give us the evidence for his claim that the biology
community "at large" agrees with his assessment of Darwin's work as a
"revolting pile of stinking shit?"
And why did Nando place reviews at the Amazon site for books he's never
read?
[End restored article]
[Repost]
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gu94it8a2b1ujceku...@4ax.com...
[Snip]
[repost]
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pfonhtommna0q52je...@4ax.com...
>
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
[Unmarked snip - typical of Nando]
> >But what did it mean when he said his Bible readings
> >gave him the "quite normal thoughts" that Jews are bad?
>
> Dave Horn is lying.
Asked and answered - more than once. I have quoted Nando specifically and
directly and he has twice now said that I am lying.
But what...exactly...is the lie?
Nando won't say.
Nando is a closet anti-semite who views his readings from the Bible that the
Jews are bad as "quite normal thoughts," and I have theorized that this is
because Nando already harbors anti-semitic tendencies. Those with more
rational viewpoints would not tend to view the Jews as "bad" by an unbiased
reading of the Bible. I provided the specific quote from Nando, and here it
is again:
"Also when reading some passages in the Bible, the thought repeatedly occurs
to me that the Jews killed Christ, and that therefore Jews are bad.
Correction on these thoughts then follows, but still I think quite normal
thoughts like those are what racism in conjuction with Darwinism, and
anti-semitism in conjuction with Christianity, mainly stems from."
This is a direct quote.
Where's the lie?
Nando won't say.
I have asked what this alleged "correction" is supposed to be that takes
care of these "quite normal thoughts" and that, by implication, makes them,
well, not "normal." Nando has not replied.
All Nando can do is claim that there are lies.
Where are the lies?
And Nando has once again snipped away and failed to answer for his claim
that the biology community at large agrees with him that the works of Darwin
are a "revolting pile of stinking shit."
Now *there* was a lie.
[End repost]
[Repost]
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q3snhtsra2t38ifo5...@4ax.com...
>
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
Another unmarked snip here...
> quoted Nando
> Nando won't
> Nando is
> Nando already
> from Nando
> Nando won't
> Nando has
> Nando can
> Nando has
Let's add "Nando didn't."
Nando didn't tell us how there were lies he claims exist.
Nando didn't tell us the evidence for his claim that the biology community
at large agrees with his assessment of Darwin's work as a "revolting pile of
stinking shit."
Nando didn't explain why it is that he views "jews are bad" as "quite normal
thoughts" from reading the Bible, nor did he explain the alleged correction.
[End Repost]
And why did Nando post four reviews at the Amazon site with respect to works
by and about Darwin when he has never read those works?
[End Repost]
It is Nando who lies.
[End repost]
Nando Ronteltap
>if, however, nature is simply nature, there is no good or evil in
>nature.
Yes that is somewhat like the rationale Darwin used.
However it is patently clear that Darwin uses examples of horridness,
his daughter's death, parasites eating the host alive (with notably
largely false conjectures about the host suffering pain on Darwin's
part), not examples of loveliness to discount the existence of God.
By Darwin's rationale demonstrations of goodness, would equally
disprove the existence of God, as demonstrations of suffering would.
But he only lifts out demonstrations of suffering.
It is therefore clear that recognition of evil, especially in relation
to his daughters death, which he tortured himself with, accusing
himself of being some kind of murderer for having married foolishly,
is under the veil of this rationale Darwin posits.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando says that his readings of the Bible leave him with the "quite normal
>thoughts" that Jews are bad. I have quoted the specific passage several
>times - twice in response to claims by Nando that I lied.
Dave Horn is lying.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
The bridge between reality and Darwinists hype of Darwin is just too
big. You are merely suffering from cognitive dissonance.
Nando
Dave Horn
No, it is Nando who lies.
Now Nando and I can trade these kinds of accusations back and forth, but I
have provided direct material from Nando's commentary, and I have shown that
Nando has taken comments by others and represented those comments for
something other than they are.
And then Nando snips away the evidence and the explanations, responding that
there are lies.
But it is Nando who lies. The evidence is clear.
Dave Horn
Ah, here we go again. The problem is not that Nando gets his facts confused
and is not all that proficient at communication. The problem is that Nando
is just too deep a thinker for the best of us.
Perhaps Nando should consider publishing, then, and claim his Pulitzer or
Nobel prize
Or perhaps, deep down, Nando knows that he's full of the proverbial banana
oil, and the only place he can get "published" is Usenet.
Nando Ronteltap
Selvserving arguments by a defensive authoritarian Darwinist.
My comments on basic points, are widely shared by researchers into the
life of Darwin, as any cursory investigation into the matter by a
websearch will show.
Apart from his daughter's death, his domineering father who said
Darwin would never amount to anything, seems to have fashioned
Darwin's mindset. As appears from his notebooks Darwin's father
directly influenced his writings to a large extent. Darwin discussed
his ideas with his domineering father, and he accepted suggestions
from his father about his ideas.
Nando
Dave Horn
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
>
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:83k0ltov6t5hq4mu9...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> altu...@aol.com (Alturalan) wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Subject: Darwin the evil atheist
> >> >>From: Nando Ronteltap
> >> >
> >> >Your self-delusions are your own problem and privilege,
> >> >but please learn how to write coherently.
> >>
> >> The bridge between reality and Darwinists hype of Darwin
> >> is just too big. You are merely suffering from cognitive
> >> dissonance.
> >
> >Ah, here we go again. The problem is not that Nando gets
> >his facts confused and is not all that proficient at
> >communication. The problem is that Nando
> >is just too deep a thinker for the best of us.
> >
> >Perhaps Nando should consider publishing, then, and claim
> >his Pulitzer or Nobel prize
> >
> >Or perhaps, deep down, Nando knows that he's full of the
> >proverbial banana oil, and the only place he can get
> >"published" is Usenet.
>
> Selvserving arguments by a defensive authoritarian Darwinist.
Let's see if Nando can demonstrate this any better than he's demonstrated
anything else, such as the ideas that "jews are bad" are "quite normal
thoughts" from his readings of the Bible.
The fact is that I'm hardly being defensive. It is Nando who is running -
and on the defensive.
> My comments on basic points, are widely shared by
> researchers into the life of Darwin, as any cursory
> investigation into the matter by a websearch will show.
This isn't what Nando claimed.
Nando claimed that the "biology community at large" agreed with his
assessment of the works of Darwin as "a revolting pile of stinking shit."
However, as any cursory reading of this newsgroup has shown, Nando's
comments on "basic points" are not "widely shared" even by those trained in
the field as represented in talk.origins.
> Apart from his daughter's death, his domineering father
> who said Darwin would never amount to anything,
> seems to have fashioned Darwin's mindset. As appears
> from his notebooks Darwin's father directly influenced
> his writings to a large extent. Darwin discussed
> his ideas with his domineering father, and he accepted
> suggestions from his father about his ideas.
None of which is under dispute. This is Nando's way of trying to misdirect.
Steven J.
> Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
> of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
> death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
> first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
> acknowledges his own evil.
>
know whether marrying his cousin increased the chances of having
sickly children (recall he knew nothing of genetics). He worried that
it might, and, like a lot of parents who lose a child, tended to blame
himself irrationally. You use the word "evil" very loosely and
carelessly; it betrays a certain laziness and incompentence of
thought.
>
> The way he decided to marry his first cousin was incredibly empty and
> rationalistic self-interest for not being alone. He did not admit to
> love, marriage had no sanctity for him. He just made a shortlist of
> pro's and con's to marry or to remain alone, and in the end the pro's
> outweighed the con's. In his book "Descent of Man" Darwin projects his
> own carelessness in marriage on people in general, saying they marry
> foolishly.
>
me that Darwin thought that more people ought to think as carefully
about marriage as he did. And, by the way, Nando, why do you think
most people marry? Is not "I'm in love" as selfish a reason as any
(and, given the sort of people some people fall in love with,
sometimes as stupid a reason)? You DO know, surely, that throughout
most of human history, people did not normally marry for love -- they
married for practical reasons, and expected to learn to love their
spouses. Darwin's motivations would have struck most humans
throughout history as entirely normal and proper. How do you define
the "sanctity of marriage," and why do you think Darwin did not
believe in it?
>
> Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
> of wasp parasites:
>
> "I cannot persuade myself," Darwin wrote, "that a beneficent and
> omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
> the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
> caterpillars."
>
> Which begs the question if these wasps are so utterly worthless evil
> creatures to Darwin, then why would he not endavour to eradicate them?
> Surely he would see no reason to disbelieve in God, if he believed the
> lives of these wasps to have any value.
>
_Finding Darwin's God_, argues that the amount of suffering actually
present in nature (not as a result of human decisions) is not great
enough to disprove the existence of a loving God. Still, many U.S.
creationists believe (as Genesis seems to teach) that all animals were
originally vegetarians. They share Darwin's idea that a good God
should not create a world where living things must inflict suffering
on other living things in order to survive. If you believe this, you
have to explain why we clearly live in such a world now. Darwin, in
other words, simply applied creationist logic consistently, and
decided that creationism must be false.
>
> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
>
troubled by the discovery that species can change, because in his day
creationists accepted that God had created each species perfect (so
that it would not need to change) and would never let any species go
extinct. Note that this was before he thought of natural selection;
he didn't know why species changed, only that they did. His first
doubts about God grew directly out of scientific observations.
Second, a great many atheists are atheists because they think that God
should have made a better world, with less suffering, so if Darwin
became an atheist because he saw too much evil in the world, he was in
a lot of company. Finally, to say someone is an "evil atheist" if he
rejects theism because he sees evil in the world, is, like so much of
your writing, lousy English. You should say, for example, "moral
atheist" -- but I suppose that would lack the impact you were aiming
for.
>
> Nando
-- Steven J.
Boikat
Nando's full of crap.
Boikat
>
> Nando
Boikat
Projection.
Boikat
>
> Nando
Adam Marczyk
news:p140lt879emr13h5a...@4ax.com...
[snip]
> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
Rubbish! Everyone knows the Evil Atheist Conspiracy hadn't been formed yet
back then.
Er, that is, it wouldn't have been formed yet back then, if it existed,
which it doesn't.
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
To send e-mail, change "excite" to "hotmail"
Serge Paccalin
Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> a écrit
dans talk.origins :
Are you guys talking about the following?
<http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=nptietcm7hon65pltj35aeaa1o3s
4d7...@4ax.com>
--
___________
_/ _ \_`_`_`_) Serge PACCALIN -- sp ad mailclub.net
\ \_L_) Il faut donc que les hommes commencent
-'(__) par n'être pas fanatiques pour mériter
_/___(_) la tolérance. -- Voltaire, 1763
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<p140lt879emr13h5a...@4ax.com>...
>> Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
>> of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
>> death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
>> first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
>> acknowledges his own evil.
>>
>Making a mistake is not the same as deliberate evil. Darwin did not
>know whether marrying his cousin increased the chances of having
>sickly children (recall he knew nothing of genetics). He worried that
>it might, and, like a lot of parents who lose a child, tended to blame
>himself irrationally. You use the word "evil" very loosely and
>carelessly; it betrays a certain laziness and incompentence of
>thought.
You misunderstand, I propose Darwin believed himself evil this way.
Darwin had this "irrational emotion" (note: emotions aren't really
either rational or irrational IMO, emotions are hateful or loving)
that accused him of his daughter's death, I do not accuse Darwin for
his daughters death.
>> The way he decided to marry his first cousin was incredibly empty and
>> rationalistic self-interest for not being alone. He did not admit to
>> love, marriage had no sanctity for him. He just made a shortlist of
>> pro's and con's to marry or to remain alone, and in the end the pro's
>> outweighed the con's. In his book "Descent of Man" Darwin projects his
>> own carelessness in marriage on people in general, saying they marry
>> foolishly.
>>
>Making a list and weighing the pros and cons is careless? It seems to
>me that Darwin thought that more people ought to think as carefully
>about marriage as he did.
He scribbled a list, you have evidently not read what he scribbled.
> And, by the way, Nando, why do you think
>most people marry? Is not "I'm in love" as selfish a reason as any
>(and, given the sort of people some people fall in love with,
>sometimes as stupid a reason)? You DO know, surely, that throughout
>most of human history, people did not normally marry for love -- they
>married for practical reasons, and expected to learn to love their
>spouses. Darwin's motivations would have struck most humans
>throughout history as entirely normal and proper. How do you define
>the "sanctity of marriage," and why do you think Darwin did not
>believe in it?
Descent of Man
You mistakenly untie Darwin scribbling a list of pro's and con's from
my argument.
>> Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
>> of wasp parasites:
>>
>> "I cannot persuade myself," Darwin wrote, "that a beneficent and
>> omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
>> the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
>> caterpillars."
>>
>> Which begs the question if these wasps are so utterly worthless evil
>> creatures to Darwin, then why would he not endavour to eradicate them?
>> Surely he would see no reason to disbelieve in God, if he believed the
>> lives of these wasps to have any value.
>>
>You actually have a sort of point here; Kenneth Miller, author of
>_Finding Darwin's God_, argues that the amount of suffering actually
>present in nature (not as a result of human decisions) is not great
>enough to disprove the existence of a loving God. Still, many U.S.
>creationists believe (as Genesis seems to teach) that all animals were
>originally vegetarians. They share Darwin's idea that a good God
>should not create a world where living things must inflict suffering
>on other living things in order to survive. If you believe this, you
>have to explain why we clearly live in such a world now. Darwin, in
>other words, simply applied creationist logic consistently, and
>decided that creationism must be false.
Whatever, this is not my point. How Darwin disavowed his belief in God
is my point.
Notice that Darwin neccecitates a war of nature, famine, death and
destruction, for leading to higher animals. Now these things may or
may not be neccessary for higher animals, but it is certain that "war
of nature" doesn't deserve the emphasis that Darwin gave it.
>> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
>> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
>> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
>> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
>>
>This is false on two counts, at least. First, Darwin famously was
>troubled by the discovery that species can change, because in his day
>creationists accepted that God had created each species perfect (so
>that it would not need to change) and would never let any species go
>extinct. Note that this was before he thought of natural selection;
>he didn't know why species changed, only that they did. His first
>doubts about God grew directly out of scientific observations.
It's not as if Darwin was not presented with the idea of changing
species before he went on his voyage, or even direct evidence of such.
>Second, a great many atheists are atheists because they think that God
>should have made a better world, with less suffering, so if Darwin
>became an atheist because he saw too much evil in the world, he was in
>a lot of company. Finally, to say someone is an "evil atheist" if he
>rejects theism because he sees evil in the world, is, like so much of
>your writing, lousy English. You should say, for example, "moral
>atheist" -- but I suppose that would lack the impact you were aiming
>for.
I aim for straightforward meanings. The way he disavowed belief should
have some denotation of evil in it, or suffering, moral doesn't cover
it.
Nando
Boikat
>
> stev...@altavista.com (Steven J.) wrote:
> >Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<p140lt879emr13h5a...@4ax.com>...
> >> Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
> >> of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
> >> death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
> >> first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
> >> acknowledges his own evil.
> >>
> >Making a mistake is not the same as deliberate evil. Darwin did not
> >know whether marrying his cousin increased the chances of having
> >sickly children (recall he knew nothing of genetics). He worried that
> >it might, and, like a lot of parents who lose a child, tended to blame
> >himself irrationally. You use the word "evil" very loosely and
> >carelessly; it betrays a certain laziness and incompentence of
> >thought.
>
> You misunderstand, I propose Darwin believed himself evil this way.
> Darwin had this "irrational emotion" (note: emotions aren't really
> either rational or irrational IMO, emotions are hateful or loving)
> that accused him of his daughter's death, I do not accuse Darwin for
> his daughters death.
>
No, you are just babbling, as usual.
> >> The way he decided to marry his first cousin was incredibly empty and
> >> rationalistic self-interest for not being alone. He did not admit to
> >> love, marriage had no sanctity for him. He just made a shortlist of
> >> pro's and con's to marry or to remain alone, and in the end the pro's
> >> outweighed the con's. In his book "Descent of Man" Darwin projects his
> >> own carelessness in marriage on people in general, saying they marry
> >> foolishly.
> >>
> >Making a list and weighing the pros and cons is careless? It seems to
> >me that Darwin thought that more people ought to think as carefully
> >about marriage as he did.
>
> He scribbled a list, you have evidently not read what he scribbled.
Is there some point to your babbling?
>
> > And, by the way, Nando, why do you think
> >most people marry? Is not "I'm in love" as selfish a reason as any
> >(and, given the sort of people some people fall in love with,
> >sometimes as stupid a reason)? You DO know, surely, that throughout
> >most of human history, people did not normally marry for love -- they
> >married for practical reasons, and expected to learn to love their
> >spouses. Darwin's motivations would have struck most humans
> >throughout history as entirely normal and proper. How do you define
> >the "sanctity of marriage," and why do you think Darwin did not
> >believe in it?
>
> Descent of Man
>
> You mistakenly untie Darwin scribbling a list of pro's and con's from
> my argument.
What "argument"? All you've done is presented an
ad hominem argument.
>
> >> Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
> >> of wasp parasites:
> >>
> >> "I cannot persuade myself," Darwin wrote, "that a beneficent and
> >> omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
> >> the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
> >> caterpillars."
> >>
> >> Which begs the question if these wasps are so utterly worthless evil
> >> creatures to Darwin, then why would he not endavour to eradicate them?
> >> Surely he would see no reason to disbelieve in God, if he believed the
> >> lives of these wasps to have any value.
> >>
> >You actually have a sort of point here; Kenneth Miller, author of
> >_Finding Darwin's God_, argues that the amount of suffering actually
> >present in nature (not as a result of human decisions) is not great
> >enough to disprove the existence of a loving God. Still, many U.S.
> >creationists believe (as Genesis seems to teach) that all animals were
> >originally vegetarians. They share Darwin's idea that a good God
> >should not create a world where living things must inflict suffering
> >on other living things in order to survive. If you believe this, you
> >have to explain why we clearly live in such a world now. Darwin, in
> >other words, simply applied creationist logic consistently, and
> >decided that creationism must be false.
>
> Whatever, this is not my point. How Darwin disavowed his belief in God
> is my point.
You've not shown anywhere that he disavowed
himself of a belief in God.
>
> Notice that Darwin neccecitates a war of nature, famine, death and
> destruction, for leading to higher animals. Now these things may or
> may not be neccessary for higher animals, but it is certain that "war
> of nature" doesn't deserve the emphasis that Darwin gave it.
What metaphor would you have used?
>
> >> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
> >> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
> >> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
> >> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
> >>
> >This is false on two counts, at least. First, Darwin famously was
> >troubled by the discovery that species can change, because in his day
> >creationists accepted that God had created each species perfect (so
> >that it would not need to change) and would never let any species go
> >extinct. Note that this was before he thought of natural selection;
> >he didn't know why species changed, only that they did. His first
> >doubts about God grew directly out of scientific observations.
>
> It's not as if Darwin was not presented with the idea of changing
> species before he went on his voyage, or even direct evidence of such.
Why would evidence, either learned before the
voyage of the Beagle, of data gathered during the
voyage, lead you to claim that darwin became an
atheist?
>
> >Second, a great many atheists are atheists because they think that God
> >should have made a better world, with less suffering, so if Darwin
> >became an atheist because he saw too much evil in the world, he was in
> >a lot of company. Finally, to say someone is an "evil atheist" if he
> >rejects theism because he sees evil in the world, is, like so much of
> >your writing, lousy English. You should say, for example, "moral
> >atheist" -- but I suppose that would lack the impact you were aiming
> >for.
>
> I aim for straightforward meanings.
Bwahahahahahahahahah!
> The way he disavowed belief should
> have some denotation of evil in it, or suffering, moral doesn't cover
> it.
You are so full of crap, it's amazing that the
sanitary inspector hasn't had you hauled away and
flushed!
Boikat
>
> Nando
Klaus Hellnick
Klaus Hellnick
> of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
>
> Nando
Nando, do you have ANY sensible arguments relevent to the origin of man, or
do you only demonize others who have said things you disagree with?
Nando Ronteltap
Just some realistic views of Darwinist' beliefs, which they like to
enmesh in their popscience prose.
For as far as the scientific merit of NS- theory goes, think about
this question.
What, *if any*, is the physical relation *required* between the so
called fit and less fit, to call some event Natural Selection?
This is asking if NS is based on an actual physical relationship
between differentiated "organisms", or if NS is a bullshit comparison
Platonic pseudoscience of "organisms" which in principle have nothing
whatsoever to do with each other at all.
Try refuting your own stupid answer before you post. I would not
likely come up with anything different to refute it, as you can come
up with yourself.
Nando
Adam Marczyk
I guess that answers that question.
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>wf...@ptd.net wrote:
>
>>if, however, nature is simply nature, there is no good or evil in
>>nature.
>
>Yes that is somewhat like the rationale Darwin used.
>
>However it is patently clear that Darwin uses examples of horridness,
>his daughter's death, parasites eating the host alive (with notably
>largely false conjectures about the host suffering pain on Darwin's
>part), not examples of loveliness to discount the existence of God.
no, he didnt. he merely pointed out that if creationist theology was
correct...that nature is teleological...then the conclusion is that
god creates evil.
>
>It is therefore clear that recognition of evil, especially in relation
>to his daughters death, which he tortured himself with, accusing
>himself of being some kind of murderer for having married foolishly,
>is under the veil of this rationale Darwin posits.
>
meaningless. one cannot compare the teleology of nature with the
imputed purpose of religion...which is to define humanity's
relationship with god. it was the creationists who said nature was
teleological. darwin examined their claim, and found it disproved
their god. thats the problem you creationists have. you keep trying to
stuff god in a test tube...and he doesnt fit.
Alturalan
>From: Nando Ronteltap
Nando tells K-Man:
>The bridge between reality and Darwinists hype of Darwin is just too
>big. You are merely suffering from cognitive dissonance.
And you're not, "Nando"? Do you know what cognitive dissonance is?
- K-Man
Alturalan
>From: Nando Ronteltap
Nando enlightens us with:
>Apart from his daughter's death,
>his domineering father who said
>Darwin would never amount to anything, seems to have fashioned
>Darwin's mindset.
"seems to" have? So, therefore, you don't know this for a fact? Who or what the
hell fashioned YOUR mindset, "Nando"? I'd just as soon not know.
As appears from his notebooks Darwin's father
>directly influenced his writings to a large extent.
"As appears from his notebooks" ...<snip>... to a large extent." So, once
again, you're not sure of this? What's "a large extent"? Sounds pretty
arbitrary. While we're at it, what's a "small extent"?
Darwin discussed
>his ideas with his domineering father, and he accepted suggestions
>from his father about his ideas.
Do you know this for a fact, "Nando"? Or are you making this up as you go?
-- K-Man
>
>Nando
>
Alturalan
>"Nando Ronteltap" < blah blah blaagh>
>> then he says "Selvserving arguments by a defensive authoritarian Darwinist."
That's self-serving" not "selvserving," "Nando." The rest sounds like the pot
calling the kettle grungy. Nando isn't defensive? He/she/it isn't
authoritarian?
< snip > >the ideas that "jews are bad" are "quite normal
>thoughts" from his readings of the Bible.
What does "Nando" call "normal"? What does he/she/it consider "thoughts"?
>Nando claimed that the "biology community at large" agreed with his
>assessment of the works of Darwin as "a revolting pile of stinking shit."
More pot calling kettle grungy?
-- K-Man
Dave
>
> Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
>
> Nando
Sadly, as we all know, Darwin was very aware of people like Nando.
Alturalan
Nando (Nandroid?) generously gives us (as if we begged for it?):
>Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, <snip incoherence>
Okay, Nandroid, let's start over:
>Darwin became atheist...
Darwin became AN atheist...
>at the recognition of evil, ...
as a CONSEQUENCE OF SEEING EVIDENCE FOR WHAT HE INTERPRETED AS EVIL, ....
> unlike other
>> atheists who for instance reject God
unlike other atheists who reject A BELIEF IN GOD, OR GODS, OR A CERTAIN CONCEPT
OF GOD...
>because scientific standards of
>> evidence do not register the existence of God.
because, FROM THEIR P0INTS OF VIEW, PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM SCIENTIFIC
DISCIPLINES DO NOT CONFIRM the existence of a God OR GODS. .
>As those people may be
>> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
SUCH INDIVIDUALS I [Nando] WILL PROVISIONALLY CALL "SCIENTIFIC
ATHEISTS." I BELIEVE THAT DARWIN DIFFERED FROM "SCIENTIFIC ATHEISTS" IN BEING
WHAT I CALL AN "EVIL ATHEIST."
Learn how to write, Nandroid - K-Man
Boikat
>
> "Klaus Hellnick" <khel...@houston.rr.com> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:p140lt879emr13h5a...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
> >> of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
> >> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
> >> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
> >> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
> >>
> >> Nando
> >
> > Nando, do you have ANY sensible arguments relevent to the origin of man, or
> >do you only demonize others who have said things you disagree with?
>
> Just some realistic views of Darwinist' beliefs, which they like to
> enmesh in their popscience prose.
You have no basis in reality to make that claim.
>
> For as far as the scientific merit of NS- theory goes, think about
> this question.
>
> What, *if any*, is the physical relation *required* between the so
> called fit and less fit, to call some event Natural Selection?
Suitability to the environment with regards of the
organisms various traits, as compared
(impartially) to other organisms which occupy the
same environment.
>
> This is asking if NS is based on an actual physical relationship
> between differentiated "organisms", or if NS is a bullshit comparison
> Platonic pseudoscience of "organisms" which in principle have nothing
> whatsoever to do with each other at all.
More babbling. Obviously it's a relationship
between the organisms and the environment they
inhabit. You have to be pretty stupid not to see
that.
>
> Try refuting your own stupid answer before you post. I would not
> likely come up with anything different to refute it, as you can come
> up with yourself.
>
You are also suffering from delusions, and are an
intellectual coward.
Alturalan
>"Nando Ronteltap" serves up the following:
>> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
>> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
>> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
>> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
So, "Nando," does "evil atheist" in the sense you use it here mean "atheist due
to his perception of evil" but not necessarily evil himself, or "evil-minded
atheist"?
-- K-Man
H,R.Gruemm
> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
Ex Nando semper aliquid novi!
Even the knowledgeable Nandoists will be surprised by this last tour
de force.
Apparently a Baptist preacher who preaches against evil would be
called an "evil preacher" in Nandoese terminology .....
HRG.
> Nando
lenny
>
> Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
> of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
> first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
> acknowledges his own evil.
>
> The way he decided to marry his first cousin was incredibly empty and
> rationalistic self-interest for not being alone. He did not admit to
> love, marriage had no sanctity for him. He just made a shortlist of
> pro's and con's to marry or to remain alone, and in the end the pro's
> outweighed the con's. In his book "Descent of Man" Darwin projects his
> own carelessness in marriage on people in general, saying they marry
> foolishly.
>
> Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
> of wasp parasites:
>
> "I cannot persuade myself," Darwin wrote, "that a beneficent and
> omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
> the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
> caterpillars."
>
> Which begs the question if these wasps are so utterly worthless evil
> creatures to Darwin, then why would he not endavour to eradicate them?
> Surely he would see no reason to disbelieve in God, if he believed the
> lives of these wasps to have any value.
>
> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
>
You can always tell when Nando has finally collected enough empty cans and
bottles to buy a tube of glue.
ZeldaG
>Date: 7/14/2001 10:02 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3b51...@news.sentex.net>
Thanks. I always wondered where Nando was coming from.
This passage makes it abundantly clear that Nando will say the most absurd
things in order to justify his hatred. Poor fellow. Where is the much vaunted
love his sort do go on about?
Eros
Why do you think that an analysis of Darwin's private life has any bearing
on the fact of evolution? Surely the personal views of the discoverer of a
scientific theory or principle are irrelevant to the veracity of the
discovery itself.
--
EROS.
"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should
they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
[President George Bush]
Eros
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
> >Nando says that his readings of the Bible leave him with the "quite
normal
> >thoughts" that Jews are bad. I have quoted the specific passage several
> >times - twice in response to claims by Nando that I lied.
>
> Dave Horn is lying.
An assertion you have failed to prove!
--
EROS.
"There is not a single reference to a "Jesus" or to "Jesus Christ" written
by any secular source who lived during the years in which Christ supposedly
walked the Earth. To me, this fact is very revealing, since these years
represent one of the most thoroughly documented periods of antiquity.
Wouldn't Jesus' miracles have drawn the attention of hundreds of
contemporary writers and record-keepers? Why is there no mention at all of
Jesus' existence? "
[David Mills]
Nando Ronteltap
Atheist due to his perception of evil. The "rationale" goes something
like: there is evil, so there is no God, since there is no God there
is no evil there is just neutrality. This makes no sense, but like
with most religions the emotional sophistication of Darwin attached to
his words should make "sense", should be loving.
Nando
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>altu...@aol.com (Alturalan) wrote:
nando, as befits a creationist, gets all the words wrong.
what darwin did, according to the text nando supplied, was pass
judgement on the creationist concept that teleology is reflected in
nature.
creationists say 'goddidit' caused nature to exist. as such, the
existence of evil in nature, as a reflection of gods creative power
means that either god is evil, or the god of the creationists does not
exist.
since creationists themselves place themselves in the position of
trying to stuff god in a test tube, its obvious the latter is the
conclusion darwin drew...just as most people, when confronted with the
stupidity and illogic of creationism, come to the same conclusion.
Alturalan
Nando says: >>>> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, <snip>
K-Man asks: >So, "Nando," does "evil atheist" in the sense you use it here mean
<snip>
Nando replies: >Atheist due to his perception of evil. The "rationale" goes
something
>like: <snip>
I apologize for asking, Nando. You're as incoherent as ever, which is to say,
completely.
K-Man
Nando Ronteltap
>"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:l9k0lts2rnpqt7jf4...@4ax.com...
>> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
>> >Nando says that his readings of the Bible leave him with the "quite
>normal
>> >thoughts" that Jews are bad. I have quoted the specific passage several
>> >times - twice in response to claims by Nando that I lied.
>>
>> Dave Horn is lying.
>
>An assertion you have failed to prove!
Follow the link of Serge, then look at Dave Horn's writings about me.
That should be proof enough.
Nando
Paul Ruggeri
>
> Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
> of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
> death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
> first cousin.
Since when? References please???? Please show references to where Darwin
stated this. That sort of marriage was very common in the upper class at
that time. It does not convey significantly more 'bad inheritance' to marry
a first cousin than it does to marry a non-relative. My grandparents were
1st cousins and when I discovered this it caused me considerable worry for
quite some time. However every doctor I spoke with, every text I could find
indicated that there is no significant risk from this. There is normally a
chance of 2 or 3 in 100 of genetic deformity in children when non-relatives
marry. The chances increase to only 3 or 4 in 100 when first cousins marry.
Hardly a significant increase.
[snip]
>In his book "Descent of Man" Darwin projects his
> own carelessness in marriage on people in general, saying they marry
> foolishly.
People DO marry foolishly - for many, many foolish reasons. Some people do
marry for GOOD reasons though. It took Darwin to point this out to you? Heh.
The rest of what you said is so full of creatinoist propaganda,
misinformation, self-contradiction, and mental masturbation that I'm
surprised ANYONE else has bothered to respond to you. Instead of getting
your information from creationist websites, go to the LIBRARY and browse
through the books there. Find some biographies on Charles Darwin and read
those. Pick up some actual science books in the science section and read
those.
Paul
Dave
>
> Atheist due to his perception of evil. The "rationale" goes something
> like: there is evil, so there is no God, since there is no God there
> is no evil there is just neutrality. This makes no sense, but like
> with most religions the emotional sophistication of Darwin attached to
> his words should make "sense", should be loving.
>
> Nando
On the other hand you want to blame all evil, all suffering, on the
sin of a fictional Adam who never existed. If there is a God then
strife and suffering is inherent in His design.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/twain/letearth.htm
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:p140lt879emr13h5a...@4ax.com...
>>
>> Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
>> of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
>> death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
>> first cousin.
>
>Since when? References please???? Please show references to where Darwin
>stated this. That sort of marriage was very common in the upper class at
>that time. It does not convey significantly more 'bad inheritance' to marry
>a first cousin than it does to marry a non-relative. My grandparents were
>1st cousins and when I discovered this it caused me considerable worry for
>quite some time. However every doctor I spoke with, every text I could find
>indicated that there is no significant risk from this. There is normally a
>chance of 2 or 3 in 100 of genetic deformity in children when non-relatives
>marry. The chances increase to only 3 or 4 in 100 when first cousins marry.
>Hardly a significant increase.
Whatever. Darwin blamed himself for it nevertheless.
>
>[snip]
>
>>In his book "Descent of Man" Darwin projects his
>> own carelessness in marriage on people in general, saying they marry
>> foolishly.
>
>People DO marry foolishly - for many, many foolish reasons. Some people do
>marry for GOOD reasons though. It took Darwin to point this out to you? Heh.
What good reasons are you talking about? Certainly not the neo-nazi
good reasons of Darwin I hope.
>The rest of what you said is so full of creatinoist propaganda,
>misinformation, self-contradiction, and mental masturbation that I'm
>surprised ANYONE else has bothered to respond to you. Instead of getting
>your information from creationist websites, go to the LIBRARY and browse
>through the books there. Find some biographies on Charles Darwin and read
>those. Pick up some actual science books in the science section and read
>those.
Darwinism thrives on popscience books, on obscure terminology such as
struggle for existence, selfish genes, innate aggression etc. There
are no actual darwinist science books, that for instance would clearly
and with scientific clarity state what the physical relation is, if
any, between the socalled fit and less fit, in differential
reproductive success. You can't tell me that, because you are another
mindless Darwinist twit.
Nando
Paul Ruggeri
> Selvserving arguments by a defensive authoritarian Darwinist.
>
> My comments on basic points, are widely shared by researchers into the
> life of Darwin, as any cursory investigation into the matter by a
> websearch will show.
Again, references... ???? Namely websites where you got this 'information'
from??
> Apart from his daughter's death, his domineering father who said
> Darwin would never amount to anything, seems to have fashioned
> Darwin's mindset.
> As appears from his notebooks
I sincerely doubt you've read Darwin's notebooks.
> Darwin's father
> directly influenced his writings to a large extent.
He most certainly did not. Darwins father believed that his pursuits in
geology and nature were an utter wast of time, and was outraged by his
decision to take up the position of Captains Companion on board the HMS
Beagle because it would mean another delay in pursuing the career in the
Clergy that he wanted for his son.
> Darwin discussed
> his ideas with his domineering father, and he accepted suggestions
> from his father about his ideas.
A few paragraphs above, you said above that Darwins father said he would
never amount to anything. That is true. But that is because Darwin refused
to go in the carreer directions into which his father tried to force him.
His love of geology, nature and collecting was a collosal waste of time to
Darwin's dad. And he wanted nothing to do with this. So not only does you
above statement conflict with the one of a few paragraphs abovem but it is
either misinformation or a lie on your part. Have you ever picked up a book
other than the bible? Ever read anything other than a Fundie/Creationist
website? Either browse the shelves at you local library or read:
"Darwin for Beginners" by Jonathan Miller & Borin Van Loon.
"Ever Since Darwin" SJ Gould
"Wonderful Life" SJ Gould
"Hens Teeth and Horses Toes" SJ Gould
All contain a wealth of biographical information about Charles Darwin.
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ddm0lt8rf91ervkah...@4ax.com...
>
>> Selvserving arguments by a defensive authoritarian Darwinist.
>>
>> My comments on basic points, are widely shared by researchers into the
>> life of Darwin, as any cursory investigation into the matter by a
>> websearch will show.
>
>Again, references... ???? Namely websites where you got this 'information'
>from??
>
>> Apart from his daughter's death, his domineering father who said
>> Darwin would never amount to anything, seems to have fashioned
>> Darwin's mindset.
>
>> As appears from his notebooks
>
>I sincerely doubt you've read Darwin's notebooks.
But we know that you haven't. Otherwise you would have known Darwin's
father had farreaching access to Darwin's thought.
>> Darwin's father
>> directly influenced his writings to a large extent.
>
>He most certainly did not. Darwins father believed that his pursuits in
>geology and nature were an utter wast of time, and was outraged by his
>decision to take up the position of Captains Companion on board the HMS
>Beagle because it would mean another delay in pursuing the career in the
>Clergy that he wanted for his son.
So this establishes that Darwin's father seeked to control him much.
And he went on to that in later life.
>> Darwin discussed
>> his ideas with his domineering father, and he accepted suggestions
>> from his father about his ideas.
>
>A few paragraphs above, you said above that Darwins father said he would
>never amount to anything. That is true. But that is because Darwin refused
>to go in the carreer directions into which his father tried to force him.
>His love of geology, nature and collecting was a collosal waste of time to
>Darwin's dad. And he wanted nothing to do with this. So not only does you
>above statement conflict with the one of a few paragraphs abovem but it is
>either misinformation or a lie on your part.
Or it is something you don't like to hear. Gee, now which would be the
truth.
Who would tell the truth. Could it be that the mindless twit that
doesn't know what, if any, the physical relation is supposed to be
between the differentiated organisms in differential reproductive
succes, but nevertheless supports this theory wholeheartedly, is just
ignoring all facts he doesn't like?
> Have you ever picked up a book
>other than the bible? Ever read anything other than a Fundie/Creationist
>website? Either browse the shelves at you local library or read:
>
> "Darwin for Beginners" by Jonathan Miller & Borin Van Loon.
>"Ever Since Darwin" SJ Gould
>"Wonderful Life" SJ Gould
>"Hens Teeth and Horses Toes" SJ Gould
>
>All contain a wealth of biographical information about Charles Darwin.
But are not actually biographies of Darwin it seems.
Darwin: the life of a tormented evolutionist. Desmond/Moore
Nando
wf...@ptd.net
wrote:
>
>What good reasons are you talking about? Certainly not the neo-nazi
>good reasons of Darwin I hope.
every time nando brings up naziism in connection with evolution, let
us remember
1. christians created antisemitism, not scientists
2. that christian antisemitism provided the ground on which the nazis
built the shoah
3. the most recent episode of genocide was partially caused by the
creationist notion of the hamitic hypothesis (rwanda 1994).
4. the only 2 nazis on this newsgroup are creationists.
5. by denying the role of xtianity in the shoah, nando is presenting
himself as a revisionist antisemite.
Richard A. Mathers
Thank you! I'm laughing as I type. It's truly funny and
appropriate given Nando's rational abilities.
Dave Horn
I don't know who "Serge" is, but I have quoted Nando frequently and
extensively. I have said that his statements leave me with the impression
that he has anti-semitic tendencies. Nando has been challenged frequently
to explain what - exactly - he meant when he made the statements that he
made and he has failed to do so.
Nando said that his readings of the Bible leave him with the impression that
Jews are bad. He has said that this is because the Jews killed Christ. He
refers to this impression as "quite normal thoughts." I have quoted
portions and the entire paragraph several times.
Nando says that if we just look at this apparent link (I'm going to guess
that it was to the original message) and my messages we will see "proof
enough." This is not the first time Nando has made a claim and then, when
challenged, sort of points and whines "see!"
It's nonsense. The only lies here are Nando's.
Dave Horn
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p140lt879emr13h5a...@4ax.com...
[Snip babbling]
[Repost]
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:tbm4itgu7gk2hl4fp...@4ax.com...
>
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
>
> >I believe Nando to be an anti-semite.
>
> Dave Horn is lying.
Nando snipped away everything and once again claims there I am lying, but in
the very part he snipped, I challenged this.
There are no lies. When Nando is challenged to explain this, he fails.
[Restored article]
Nando says that his readings of the Bible leave him with the "quite normal
thoughts" that Jews are bad. I have quoted the specific passage several
times - twice in response to claims by Nando that I lied.
Nando has yet to demonstrate a lie, while it is quite clear that he *did*
write about those "quite normal thoughts."
So why won't Nando own up to this? What is he afraid of?
And why won't Nando give us the evidence for his claim that the biology
community "at large" agrees with his assessment of Darwin's work as a
"revolting pile of stinking shit?"
And why did Nando place reviews at the Amazon site for books he's never
read?
[End restored article]
[Repost]
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:gu94it8a2b1ujceku...@4ax.com...
[Snip]
[repost]
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pfonhtommna0q52je...@4ax.com...
>
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
[Unmarked snip - typical of Nando]
> >But what did it mean when he said his Bible readings
> >gave him the "quite normal thoughts" that Jews are bad?
>
> Dave Horn is lying.
Asked and answered - more than once. I have quoted Nando specifically and
directly and he has twice now said that I am lying.
But what...exactly...is the lie?
Nando won't say.
Nando is a closet anti-semite who views his readings from the Bible that the
Jews are bad as "quite normal thoughts," and I have theorized that this is
because Nando already harbors anti-semitic tendencies. Those with more
rational viewpoints would not tend to view the Jews as "bad" by an unbiased
reading of the Bible. I provided the specific quote from Nando, and here it
is again:
"Also when reading some passages in the Bible, the thought repeatedly occurs
to me that the Jews killed Christ, and that therefore Jews are bad.
Correction on these thoughts then follows, but still I think quite normal
thoughts like those are what racism in conjuction with Darwinism, and
anti-semitism in conjuction with Christianity, mainly stems from."
This is a direct quote.
Where's the lie?
Nando won't say.
I have asked what this alleged "correction" is supposed to be that takes
care of these "quite normal thoughts" and that, by implication, makes them,
well, not "normal." Nando has not replied.
All Nando can do is claim that there are lies.
Where are the lies?
And Nando has once again snipped away and failed to answer for his claim
that the biology community at large agrees with him that the works of Darwin
are a "revolting pile of stinking shit."
Now *there* was a lie.
[End repost]
[Repost]
"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q3snhtsra2t38ifo5...@4ax.com...
>
> "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
Another unmarked snip here...
> quoted Nando
> Nando won't
> Nando is
> Nando already
> from Nando
> Nando won't
> Nando has
> Nando can
> Nando has
Let's add "Nando didn't."
Nando didn't tell us how there were lies he claims exist.
Nando didn't tell us the evidence for his claim that the biology community
at large agrees with his assessment of Darwin's work as a "revolting pile of
stinking shit."
Nando didn't explain why it is that he views "jews are bad" as "quite normal
thoughts" from reading the Bible, nor did he explain the alleged correction.
[End Repost]
And why did Nando post four reviews at the Amazon site with respect to works
by and about Darwin when he has never read those works?
[End Repost]
It is Nando who lies.
[End repost]
Martin Crisp
wrote (in message <3b503665...@news.ptdprolog.net>):
> nando reads texts the way butchers treat meat.
4. 'Butcher's thigh' implies
A. hypertrophy of the thigh muscles in butchers due to humping[*] meat.
B. rupture of muscles due to humping[*] meat
C. bursa of the femoral triangle
D. division of one or more of the femoral vessels of a butcher when a
boning-knife slips.
* I assume it means 'carrying'.
[From _1001 Multiple Choice Questions and Answers in Surgery_]
Perhaps we have a new entry for the lexicon of U of E?
Have Fun
Martin
--
aa #(2^8)*(2^3-2^0)
[...]Et sepultus resurrexit; certum est, quia impossibile.
-- Tertullian
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 14 Jul 2001 05:51:41 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
>of his daughter Annie.
This is probably a grabled rendition of a synopsis of "Annie's Box:
Charles Darwin, his daughter and evolution". Annie's death was the
catalyst for Darwins rejection of Christianity, but he still believed
firmly in a Divine Creator, and was a deist, with a remote creator who
did not play a role in peoples day to day lives.
[This is failry standard stuff found in many biographies, Annies box
brings this element to the fore however]
>Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
>death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
>first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
>acknowledges his own evil.
No, Annie died of Tuberculosis in great suffering. Dariwn did not
blame either himself of his wife for giving her a "bad inheritance",
TB was rampant in England, and struck at all levels of society. But
Darwin, like many others (including Job) could not reconcile a
personal, benevolent God with the sufffering his daughter endured.
Darwin did not reject God, merely the Christian version of a personal
God.
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Paul Ruggeri
>
> What good reasons are you talking about?
I'm talking about love ya boob!. Marrying because you love someone and want
to devote your life to. Apparently you are alien to the concept of love.
>Certainly not the neo-nazi
> good reasons of Darwin I hope.
Darwin is a neo-Nazi??!! But he came before Nazi-ism... and... and... - Oh,
forget it...
> >The rest of what you said is so full of creatinoist propaganda,
> >misinformation, self-contradiction, and mental masturbation that I'm
> >surprised ANYONE else has bothered to respond to you. Instead of getting
> >your information from creationist websites, go to the LIBRARY and browse
> >through the books there. Find some biographies on Charles Darwin and read
> >those. Pick up some actual science books in the science section and read
> >those.
>
> Darwinism thrives on popscience books, on obscure terminology such as
> struggle for existence, selfish genes, innate aggression etc.
Oh, wah! wah! wah! whine! whine! whine! This is the tired classic whining of
creationists; 'obscure terminology'! 'It's too complicated'! Boo-hoo-hoo!
Well, really it's not. Not if you are willing to take the time to read and
understand.
>There
> are no actual darwinist science books, that for instance would clearly
> and with scientific clarity state what the physical relation is, if
> any, between the socalled fit and less fit, in differential
> reproductive success.
You seem to be looking for a simple, pat definition for a concept that is
going to span many, many different types of organisms and their local
environments. There isn't one. Happy? Now shut up.
>You can't tell me that, because you are another
> mindless Darwinist twit.
Feel better after that? You loving Christian Creationist, you!
Paul Ruggeri
[snip]
>
> But we know that you haven't. Otherwise you would have known Darwin's
> father had farreaching access to Darwin's thought.
>
Show me, chapter and verse, please, references from either of his two main
notebooks (and there are many more) where there is evidence of direct
influence and advice from Darwin's father on the formulation of his theory.
Darwins father cared little for his son's pursuits and knew very little that
was useful in these areas, so he would be of very little use either for raw
data or ideas concerning evolution.
> >> Darwin's father
> >> directly influenced his writings to a large extent.
> >
> >He most certainly did not. Darwins father believed that his pursuits in
> >geology and nature were an utter wast of time, and was outraged by his
> >decision to take up the position of Captains Companion on board the HMS
> >Beagle because it would mean another delay in pursuing the career in the
> >Clergy that he wanted for his son.
>
> So this establishes that Darwin's father seeked to control him much.
Sure. Fine. That I agree with. He seeked to control him. Didn't do very
well, did he?
> And he went on to that in later life.
Went on to what in later life? Who?
>
> >> Darwin discussed
> >> his ideas with his domineering father, and he accepted suggestions
> >> from his father about his ideas.
Again, references in the notebooks you can point directly too? Please show
me where I'm wrong!
> >
> >A few paragraphs above, you said above that Darwins father said he would
> >never amount to anything. That is true. But that is because Darwin
refused
> >to go in the carreer directions into which his father tried to force him.
> >His love of geology, nature and collecting was a collosal waste of time
to
> >Darwin's dad. And he wanted nothing to do with this. So not only does you
> >above statement conflict with the one of a few paragraphs abovem but it
is
> >either misinformation or a lie on your part.
>
> Or it is something you don't like to hear. Gee, now which would be the
> truth.
Hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong! I'll wear orthopedice shoes... But since you
are making the fairly ambiguous claim that Darwin "accepted suggestions from
his father about his ideas" it's up to you to support that claim. That's
SIMPLY the way arguments and debates work.
>
> Who would tell the truth. Could it be that the mindless twit that
> doesn't know what, if any, the physical relation is supposed to be
> between the differentiated organisms in differential reproductive
> succes, but nevertheless supports this theory wholeheartedly, is just
> ignoring all facts he doesn't like?
What, as in you ignoring facts you don't like? That's what appears to be
going on here.
>
> > Have you ever picked up a book
> >other than the bible? Ever read anything other than a Fundie/Creationist
> >website? Either browse the shelves at you local library or read:
> >
> >"Darwin for Beginners" by Jonathan Miller & Borin Van Loon.
> >"Ever Since Darwin" SJ Gould
> >"Wonderful Life" SJ Gould
> >"Hens Teeth and Horses Toes" SJ Gould
> >
> >All contain a wealth of biographical information about Charles Darwin.
>
> But are not actually biographies of Darwin it seems.
none of which you will read. It seems...
ReidRover
>
>
>Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:skv3ltg9bq9kd6jaf...@4ax.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>>
>> But we know that you haven't. Otherwise you would have known Darwin's
>> father had farreaching access to Darwin's thought.
>>
>
>Show me, chapter and verse, please, references from either of his two main
>notebooks (and there are many more) where there is evidence of direct
>influence and advice from Darwin's father on the formulation of his theory.
>Darwins father cared little for his son's pursuits and knew very little that
>was useful in these areas, so he would be of very little use either for raw
>data or ideas concerning evolution.
>
>> >> Darwin's father
>> >> directly influenced his writings to a large extent.
>> >
Could Nando be mistaking Darwins father for his grandfather Erasmus
Darwin..who may have had an influence ( though posteumous) on Charles?
Darwin Scholar
still holding fast to myths attributed to Charles Darwin. You are
mistaken on many counts.
> Nando Ronteltap wrote:
> Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
> of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
> death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
> first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
> acknowledges his own evil.
Correction - Darwin came to disbelieve in the christian god very, very
slowly over about 25 years. The death of his daughter was perhaps the
final blow to his faith. He did, however, retain his belief in some sort
of creative force in the universe.
> The way he decided to marry his first cousin was incredibly empty and
> rationalistic self-interest for not being alone. He did not admit to
> love, marriage had no sanctity for him. He just made a shortlist of
> pro's and con's to marry or to remain alone, and in the end the pro's
> outweighed the con's.
Correction - To even hint that Darwin did not love Emma, his wife, is
the height of folly. Anyone who has ever read their letters to one
another during their courtship would see they were plainly madly in love
with one another. I suggust you read Correspondence of Charles Darwin:
Vol. 2 for these letters.
> Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
> of wasp parasites:
Correction - Again, he came to disbelieve in the christian god, not in
"a" god.
> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
Correction - I am not sure where you are getting your information, but
you are again quite mistaken. Darwin was never an atheist, he was
however late in life an agnostic. He explains this very clearly in his
Autobiography. Have you read it?
-- David Leff
Website Administrator
http://www.aboutdarwin.com
Darwin Scholar
> It is therefore clear that recognition of evil, especially in relation
> to his daughters death, which he tortured himself with, accusing
> himself of being some kind of murderer for having married foolishly,
> is under the veil of this rationale Darwin posits.
Again you are quite mistaken. Annie, like thousands of other children in
England at the time, died of consumption, what we now call TB. Her death
had nothing to do with a possible weakened genetic endowment. The fact
that most of his children lived into adulthood clearly shows they did
not suffer to any great degree from a first cousin marriage.
Darwin Scholar
> My comments on basic points, are widely shared by researchers into the
> life of Darwin, as any cursory investigation into the matter by a
> websearch will show.
I have been researching the life and times of Charles Darwin for quite a
number of years, and I totally disagree with you. A website search is
not my idea of scholarship. Perhaps you should engage in research at
Cambridge University Library, talk with other Darwin scholars, and
discuss these matters with some of Darwin's descendents, as I have done
over the years. Just a suggestion.
> Apart from his daughter's death, his domineering father who said
> Darwin would never amount to anything, seems to have fashioned
> Darwin's mindset.
If you took the time to read Darwin's Autobiography you would clearly
see that his father was very proud of his son. By the way, his father's
comment about Darwin "never amounting to anything" must be read in
context. At the time his father saw that Darwin had no focus in his
life, and he feared his son would become an idle gentleman. Any good
father is concern about the future of their child. How is that
domineering? Also, how exactly did his father fashion his mindset?
> As appears from his notebooks Darwin's father
> directly influenced his writings to a large extent. Darwin discussed
> his ideas with his domineering father, and he accepted suggestions
> from his father about his ideas.
Which notebooks are you referring to? His "B" Notebook, "Red" Notebook,
"M" Notebook, "E" Notebook??? I have read these, and I see no references
to his father domineering his thoughts on evolution. Come to think of
it, after years of research into Darwin's life I cannot recall any
suggestions his father had regarding his writings. Please list these
suggestions.
Darwin Scholar
> You misunderstand, I propose Darwin believed himself evil this way.
> Darwin had this "irrational emotion" (note: emotions aren't really
> either rational or irrational IMO, emotions are hateful or loving)
> that accused him of his daughter's death, I do not accuse Darwin for
> his daughters death.
As I stated before, you are quite mistaken on this point.
> How Darwin disavowed his belief in God is my point.
Wrong again ...
> Notice that Darwin neccecitates a war of nature, famine, death and
> destruction, for leading to higher animals. Now these things may or
> may not be neccessary for higher animals, but it is certain that "war
> of nature" doesn't deserve the emphasis that Darwin gave it.
Wrong again ... Darwin did not "neccecitate" a war of nature. He simply
observed this "war" taking place in nature. You seem to be saying he
just made this up from thin air. By the way, what is a "higher animal"?
Darwin Scholar
> >Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
> >of his daughter Annie.
>
> This is probably a grabled rendition of a synopsis of "Annie's Box:
> Charles Darwin, his daughter and evolution". Annie's death was the
> catalyst for Darwins rejection of Christianity, but he still believed
> firmly in a Divine Creator, and was a deist, with a remote creator who
> did not play a role in peoples day to day lives.
Finally! Someone who has actully read Darwin's Autobiography, and can
clearly state the truth!
> >Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
> >death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
> >first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
> >acknowledges his own evil.
>
> No, Annie died of Tuberculosis in great suffering. Dariwn did not
> blame either himself of his wife for giving her a "bad inheritance",
> TB was rampant in England, and struck at all levels of society. But
> Darwin, like many others (including Job) could not reconcile a
> personal, benevolent God with the sufffering his daughter endured.
> Darwin did not reject God, merely the Christian version of a personal
> God.
One minor point, Annie did not die in great suffering, as "Annie's Box"
makes quite clear. Other than this small quibble, you've hit it right on
target. Thanks!
Matt Silberstein
from Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>:
[snip]
>Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
>atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
>evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
>called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
I have given Nando lots of slack in the past because I have assumed he
had significant problems with the English language (he is not a native
English speaker). But this play on words shows sufficient
sophistication (as well as a nasty dishonesty) to remove that benefit
of a doubt. By Nando's specific use of language here I could call him
a hitlarian poster since he posts about Hitler. Such a phrase would be
nasty and misleading just like Nando's phrase about Darwin.
--
Matt Silberstein
Pardon me whilst I adjust my accoutrements.
D.D.
Mitchell Coffey
Years ago Nando was arguing with someone who claimed that his (not
Nando's) epistemology started off from Descartes' Cogito Ergo Sum.
Nando said he considered the Cogito "self-indulgent." As that person
was a philosophical materialist, Nando accused him of being a
"self-indulgent materialist."
Mitchell Coffey
Nando Ronteltap
wrote:
>G'Day All
>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>
>On 14 Jul 2001 05:51:41 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
>>of his daughter Annie.
>
>This is probably a grabled rendition of a synopsis of "Annie's Box:
>Charles Darwin, his daughter and evolution". Annie's death was the
>catalyst for Darwins rejection of Christianity, but he still believed
>firmly in a Divine Creator, and was a deist, with a remote creator who
>did not play a role in peoples day to day lives.
>
>[This is failry standard stuff found in many biographies, Annies box
>brings this element to the fore however]
Whatever...... This was told to me by John Wilkins, and it is
basically true. I did bring up another example in which Darwin
rejected God.
>>Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
>>death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
>>first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
>>acknowledges his own evil.
>
>No, Annie died of Tuberculosis in great suffering. Dariwn did not
>blame either himself of his wife for giving her a "bad inheritance",
>TB was rampant in England, and struck at all levels of society. But
>Darwin, like many others (including Job) could not reconcile a
>personal, benevolent God with the sufffering his daughter endured.
>Darwin did not reject God, merely the Christian version of a personal
>God.
You confuse an objective account of events, with Darwin's personal
subjectivity about the events.
Nando
Nando Ronteltap
>Nando, as a Darwin scholar for many years, it saddens me to find people
>still holding fast to myths attributed to Charles Darwin. You are
>mistaken on many counts.
>
>> Nando Ronteltap wrote:
>
>> Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
>> of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
>> death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
>> first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
>> acknowledges his own evil.
>
>Correction - Darwin came to disbelieve in the christian god very, very
>slowly over about 25 years. The death of his daughter was perhaps the
>final blow to his faith. He did, however, retain his belief in some sort
>of creative force in the universe.
>
>> The way he decided to marry his first cousin was incredibly empty and
>> rationalistic self-interest for not being alone. He did not admit to
>> love, marriage had no sanctity for him. He just made a shortlist of
>> pro's and con's to marry or to remain alone, and in the end the pro's
>> outweighed the con's.
>
>Correction - To even hint that Darwin did not love Emma, his wife, is
>the height of folly. Anyone who has ever read their letters to one
>another during their courtship would see they were plainly madly in love
>with one another. I suggust you read Correspondence of Charles Darwin:
>Vol. 2 for these letters.
You have just made useless your asserted scholarship by not affirming
or denying that Darwin scribbled this note. It is clear you are just a
politician.
>> Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
>> of wasp parasites:
>
>Correction - Again, he came to disbelieve in the christian god, not in
>"a" god.
>
>> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
>> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
>> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
>> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
>
>Correction - I am not sure where you are getting your information, but
>you are again quite mistaken. Darwin was never an atheist, he was
>however late in life an agnostic. He explains this very clearly in his
>Autobiography. Have you read it?
God denial is atheism, not agnosticism.
Nando
Boikat
maybe you are the one that is muddling your
conclusions with your personal subjective and
biased interpretation biased upon your
Darwinphobia.
Boikat
> Nando
Boikat
Projection of your own lack of scholarship.
Besides, you seem to not have answered the many
others who have posted the information that many
religions, including Catholicism, have a long
history of arranged marriages, in which love
between the couples was not an issue that
mattered.
> >> Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
> >> of wasp parasites:
> >
> >Correction - Again, he came to disbelieve in the christian god, not in
> >"a" god.
> >
> >> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
> >> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
> >> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
> >> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
> >
> >Correction - I am not sure where you are getting your information, but
> >you are again quite mistaken. Darwin was never an atheist, he was
> >however late in life an agnostic. He explains this very clearly in his
> >Autobiography. Have you read it?
>
> God denial is atheism, not agnosticism.
You have never shown that darwin ever denied God.
At best, all that was shown was that he did not
believe in the YECish version of God. That is not
denying the existence of God. If you do not
understand that, then maybe you're even more
stupid than I thought.
Boikat
>
> Nando
ZeldaG
>From: Nando Ronteltap onan...@hotmail.com
>Date: 7/20/2001 5:17 AM Pacific Daylight
>>> Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
>>> of wasp parasites:
>>
>>Correction - Again, he came to disbelieve in the christian god, not in
>>"a" god.
>>
>>> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
>>> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
>>> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
>>> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
>>
>>Correction - I am not sure where you are getting your information, but
>>you are again quite mistaken. Darwin was never an atheist, he was
>>however late in life an agnostic. He explains this very clearly in his
>>Autobiography. Have you read it?
>God denial is atheism, not agnosticism.
Echoing Boikat's note, Darwin is not an atheist for disbelieving in the
Christian God. However, if one is to adopt the perspective that failing to
adhere to the principles of Christianity makes one an atheist, then you, Nando,
are easily as much an atheist as Darwin ever was.
Notable is your utter refusal to defend your own "faith" which I have
challenged numerous times. Your faith is clearly not very strong and you must
not imagine your beliefs are worth defending. The closest you ever come are
unmarked snips. I doubt if Jesus will write your name in the book of life with
the behavior you exhibit.
Eros
> "Eros" <Eros_Tal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >normal
> >> >thoughts" that Jews are bad. I have quoted the specific passage
several
> >> >times - twice in response to claims by Nando that I lied.
> >>
> >
> >An assertion you have failed to prove!
>
> Follow the link of Serge, then look at Dave Horn's writings about me.
> That should be proof enough.
Nope. I did that. All it seems to show is you continually avoiding the issue
by replying to specific points and questions with obfuscatory rhetoric about
racism. You'll have to try harder to prove your assertion that Dave is
lying, I'm afraid.
--
EROS.
"I will say that it is fairly easy to demonstrably prove that the Genesis
accounts of Adam and Eve, and Noah's worldwide deluge, are fables. It is
easier to prove these stories false because, unlike the notion of God, the
Creation account and Noah's flood are scientifically testable. Science may
explore human origins and the geologic history of Earth. In this regard,
science has incontrovertibly proven that the Book of Genesis is utter
mythology. "
[David Mills]
Stew Dean
>
>Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
>of his daughter Annie. Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
>death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
>first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
>acknowledges his own evil.
>
>The way he decided to marry his first cousin was incredibly empty and
>rationalistic self-interest for not being alone. He did not admit to
>love, marriage had no sanctity for him. He just made a shortlist of
>pro's and con's to marry or to remain alone, and in the end the pro's
>outweighed the con's. In his book "Descent of Man" Darwin projects his
>own carelessness in marriage on people in general, saying they marry
>foolishly.
>
>Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
>of wasp parasites:
>
>"I cannot persuade myself," Darwin wrote, "that a beneficent and
>omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with
>the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of
>caterpillars."
>
>Which begs the question if these wasps are so utterly worthless evil
>creatures to Darwin, then why would he not endavour to eradicate them?
>Surely he would see no reason to disbelieve in God, if he believed the
>lives of these wasps to have any value.
>
>Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
>atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
>evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
>called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
Nando - lets get one thing clear. Even if Darwin was a demon
worshiping baby eater it makes not one jot of difference to evolution.
Evolutionists are not Darwinists in the same way as Christians follow
the big J. I know Darwin was far from right about many thing - but his
central theory lead to our current knowledge of evolution (amongst
others).
So enough of your demonising - it only acts to undermine what ever you
central arguement is.
I take it you concede that chance is the product of cause and
effect.
Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
Stew Dean
added to the meme pool:
>Darwin Scholar <Ad...@aboutdarwin.com> wrote:
>>> Darwin elsewhere said he came to disbelieve in God, at the observation
>>> of wasp parasites:
>>
>>Correction - Again, he came to disbelieve in the christian god, not in
>>"a" god.
>>
>>> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
>>> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
>>> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
>>> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
>>
>>Correction - I am not sure where you are getting your information, but
>>you are again quite mistaken. Darwin was never an atheist, he was
>>however late in life an agnostic. He explains this very clearly in his
>>Autobiography. Have you read it?
>
>God denial is atheism, not agnosticism.
>
Not if it is disbelief in one god not "a" god. You are not an atheist
if you still beleive in a god are you?
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 20 Jul 2001 08:14:14 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>"Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue" <ian.musgr...@adelaide.edu.au>
>wrote:
>
>>G'Day All
>>Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
>>
>>On 14 Jul 2001 05:51:41 -0400, Nando Ronteltap <onan...@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Someone suggested that Darwin became to disbelieve in God at the death
>>>of his daughter Annie.
>>
>>This is probably a grabled rendition of a synopsis of "Annie's Box:
>>Charles Darwin, his daughter and evolution". Annie's death was the
>>catalyst for Darwins rejection of Christianity, but he still believed
>>firmly in a Divine Creator, and was a deist, with a remote creator who
>>did not play a role in peoples day to day lives.
>>
>>[This is failry standard stuff found in many biographies, Annies box
>>brings this element to the fore however]
>
>Whatever...... This was told to me by John Wilkins, and it is
>basically true.
How can your completely incorrect assertion be "basically true"?
>I did bring up another example in which Darwin
>rejected God.
No, you bought up another example where Darwin rejected a personal,
benevolent God, not God per se.
>>>Darwin blamed himself and his wife for her
>>>death, because of giving her bad inheritance, by having married his
>>>first cousin. In the same motion of Darwin's rejection of God, Darwin
>>>acknowledges his own evil.
>>
>>No, Annie died of Tuberculosis in great suffering. Dariwn did not
>>blame either himself of his wife for giving her a "bad inheritance",
>>TB was rampant in England, and struck at all levels of society. But
>>Darwin, like many others (including Job) could not reconcile a
>>personal, benevolent God with the sufffering his daughter endured.
>>Darwin did not reject God, merely the Christian version of a personal
>>God.
>
>You confuse an objective account of events, with Darwin's personal
>subjectivity about the events.
I'm sorry, my acount is the correct one (within the limits of the
accuracy of historical reportage), your account is fantasy.
Rodjk
> > "Dave Horn" <dave...@ns.home.com> wrote:
> >
> > >"Nando Ronteltap" <onan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >>
> > >> altu...@aol.com (Alturalan) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >>Subject: Darwin the evil atheist
> > >> >>From: Nando Ronteltap
> > >> >
> > >> >Your self-delusions are your own problem and privilege,
> > >> >but please learn how to write coherently.
> > >>
> > >> The bridge between reality and Darwinists hype of Darwin
> > >> is just too big. You are merely suffering from cognitive
> > >> dissonance.
> > >
> > >Ah, here we go again. The problem is not that Nando gets his facts
> confused
> > >and is not all that proficient at communication. The problem is that
> Nando
> > >is just too deep a thinker for the best of us.
> > >
> > >Perhaps Nando should consider publishing, then, and claim his Pulitzer or
> > >Nobel prize
> > >
> > >Or perhaps, deep down, Nando knows that he's full of the proverbial
> banana
> > >oil, and the only place he can get "published" is Usenet.
> >
> > Selvserving arguments by a defensive authoritarian Darwinist.
> >
> > My comments on basic points, are widely shared by researchers into the
> > life of Darwin, as any cursory investigation into the matter by a
> > websearch will show.
> >
> > Darwin would never amount to anything, seems to have fashioned
> > directly influenced his writings to a large extent. Darwin discussed
> > his ideas with his domineering father, and he accepted suggestions
> > from his father about his ideas.
>
> on the fact of evolution? Surely the personal views of the discoverer of a
> scientific theory or principle are irrelevant to the veracity of the
> discovery itself.
>"No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor
should
>they be considered as patriots. This is one nation under God."
>[President George Bush]
Do you have a source for this quote? I have seen it several times and
was wondering where it came from.
Thanks
Rodjk #613
The Ghost In The Machine
<rjk...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 23 Jul 2001 10:33:27 -0400
<dbe402.010723...@posting.google.com>:
See
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#bush
for a longer excerpt from the interview. Note that this is the senior Bush.
>Rodjk #613
>
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 11d:20h:33m actually running Linux.
No electrons were harmed during this message.
Darwin Scholar
> >> The way he decided to marry his first cousin was incredibly empty and
> >> rationalistic self-interest for not being alone. He did not admit to
> >> love, marriage had no sanctity for him. He just made a shortlist of
> >> pro's and con's to marry or to remain alone, and in the end the pro's
> >> outweighed the con's.
> >
> >Correction - To even hint that Darwin did not love Emma, his wife, is
> >the height of folly. Anyone who has ever read their letters to one
> >another during their courtship would see they were plainly madly in love
> >with one another. I suggust you read Correspondence of Charles Darwin:
> >Vol. 2 for these letters.
>
> You have just made useless your asserted scholarship by not affirming
> or denying that Darwin scribbled this note. It is clear you are just a
> politician.
Yes he did write that note to himself. And your point is ........ ?????
Your other comment regarding my scholarship does not ever merit a reply.
> >> Darwin became atheist at the recognition of evil, unlike other
> >> atheists who for instance reject God because scientific standards of
> >> evidence do not register the existence of God. As those people may be
> >> called scientific atheists, Darwin in stead was an evil atheist.
> >
> >Correction - I am not sure where you are getting your information, but
> >you are again quite mistaken. Darwin was never an atheist, he was
> >however late in life an agnostic. He explains this very clearly in his
> >Autobiography. Have you read it?
> >Again, he came to disbelieve in the christian god, not in "a" god.
>
> God denial is atheism, not agnosticism.
Did you even read what I wrote down? Darwin denied the christian view of
god, not in god per se. Do you even know what an atheist is, what an
agnostic is?
Go and read Darwin's Autobiography, since it is obvious you have never
read it.
-- David
Website Administrator
http://www.aboutdarwin.com