For Pagano, or Whomever It May Concern
Steven J.
and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
Please note that these two arguments contradict one another. If
"Darwinism" offers NO limits to behavior, gives no reason to suppose
that any course of action is better or worse than another, it can't
very well be a guide to policy, which requires that some courses of
action be preferred to others. Either "Darwinism" implies a code of
behavior (however distorted and vicious), or it does not (in which
case it cannot be the basis of any political program or used to set
political or personal goals).
Granted, it's very common for creationists (including ID proponents)
to offer contradictory moral condemnations of "Darwinism:" two popular
criticisms are that evolutionary theory asserts, on the one hand, that
human beings are in no way superior to banana slugs, and on the other
hand somehow asserts that some human "races" are superior to others.
Even the claim that "Darwinism" is the foundation both of laissez-
faire capitalism and of communism at least flirts with self-
contradiction. But individual creationists don't have to adopt the
White Queen as a role model, and I think Tony should clear up exactly
which of these critiques (if either) he is willing to defend, and
which he will abandon.
-- Steven J.
*Hemidactylus*
have quite a few of the modal bacter (sensu Gould) in our gut. QED.
I do think classic Darwinism dovetails better with Adam Smith and the
hidden hand of classic "liberal" ecomomics, not to mention the
numerical brutality of Malthus. As a model for population dynamics
Darwin's natural selection was a harsh "dog eat dog" and Spenceresque
"survival of the fittest" and (???) "nature red in tooth and claw"
thingy. BUT we are talking about is and not *ought* (and not
conflating natural with what is good or best...summum bonum...se GE
Moore).
What cretinists and some evilutionists fail to grasp is that we
shouldn't derive our ethics or morality from the way nature appears to
be. Conservative economics of Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Milon
Friedman, or the QB economist Hack Kemp may be a simulacram of how
shrewd Darwinian dynamics play out in the wild, but we shouldn't look
to evolutionary assumptions for our ethos. Same goes for Marx-Engels.
Whatever very limited overlap there may be (if hit over the head and
forced to forget about Lysenko) there might be between Soviet ideology
and Darwinism, deriving a political policy from a biological theory
1:1 is just plain stupid.
There's much more IMO that dovetails a form of Darwinism,
unfortunately, with social policy in the US that led to eugenics. This
also seemed to have a religious fundie basis that intersected with
Spencerism and Galtonism known as Calvinism (see Harry Brunius_Better
for All the World_ 2006) as it formed Charles Davenport's worldview
wrt predestinaton in the germ plasm. Puritanism led to purity of race
theory. Pedigree stands alone. Eminence reigns supreme. Sterilization
laws lasted well into the 20th century. Nazi Germany took it much
further, but the Aryan theory nutters had no monopoly on eugenics.
Yet the records of the Eugenics Record Office are considered a
goldmine for present day genealogists (see Roderick et al. June 1994.
Files of the Eugenics Record Office: a Resource for Genealogists.
National Genealogical Society Quarterly. pages 97-113). I wonder how
many family history researchers ponder the historical magnitude of wha
could be seen in retrospect as ill gotten gains, given the overarching
mindset the *American* eugenicists upheld.
Bobby Bryant
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> writes:
> I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
> and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
> but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
>
> In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
> materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
> following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>
> first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
> application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
> darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>
> and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
> of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
Ignoring the basic logical fallacy of Tony's claims, shouldn't he be
blaming Lysenkoism rather than Darwinism?
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
Steven J.
> In article <1186021400.781271.327...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> writes:
>
> > I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
> > and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
> > but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
>
> > In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
> > materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
> > following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>
> > first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
> > application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
> > darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>
> > and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
> > of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
>
> Ignoring the basic logical fallacy of Tony's claims, shouldn't he be
> blaming Lysenkoism rather than Darwinism?
>
history rather than a tenet or logical consequence of Marxism
(although, if "Darwinism" was really central to Marxism and Stalinism,
could that particular historical accident have happened?). Of
course, one could raise the same questions about Lysenkoism, if
creationists were interested in attacking it: how can it tell us both
that we ought to do horrible things, and that there is nothing we
"ought" to do, because there are no rules at all?
>
> --
> Bobby Bryant
> Reno, Nevada
>
> Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
-- Steven J.
richardal...@googlemail.com
Lysenkoism was derived from Lamarckian ideas rather than Darwins.
So it's all the fault of the French.
Figures.
RF
Rolf
"Bobby Bryant" <bdbr...@wherever.ur> wrote in message
news:3Kesi.788$qa3...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
Aren't you hitting the nail right on the head there? As far as I have been
able to understand, the idea was that by proper 'grooming' by the system, a
new 'man' would be created. Capitalism, greed, selfishness and rebellion
would be replaced with love of the state and sacrifice of personal gains for
the benefit of the party/state/proletariat. As soon as 'enemies of the
people/party/state' were eliminated, what would remain - and propagate the
acquired traits to future generations - would be the new, perfected soviet
citizen.
Ernest Major
Steven J. <stev...@altavista.com> writes
>
>In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
>materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the following
>two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>
>first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
>application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
>darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft5290063h&chunk.id=d0e7821&toc.i
d=d0e7212)
"Darwin succeeded in solving the problem of the origin of plant and
animal species in the struggle for survival. Marx succeeded in solving
the problem of the emergence of different types of social organization
in the struggle of men for their existence. Logically, Marx's
investigation begins precisely where Darwin's ends. Animals and plants
are under the influence of the physical environment. The physical
environment acts on social man through the social relations that arise
on the basis of the productive forces, which at first develop at various
speeds, according to the characteristics of the physical environment.
Darwin explains the origin of species, not by an inborn tendency of the
animal organism toward development, as Lamarck had assumed, but by the
adaptation of the organism to external conditions: not by the nature of
the organism but by the influence of external nature. Marx explains the
historical development of mankind, not by human nature, but by the
qualities of social relations among men, which arise under the influence
of social man on external nature. The spirit of research is absolutely
the same in both thinkers. That is why one can say that Marxism is
Darwinism in its application to social science (we know that
chronologically this is not so, but that is unimportant)."
Pagano reproduced, without attribution, the following material,
presenting a short contextless sentence fragment from Plekhanov's
writings. (I found it in Harun Yahya's page
http://www.islamdenouncesterrorism.com/darwinism_materialism.html, but
there are other occurrences online.)
"Russian communists who followed in the footsteps of Marx and Engels,
such as Plekhanov, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, all agreed with Darwin's
theory of evolution. Plekhanov, who is considered as the founder of
Russian communism, regarded marxism as 'Darwinism in its application to
social science'"
>and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview of
>Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
--
Alias Ernest Major
TomS
<5hdkecF...@mid.individual.net>, Rolf stated..."
If someone believes that there is a goal to changes, or that without
"intelligent design" things will deteriorate, or that the big mistake
in "darwinism" is its reliance on "chance" ...
To take a more benign version of this kind of belief, that is what
leads people to complain about "abuse of language", and that we
must be alert to "misuses of words", and without taking care to
keep language "pure", our language will rot.
But the elaborate structure, for example, of Classical Latin's
conjugations and declensions was a result of undirected
variations over thousands of years, not any planning to make
an ideal language.
The need for "language police" is one relatively benign result
of this mistake as applied to a "social science" of a sort.
People who don't understand that undirected variations can lead
to complex structures don't appreciate "darwinian" evolution, and,
whatever their claims to be following Darwin, are imposing their
own misunderstanding on what evolution is doing. Whatever
implications they derive from their misunderstanding are not to
be blamed on evolutionary biology as it is understood today.
It does apply, somewhat, to the time of the early 20th century,
the time known as the "eclipse of Darwinism".
And, by the way, today's anti-evolutionists admit - often
*insist* - that they accept (what they call) "micro-evolution",
evolution within a "kind". Micro-evolution, and the need for
intervention to keep it on the right track, and the application
of those ideas to "social science", is what leads to those
consequences.
--
---Tom S.
"There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your
wand and saying a few funny words."
JK Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter VIII, page 133
TomS
<1186037204....@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Steven J. stated..."
Remember that Marxism, as well as Lamarkianism, and a whole lot
of other isms, all accepted the idea of "progress". For example, the
"Great Chain of Being". Darwin definitely rejected the idea of
progress.
I'm not sure how Marxism managed the - ahem - contradiction
between the inevitability of the revolution, and the need to take
action to promote the revolution. I haven't read enough of the
Marxist literature.
An old Marxist that I once knew, when I asked questions like
these, dismissed them as "metaphysics" and a distraction. I
don't know whether that was just his own take on it, or whether
that is standard Maarxism.
Hmmm ... the thought just occurred to me ... not that there is
any connection ... about the ID-ists who dismiss questions
about "what is the step-by-step process of how the design
takes place" with something like "you're not going to get me
in that trap."
Tiny Bulcher
> "On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 06:46:44 -0000, in article
Creationism is a 19th century pseudo-science. So was Marxism.
Fundamentalist Christianity is a millenarian cult. So was Marxism.
It's not terribly surprising that there are a few similarities.
Ernest Major
Bulcher <alyc...@btinternet.com> writes
Pat Buchanan writes that "Communism is, in the last analysis, a
Christian heresy"
(<URL:http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0188_Why_communism_endure.html>).
Other people to have expressed this view, fide Google, include Bertrand
Russell, Murray Rothbard and several others
(<URL:http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=Marxism+%22Christian+h
eresy%22>).
--
alias Ernest Major
AC
The whole damn thing is classical Creationist FUD anyways. It doesn't
survive any kind of even semi-critical analysis (Stalin was pretty
anti-Darwinistic), and following that logic, you might as well condemn
physics because nuclear bombs and gravity kill people.
It's pretty damned indefensible, but that doesn't really bother these
folks, particularly people like Pagano, who will just keep making the
same unsubstantiated claims over and over again.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
AC
That acceptance is largely because the evidence for evolution is
so unassailable that, like all clever pseudo-scientists, Creationists
have adopted just enough science to bolster their claims. The old
generation of died-in-the-wool special creationists who refused to
see Biblical kinds as being anything less than inviolate is dying out,
simply because the position is at the very end of the spectrum of
untenable ideas.
Creationism, like everything else, evolves. The final state of its
evolution, Intelligent Design, is so highly evolved that it manages to
say absolutely nothing at all, managing to maintain itself as a concept
with only the vaguest essence of a claim.
I think the language argument is very important. Even if you are like
Uncle Davey, and insist upon some Babel-esque origin to languages, the
fact is that language change is not directed, but rather a consequence
of variations in time and space. No one, save perhaps the truly
demented (who, other than providing some entertainment on TO, really
don't count for anything) would ever claim that some Latinized Gaul one
day plotted out the basics of Old French, or that some southern tribe of
Indo-Europeans struck upon the idea of Proto-Hittite as a jolly good way
to talk about the weather. Languages are the products of an evolutionary
path that, while not perfectly analogous to Darwinian evolution, does
demonstrate that, with a few basic rules of sound change, a whole lot of
generations and populations becoming more geographically diverse, such
change is not only possible, but is, in fact inevitable.
I've been leaning more and more towards genetic linguistics as THE
analogy of evolution, mainly because people seem more capable of
understanding that language changes over time. They'll accept transitionals
like Middle English or Old Norse far more easily than they would
Archaeopteryx (I honestly don't know why, Archie being such an incredibly
powerful *visual* demonstration of transitional form).
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Ray Martinez
> I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
> and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
> but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
>
> In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
> materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
> following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>
> first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
> application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
> darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>
> and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
> of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
>
> Please note that these two arguments contradict one another.
There is no contradiction.
Darwinian materialism, in the manifested form of ToE, said the God of
Genesis does not exist. With all moral barriers removed via the surety
of scientific evidence, that is, since God does not exist we can do as
we please. "Murder is not wrong, it is called selecting our enemies
for extinction, since we are apes, and since the fit will survive, we
can implement our political and social agenda with all moral restraint
out of the way."
Ernst Mayr, "Growth of Biological Thought" 1982:536
"....(considering the subsequent success of Lysenko), in the period up
to the end of the 1920s there was probably no country in which
Darwinism, including the theory of natural selection, was as widely
accepted as in Russia."
Ray
For now, SNIP...
snex
based on the above, at best you can only claim that darwinian
evolution simply failed to prevent the regimes, not that it influenced
them. but why should darwinian evolution be expected to prevent any
type of political regime? thats not what scientific theories do.
Ken Rode
> On Aug 1, 7:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
> > and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
> > but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
>
> > In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
> > materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
> > following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>
> > first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
> > application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
> > darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>
> > and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
> > of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
>
> > Please note that these two arguments contradict one another.
>
> There is no contradiction.
>
> Darwinian materialism, in the manifested form of ToE, said the God of
> Genesis does not exist. With all moral barriers removed via the surety
> of scientific evidence, that is, since God does not exist we can do as
> we please.
Is it your contention that one cannot be moral unless one is a
Christian, Ray?
> "Murder is not wrong, it is called selecting our enemies
> for extinction, since we are apes, and since the fit will survive, we
> can implement our political and social agenda with all moral restraint
> out of the way."
>
> Ernst Mayr, "Growth of Biological Thought" 1982:536
>
> "....(considering the subsequent success of Lysenko), in the period up
> to the end of the 1920s there was probably no country in which
> Darwinism, including the theory of natural selection, was as widely
> accepted as in Russia."
>
> Ray
>
> For now, SNIP...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Kleuskes & Moos
> I'm not sure how Marxism managed the - ahem - contradiction
> between the inevitability of the revolution, and the need to take
> action to promote the revolution. I haven't read enough of the
> Marxist literature.
The idea, if i remember my discussions in with CPN (now NCPN) memers
correctly is that the revolution is inevitable. Opressed masses will,
sooner or later, rise and overthrow the government that's oppressing
them.
However, it will lack direction, since it will be (largely) a
spontaneous uprising and more likely than not, result in a new tyranny
(and any kapitalist society is, de facto, a tyranny of capital over
labour) or anarchy.
This can be overcome if communist activists take charge and step up
as leaders. This is a lot easier if they're seen leading prior to the
actual revolution effectively promoting it. Hence the need to take
action.
Now before anyone shoots me or informs the inquisi... 'xcuse me...
Homeland Security, the CIA or any of the other acronyms, this is not
my view, but how it was explained to me. Made sense, too.
Tiny Bulcher
> On Aug 2, 5:14 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 1, 7:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>>
>> Darwinian materialism, in the manifested form of ToE, said the God of
>> Genesis does not exist. With all moral barriers removed via the
>> surety of scientific evidence, that is, since God does not exist we
>> can do as we please.
You try it, and see what happens to you.
> Is it your contention that one cannot be moral unless one is a
> Christian, Ray?
It's his contention that you can't be a Christian unless you worship
Gene Scott.
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 7:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>> I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
>> and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
>> but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
>>
>> In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
>> materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
>> following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>>
>> first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
>> application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
>> darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>>
>> and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
>> of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
>>
>> Please note that these two arguments contradict one another.
>
> There is no contradiction.
>
> Darwinian materialism, in the manifested form of ToE, said the God of
> Genesis does not exist.
Cite
<snip>
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Robert Weldon
>
> - Show quoted text -
You certainly live in your own little universe, don't you.
Kermit
> On Aug 1, 7:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
> > and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
> > but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
>
> > In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
> > materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
> > following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>
> > first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
> > application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
> > darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>
> > and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
> > of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
>
> > Please note that these two arguments contradict one another.
>
> There is no contradiction.
>
> Darwinian materialism,
Evolutionary science, derived from Darwin's theory, is of course no
more or less materialistic than any science. Which means,
materialistic methodology, but it offers no opinion on philosophy.
> in the manifested form of ToE, said the God of
> Genesis does not exist.
Nonsense. You and a few other Creationists are the only ones who say
so. I first learned evolutionary science from a devout Christian.
> With all moral barriers removed via the surety
> of scientific evidence, that is, since God does not exist we can do as
> we please.
Nor does this follow. You have not established that God is necessary
for morals, nor that a belief in any gods is necessary for moral
behavior. The evidence is against you.
> "Murder is not wrong, it is called selecting our enemies
> for extinction,
Murder by definition is wrong (or at least illegal). Why do you
believe social animals would not have rules on how to treat others of
their species? There are professionals who spend their lives studying
that sort of thing. Can you assert with a straight face that
Christians have not murdered, or that murder does not precede Darwin's
dangerous ideas by millennia?
> since we are apes,
Non sequitor. Would it be different if we were cephalopods or
cetaceans instead of apes?
> and since the fit will survive, we
> can implement our political and social agenda with all moral restraint
> out of the way."
Is is Christian, then, to lie? I know Christians who would disagree
with you. Shall I quote Martin Luther at you?
>
> Ernst Mayr, "Growth of Biological Thought" 1982:536
>
> "....(considering the subsequent success of Lysenko), in the period up
> to the end of the 1920s there was probably no country in which
> Darwinism, including the theory of natural selection, was as widely
> accepted as in Russia."
>
Anybody know what the context was for Ray's mined quote?
> Ray
>
> For now, SNIP...
And of course there is the implied fallacy: the claim (unsupported)
that belief that evolutionary science is correct leads to bad
behavior, which somehow proves it wrong.
Kermit
Kermit
Dana Tweedy
"Ken Rode" <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1186090054....@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
snipping
>> Darwinian materialism, in the manifested form of ToE, said the God of
>> Genesis does not exist. With all moral barriers removed via the surety
>> of scientific evidence, that is, since God does not exist we can do as
>> we please.
>
> Is it your contention that one cannot be moral unless one is a
> Christian, Ray?
Apparently Ray can't be bothered to be moral, even when he claims to be a
Christian....
DJT
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186089288....@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
snip
>> Please note that these two arguments contradict one another.
>
> There is no contradiction.
>
> Darwinian materialism, in the manifested form of ToE, said the God of
> Genesis does not exist.
The use of methodological naturalism is not confined to Darwin, or the
theory of evolution. All science makes use of this necessary condition.
Also, neither Darwin, or the concept of methodological naturalism claim that
God does not exist.
> With all moral barriers removed via the surety
> of scientific evidence,
How does scientific evidence remove any moral barriers?
> that is, since God does not exist we can do as
> we please.
Even if one were to believe that God does not exist, where do you get the
idea that one may act as one pleases, without any moral restrictions?
>"Murder is not wrong, it is called selecting our enemies
> for extinction, since we are apes,
Many people have justified murder in the name of God. "Selecting our
enemies for extinction" is not part of evolutionary theory. Humans are
ape, but apes don't normally "select" their "enemies" for extinction.
> and since the fit will survive,
The "fit" are those who best match their enviroment, not necessarily the
strongest, or fiercest.
> we
> can implement our political and social agenda with all moral restraint
> out of the way."
That's not how apes act in social situations. Why should anyone assume that
from the scientific theory of evolution?
>
> Ernst Mayr, "Growth of Biological Thought" 1982:536
>
> "....(considering the subsequent success of Lysenko), in the period up
> to the end of the 1920s there was probably no country in which
> Darwinism, including the theory of natural selection, was as widely
> accepted as in Russia."
However, Lysenko was not a Darwinist. In any case, the theory of
evolution is a fact, regardless of how it might have been misused by people
for political purposes.
DJT
*Hemidactylus*
subsequent success of Lysenko)...". The word "paradoxically" was
important and Mayr's quote looks odd without it. Mayr says there were
"political reasons" for the initial success of Darwinism in Russia.
But population biology was likewise important too and later in the
book Mayr talks about population genetics research in Russia. Someone
named Chetverikov had cool ideas Dobzhansky helped spread outside the
USSR ( Mayr page 559).
On page 556 Mayr says that in Russia: "Natural selection had been much
more widely accepted (prior to the 1920s) than elsewhere." When was
the Revolution versus when did Lysenko arise and how much impact did
he have on Soviet biology? On page 557 Mayr said Chetverikov was
pushed out of Moscow and the field of genetics in 1929 "for political
reasons".
On page 523 Mayr talks about "Ideological Resistance" to natural
selection. He points to "extreme egalatarianism" and
"environmentalism" in America. Then Mayr says (p. 524): "The situation
was made worse when Lysenkoism raised its ugly head in the USSR and
when certain Marxist groups in the western countries decided to attack
genetics and to promote environmentalism." Doesn't sound like too neat
a dovetail between Marxism and Darwinism to me, though apparently the
USSR had a vibrant population biology research program to a certain
extent. Maybe this was in the midst of a tidal chnge after the
Revolution and its eventual impact on Soviet biology. Not sure.
Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
> > I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
> > and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
> > but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
>
> > In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
> > materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
> > following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>
> > first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
> > application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
> > darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>
> > and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
> > of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
>
> > Please note that these two arguments contradict one another.
>
> There is no contradiction.
Simply put, no limits was guide to their actions.
When Steven reduces his rhetoric to be understandable, he shows
himself so lost as to be irrational.
>
> Darwinian materialism, in the manifested form of ToE, said the God of
> Genesis does not exist. With all moral barriers removed via the surety
> of scientific evidence, that is, since God does not exist we can do as
> we please. "Murder is not wrong, it is called selecting our enemies
> for extinction, since we are apes, and since the fit will survive, we
> can implement our political and social agenda with all moral restraint
> out of the way."
>
> Ernst Mayr, "Growth of Biological Thought" 1982:536
>
> "....(considering the subsequent success of Lysenko), in the period up
> to the end of the 1920s there was probably no country in which
> Darwinism, including the theory of natural selection, was as widely
> accepted as in Russia."
>
> Ray
>
> For now, SNIP...
>
Not found on the Internet, but I did find another book on the subject:
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft5290063h&brand=eschol
Dawkins sees the problem as one to be fought against:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/136/story_13698.html
*Hemidactylus*
Chapter 10 of your source here "Marxism and Darwinism" where the
differences between Darwinism and Marxism are made explicit. As much
as Marxists my have respected Darwin for his contribution to an
atheistic and materialist woldview, for the most part Marxists had a
hard time digesting two key aspects of fundamental Darwinism: natural
selection and gradualism. These Marxists seem not to hold the
Malthusian underpinnings of Darwinian 'struggle for existence' in very
high regard and gradualism doesn't fit well with the notion of radical
social revolution.
In the next breath you will be likely talking about how godless Gould
learned Marxism at his daddy's knee and how his non-darwinian idea of
punctuated equilibrium dovetails nicely with Marxist social theory. ..
Oh and yes radical egalatarians can be as bloody in the application of
their social experiments as the racialist eugenists. Pol Pot
exemplifies this. Yet we cannot blame both Nazi Germany and Khmer
Rouge Cambodia on Darwinism can we?
I think someone once said something about a rich man getting into
heaven having as much chance as a camel passing through the eye of a
needle. Frickin' commies.
[snip]
Ray Martinez
> On Aug 2, 2:14 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 1, 7:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
> > > and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
> > > but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
>
> > > In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
> > > materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
> > > following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>
> > > first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
> > > application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
> > > darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>
> > > and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
> > > of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
>
> > > Please note that these two arguments contradict one another.
>
> > There is no contradiction.
>
> Simply put, no limits was guide to their actions.
> When Steven reduces his rhetoric to be understandable, he shows
> himself so lost as to be irrational.
>
Good point. I cannot fathom how Steven sees a contradiction in
Pagano's statements. The "contradiction" that he asserts to exist
makes no sense. As for Steven's rhetoric, this again, is a good point.
We know rhetoric is the misuse of logic and to say the least, I can
find no sound logic in Steven's OP.
As for Steven being lost and irrational, again a good point in lieu of
the fact that he is, afterall, an evolutionist. But I have noticed
that his posts in the last few months exhibit a genuine degenerating
psychosis. His posts have become long-winded and nonsensical prefaces
leading to obscure points. Straight thinking is entirely absent. He
reminds me (I kid you not) of a street lunatic who carries around his
notebooks that contain endless amounts of compacted incoherent
dialogue; but at the same time it is written with premeditated
sincerity.
I kinda feel bad for making these points since something is genuinely
wrong with Steven. I say this hoping he will, after publically
responding and acting like we are crazy, privately take it to heart
and get some help, preferably from God.
Ray
SNIP....
wf...@comcast.net
>Genesis does not exist
uh....no.
it says YOUR view of god is wrong. as to the 'god of genesis',
evolution can not have an opinon.
. With all moral barriers removed via the surety
>of scientific evidence, that is, since God does not exist we can do as
>we please.
and the existence of god allows exactly the same thing. look at al
qaida. they are the most religious people on earth. and they believe
in genocide
*Hemidactylus*
Ray, what exactly was the point of your quote of Mayr earlier in this
thread? Do you actually have a copy of the book? If so why did you
chop the opening word "paradoxically" out of Mayr's quote?
Did youread any of the book _Darwin in Russian Thought_ that Glenn
posted. If so check out the chapter (#10) "Marxism and Darwinism" that
shows the *differences* between Marxism and Darwinism. Do you think
Malthusian population dynamics are compatible with Marxist egalatarian
views? Darwinian gradualism with radical social revolution?
Can we blame Darwin for both Hitler AND Pol Pot?
T Pagano
>I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
>and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
>but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
Work and family keep me fairly busy; as such my posting is spotty.
Steven J's arguments about 5 years ago and earlier were generally
excellent and challenging---some were post-of-the-month quality.
However of late Steven J has been so hell bent on refuting me that his
passion gets in the way of his reason. This post is no different.
Let's look...
>
>In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
>materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
>following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
My news reader shows the post referenced by Steven J to be dated July
25th not 24th.
1. My argument of July 25th (not the 24th) was NOT, per se,
"against" evolutionary theory at all but how it has been applied. The
premises I presented there were offered to show Ernest Major that
Darwinism was an intergral part of the Russian communist worldview
including Stalin's and that this world view guided Stalin.
2. This was offered to counter Ernest Major's parochial view that
Darwinism was only about "biology" and had nothing to do with
behavior. Unfortunately he conveniently forgot that natural
selection is an indispensible component of darwinism which involves,
in part, behavior.
3. (1) and (2) pretty much collapses the rest of Steven J's post.
>first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
>application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
>darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>
>and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
>of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
How on earth can Steven J conclude I have committed an argumentum ad
consequentiam error when doesn't seem to know my conclusion and he
hasn't laid out my premises. Let's do the work for him:
PREMISES:
a. Russian communists including Stalin, all agreed with
Darwin's theory of evolution.
b. Plekhanov, who is considered as the founder of Russian communism,
regarded marxism as 'Darwinism in its application to social science'.
Stalin was in his mold.
c. Darwinism was central to the the communist (and Stalin's) world
view largely because of its historical approach to human origins and
its materialistic rejection of religion.
d. Darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview of
Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior. Behavior is
little more than a component of "natural selection"-----that which
effects differential survival.
e. One's world view, in part, guides one's actions and behavior.
CONCLUSION:
Materialistic doctrines like darwinism guided Stalin in formulating
and justifying his murderous actions.
I don't appeal to emotions (or any other artifice) anywhere here or in
my July 25th post for the truth of any of my premises. I simply
implied that they were true. Sheesh....
>
>Please note that these two arguments contradict one another. If
>"Darwinism" offers NO limits to behavior, gives no reason to suppose
>that any course of action is better or worse than another, it can't
>very well be a guide to policy, which requires that some courses of
>action be preferred to others. Either "Darwinism" implies a code of
>behavior (however distorted and vicious), or it does not (in which
>case it cannot be the basis of any political program or used to set
>political or personal goals).
Steven J finds a contradiction only because here he has introduced a
premise that is no where found in my referenced post. That is, he
claims here that one of my premises was that Stalin was searching for
some better or worse policy. Nice try...
The discussion was limited to Stalin's decision to exterminate whole
classes of his citizenry and his execution of this plan. So, the
Darwinian world view he applied (that is, natural selection) is
morally neutral to any and every course of action including Stalin's
decision to commit genocide.
Sorry no contradiction.
>
>Granted, it's very common for creationists (including ID proponents)
>to offer contradictory moral condemnations of "Darwinism:" two popular
>criticisms are that evolutionary theory asserts, on the one hand, that
>human beings are in no way superior to banana slugs, and on the other
>hand somehow asserts that some human "races" are superior to others.
>Even the claim that "Darwinism" is the foundation both of laissez-
>faire capitalism and of communism at least flirts with self-
>contradiction. But individual creationists don't have to adopt the
>White Queen as a role model, and I think Tony should clear up exactly
>which of these critiques (if either) he is willing to defend, and
>which he will abandon.
This is a convenient diversion to somewhere other than this
discussion.
Darwinism (that is, natural selection) is morally neutral to all
behavior and will continue to engender the heinous murderous atheist
acts which we have witnessed since it was offered in 1859. Acts which
eclipse every bad act committed in purely religious terms in all of
human history.
Regards,
T Pagano
>-- Steven J.
*Hemidactylus*
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:23:20 -0000, "Steven J."
>
http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft5290063h&brand=eschol
This is a book _Darwin in Russian Thought_ by Alexander Vucinich. Read
Chapter 10 very carefully, specifically the subsecton called "Marxism
and Darwinism". Note the *differences* pointed out between Darwinism
and Marxism. There doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm among the
Marxists for Darwinian notions of natural selection with its
hypercompetive, ruthless basis in Malthgusian population theory
especially carried over into the social realm. Likewise Darwinian
gradualism is shunned for its immiscibility with radical social
revolution. Your argument is blown out of the water.
Say hi to comrade Glenn for me. He provided me, unintentionally I
assume, with the ammo that thus defeats you, Ray and him in one fell
swoop. That was too easy.
Have a nice day :-)
RAM
> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:23:20 -0000, "Steven J."
>
> The discussion was limited to Stalin's decision to exterminate whole
> classes of his citizenry and his execution of this plan. So, the
> Darwinian world view he applied (that is, natural selection) is
> morally neutral to any and every course of action including Stalin's
> decision to commit genocide.
>
Silly and empirically incorrect understanding of Stalin.
> Sorry no contradiction.
Sorry no substance.
>
>
>
Snip
>
> Darwinism (that is, natural selection) is morally neutral to all
> behavior and will continue to engender the heinous murderous atheist
> acts which we have witnessed since it was offered in 1859. Acts which
> eclipse every bad act committed in purely religious terms in all of
> human history.
>
Silly in the extreme. Your assertions are so immature intellectually
that it is best if you spend all your time on work and family because
you consitently make a fool of yourself.
Social Darwinism is the only Darwinism that has had any sociocultural
significance in shaping human behavior. It has nothing to do with
natural selection in a strict
Darwinian (biological) sense. Your conflation of Darwinism and Social
Darwinism whether by desigh or ignorance shows you to be an
intellectual putz and/or a confused Christianist.
RAM
Jim Lovejoy
apj4b395femgt7koo...@4ax.com:
Newtonism (that is Gravity) is similiarly morally neutral to all behavior.
So obviously it also engenders murderous atheist acts. So is Chemistry,
Atomic theory, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Show a science that isn't morally neutral, and your argument may make
sense. Or is it "today Biology, tomorrow Chemistry, and when we have the
power, Physics?"
Do you have anything substative to say?
Steven J.
>
> >I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
> >and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
> >but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
>
> Work and family keep me fairly busy; as such my posting is spotty.
>
> Steven J's arguments about 5 years ago and earlier were generally
> excellent and challenging---some were post-of-the-month quality.
> However of late Steven J has been so hell bent on refuting me that his
> passion gets in the way of his reason. This post is no different.
> Let's look...
>
>
>
> >In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
> >materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
> >following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>
> My news reader shows the post referenced by Steven J to be dated July
> 25th not 24th.
>
newsreader.
>
> 1. My argument of July 25th (not the 24th) was NOT, per se,
> "against" evolutionary theory at all but how it has been applied. The
> premises I presented there were offered to show Ernest Major that
> Darwinism was an intergral part of the Russian communist worldview
> including Stalin's and that this world view guided Stalin.
>
be applied, except to problems in biology. Anything else is the
application of a distortion of or metaphorical analogy of evolutionary
theory, or, quite possibly, the mere empty assertion that one's
actions are "scientific" and based on "Darwinism."
>
> 2. This was offered to counter Ernest Major's parochial view that
> Darwinism was only about "biology" and had nothing to do with
> behavior. Unfortunately he conveniently forgot that natural
> selection is an indispensible component of darwinism which involves,
> in part, behavior.
>
selection involves behavior.
First, of course, as I have on occasion noted, our behavior creates
selective pressures on other individuals (whether in our own or other
species). If we hunt elephants for their tusks, we create selection
pressure for tuskless elephants. If gentlemen really prefer blondes,
there is selection pressure for lighter-complected individuals. But
just as myriad different orbits of varying semimajor axes and
eccentricity are equally compatible with Newtonian theories, so myriad
different selective regimes are compatible with evolutionary theory.
Therefore, no possible course of behavior is more compatible with
natural selection, in this sense, than any other.
Second, individuals' behaviors may influence their own fitness in a
particular environment. One bad choice under the right (or wrong,
depending on how you look at it) circumstances can end your chances of
reproductive success, and the more habitual bad choices are, the more
likely that one of them will occur under circumstances that result in
your genes being deleted from the gene pool.
Third, to the extent that behaviors are influenced by inheritable
traits (e.g. genes affecting temperment or intelligence), natural
selection favors some behaviors over others. It can be very
difficult, however, to figure out at any given time how much of the
variation among personalities is caused by variation among genes, or
which genes are being favored by natural selection. And even if we
knew this, this would not tell us whether to try to alter the
selective pressures, or whether to try to intensify them, or whether
to do nothing. Evolutionary theory is an attempt to explain what has
happened and is happening, not an attempt to tell us what ought to
happen.
>
> 3. (1) and (2) pretty much collapses the rest of Steven J's post.
>
This is less obvious to me than it seems to be to you.
>
> >first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
> >application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
> >darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>
> >and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
> >of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
>
> How on earth can Steven J conclude I have committed an argumentum ad
> consequentiam error when doesn't seem to know my conclusion and he
> hasn't laid out my premises. Let's do the work for him:
>
> PREMISES:
> a. Russian communists including Stalin, all agreed with
> Darwin's theory of evolution.
>
So did a lot of American capitalists. So did FDR and Wilson (if you
consider them apart from "American capitalists"). All these people
also agreed with Newtonian heliocentrism and atomic theory. All of
them rejected the phlogiston theory of combustion.
>
> b. Plekhanov, who is considered as the founder of Russian communism,
> regarded marxism as 'Darwinism in its application to social science'.
> Stalin was in his mold.
>
Ernest Major has posted more of that quote, indicating that Plekhanov
saw Marxism and Darwinism as applying similar methods of analysis to
two different subjects, not that the economics and sociology of
Marxism literally were derived from the biology of evolutionary
theory. I think this falls under my above-announced category: the
mere empty assertion that one's ideas are "scientific," and does not
establish that Marxism is actually based on evolutionary theory.
>
> c. Darwinism was central to the the communist (and Stalin's) world
> view largely because of its historical approach to human origins and
> its materialistic rejection of religion.
>
I see a couple of problems here. First, Darwin was at some pains to
insist that his theory did not entail the rejection of religion (he
refused to allow Marx's son-in-law to dedicate a book to him because
of the book's anti-religious fervor). Several of Darwin's prominent
followers, from Asa Gray to Theodosius Dobzhansky, were themselves
Christian theists. Now, you can (and I suppose will) argue that, even
if Darwin was not anti-religious and the theory does not necessarily
entail rejection of religion, it makes it possible to be "an
emotionally fulfilled atheist" and therefore supports even if it does
not require the rejection of religion.
But what did Plekhanov, or Stalin, or any communist, care for a
"historical approach to human origins?" As several posters have
already noted, Marxism relies on revolutionary changes over historical
times directly caused by the environment, in a way that is not
compatible with gradualistic Darwinian biological evolution depending
on the interaction of the environment on random variations. Marxism
then depends either on rejecting Darwin, or on confining Marxism to
social and cultural evolution that is detached from changes in gene
frequencies. In other words, Marxism (if it is not to be anti-
Darwinist) must be compatible with the classic conservative dictum
that "human nature has no history," even if it assumes a much more
malleable human nature than conservatives typically do (evolutionary
theory, itself, in its application to psychology is not advanced
enough to tell us just how malleable human nature is).
>
> d. Darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview of
> Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior. Behavior is
> little more than a component of "natural selection"-----that which
> effects differential survival.
>
I believe I have dealt with "behavior is little more than a component
of natural selection" above. In that sense, as I have noted,
evolutionary theory indeed offers no limits to how we choose to behave
(natural selection, acting in the past, may have imposed some limits
on those choices, but that's in the past and we can do nothing about
it now).
Any idea of what we *ought* to do implies limits. If I am a devoted
Marxist, I will reject individualism, racism, and anything else that
conflicts with my duties to the revolutionary proletariat as a whole.
I will reject capitalism, because, after all, that's what communists
are trying to overthrow. All this limits my choices both of goals and
of ways to reach them.
Now, I understand the concept "Stalin thought there was no objective
right or wrong, nothing good or bad except as he wished to do it or
avoid it." I also understand that you can derive this from the idea
that "Darwinism undercut the idea of divine intervention in the
universe and hence divinely-ordained right and wrong, and therefore
helped Stalin come to this conclusion." I even understand that this
can be true even if evolutionary theory doesn't actually mean that
nothing is right or wrong, as long as it encourages some people in
their wish to believe so.
However, none of this is relevant to communism, or to the claim that
Marxism is derived in any sense from evolutionary theory. All your
arguments that "Darwinism" is foundational to Marxism are irrelevant;
you simply want to argue that acceptance of a "materialistic
worldview" undercut any ideas in Stalin's mind that he ought not do
certain things to attain his goals. It would be a serious mistake,
factually and tactically, to argue that "Darwinism" somehow inclined
Stalin to the particular goals he pursued.
>
> e. One's world view, in part, guides one's actions and behavior.
>
> CONCLUSION:
> Materialistic doctrines like darwinism guided Stalin in formulating
> and justifying his murderous actions.
>
Your conclusion does not follow from your premises. It also does not
follow from the actual facts. It does not even follow from the
concessions I made above. Stalin justified his actions in terms of
the need to safeguard and advance socialism, which does not follow
(and Plekhanov, as pointed out above, did not say otherwise) from
evolutionary theory, or, for that matter, from materialism. Stalin
formulated his actions in some extent to advance his conception of
socialism, to some extent to protect himself and his country from the
threats he perceived, and to some extent to gratify his own ego and
indulge his own hatreds. He did not formulate them in an attempt to
base his society on the ideas of common descent and natural selection.
>
> I don't appeal to emotions (or any other artifice) anywhere here or in
> my July 25th post for the truth of any of my premises. I simply
> implied that they were true. Sheesh....
>
I don't recall accusing you of appealing to emotions anywhere in your
argument (although I suppose I could, since you're depending on our
revulsion to the crimes of Hitler and Stalin to override the logical
point that nothing you say is relevant to whether evolutionary theory
is correct or not). Certainly I have not accused you of appealing to
emotions to establish the truth of your premises. Can't I simply
accuse you of being wrong without accusing you of being hysterical?
>
> >Please note that these two arguments contradict one another. If
> >"Darwinism" offers NO limits to behavior, gives no reason to suppose
> >that any course of action is better or worse than another, it can't
> >very well be a guide to policy, which requires that some courses of
> >action be preferred to others. Either "Darwinism" implies a code of
> >behavior (however distorted and vicious), or it does not (in which
> >case it cannot be the basis of any political program or used to set
> >political or personal goals).
>
> Steven J finds a contradiction only because here he has introduced a
> premise that is no where found in my referenced post. That is, he
> claims here that one of my premises was that Stalin was searching for
> some better or worse policy. Nice try...
>
I took one of your premises (that Marxism was based on Darwinism, in
some way and to some extent) to mean that, since Stalin thought some
policies were better (as in "more Marxist") than others, he must have
thought that "Darwinism" implied that some policies were better than
others. Why else bother to argue that any political ideology is based
in evolutionary theory?
>
> The discussion was limited to Stalin's decision to exterminate whole
> classes of his citizenry and his execution of this plan. So, the
> Darwinian world view he applied (that is, natural selection) is
> morally neutral to any and every course of action including Stalin's
> decision to commit genocide.
>
But, as noted, meteorology and quantum physics are equally neutral to
the decision to commit genocide. If that were your only point, your
point would seem to lack ... any point. And "natural selection" is
not, strictly speaking, the aspect of the "Darwinian worldview" that
is relevant to whatever remains of your point.
>
> Sorry no contradiction.
>
> >Granted, it's very common for creationists (including ID proponents)
> >to offer contradictory moral condemnations of "Darwinism:" two popular
> >criticisms are that evolutionary theory asserts, on the one hand, that
> >human beings are in no way superior to banana slugs, and on the other
> >hand somehow asserts that some human "races" are superior to others.
> >Even the claim that "Darwinism" is the foundation both of laissez-
> >faire capitalism and of communism at least flirts with self-
> >contradiction. But individual creationists don't have to adopt the
> >White Queen as a role model, and I think Tony should clear up exactly
> >which of these critiques (if either) he is willing to defend, and
> >which he will abandon.
>
> This is a convenient diversion to somewhere other than this
> discussion.
>
> Darwinism (that is, natural selection) is morally neutral to all
> behavior and will continue to engender the heinous murderous atheist
> acts which we have witnessed since it was offered in 1859. Acts which
> eclipse every bad act committed in purely religious terms in all of
> human history.
>
This may be true, in terms of sheer numbers of people against whom
atrocities were committed (although it should perhaps be noted that
Rwanda was one of the most heavily Christianized societies in Africa,
and not noted as a stronghold of "Darwinism"). But the greater number
of atrocities reflects population growth (due to increased food
production and better health care) and more advance, deadlier
technology (due to science which, as almost all Christian creationists
remind us, was based on a Christian worldview).
Steven J.
> On Aug 1, 7:23 pm, "Steven J." <steve...@altavista.com> wrote:
>
> > I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
> > and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
> > but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
>
> > In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
> > materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
> > following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>
> > first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
> > application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
> > darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>
> > and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
> > of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
>
> > Please note that these two arguments contradict one another.
>
> There is no contradiction.
>
> Darwinian materialism, in the manifested form of ToE, said the God of
> Genesis does not exist. With all moral barriers removed via the surety
> of scientific evidence, that is, since God does not exist we can do as
> we please. "Murder is not wrong, it is called selecting our enemies
> for extinction, since we are apes, and since the fit will survive, we
> can implement our political and social agenda with all moral restraint
> out of the way."
>
contradicted each other, and you're only dealing with one of Tony's
arguments, I suppose we agree that that argument does not contradict
ITSELF. Of course, while a self-contradictory argument must be false,
a self-consistent one need not be true.
Tony's other argument was that Stalin's "moral and political agenda"
were derived from "Darwinian materialism." As I have noted to Tony,
all "moral and poltical agenda" constrain permissible choices and the
permissible means of reaching our goals, there is a contradiction
between "Darwinism implies certain moral and political values" and
"Darwinism tells us that nothing is right or wrong."
Now, as to your points in order:
First, strictly speaking, evolutionary theory does not state that the
God of the Bible does not exist. Or, rather, it says that a
particular very specific God, Who literally created each "kind"
separately from all others, does not exist (as, e.g. historical
research says that a very specific George Washington who chopped down
his fathers cherry tree with a little hatchet never existed, but this
does not mean that no George Washington existed). But this is no
different from the way that meteorology tells us that a God Who
literally opens windows in the solid dome of the sky to let the rain
through does not exist, or, indeed, the assertion of Jesus that "God
is spirit" tells us that a God Who literally walks in the garden of
Eden in the evening does not exist. Evolutionary theory requires a
theist to rethink his idea of how God created, but science has
required many such rethinkings over time.
Second, it does not follow that if God does not exist that no morals
exist. Human morals are derived from human nature, from what is
necessary for humans to function as individuals and as a society.
Note that "God has commanded" is not, in and of itself, a reason to do
something. Rather, if God exists and has issued laws to us, God's
commands derive their authority either from hope of reward and fear of
punishment (which are not *moral* reasons -- Stalin's minions murdered
innocent people out of hope of reward or fear of punishment, and, on
the other hand, many people follow laws against theft or murder for
similar reasons), or because we were so made that these rules are
intrinsically good for us. But if these laws are intrinsically good
for us, they are intrinsically good for us because we are the way we
are, regardless of how we became that way. Morality does not depend
on our being created rather than evolved beings.
Third, "natural selection" is so called to distinguish it from
artificial or intelligent selection; selecting our enemies for
extinction is not "natural" selection in the sense Darwin originally
proposed this term. Of course, in another sense, humans are part of
nature, and our actions are natural (not "supernatural"), but this
implies that any course of action we might take is equally "natural
selection." We cannot say that all moral restraint has gone away
because we are somehow serving "natural selection," because natural
selection has no goals that we can help it attain (or, for that
matter, that we can hinder it from attaining). You can argue, of
course, that all moral restraint is gone, period, no matter what goals
we seek, because evolutionary theory says that God does not exist, but
I have argued above that this is wrong on multiple counts.
>
> Ernst Mayr, "Growth of Biological Thought" 1982:536
>
> "....(considering the subsequent success of Lysenko), in the period up
> to the end of the 1920s there was probably no country in which
> Darwinism, including the theory of natural selection, was as widely
> accepted as in Russia."
>
The end of the 1920s, of course, would be right around the time Stalin
took over and began implementing those strategies you and Tony claim
were based on Darwinism -- right around the time that Mayr implies
that the acceptance of Darwinism began to wane. One might suppose
from this that Mayr thought that Stalin's actions were based on a
reduced acceptance of evolutionary theory.
>
> Ray
>
> For now, SNIP...
>
I look forward to seeing your further comments.
-- Steven J.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by bdbr...@wherever.ur (Bobby Bryant):
>In article <1186021400.7...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> "Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> writes:
>> I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
>> and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
>> but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
>>
>> In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
>> materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
>> following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
>>
>> first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
>> application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
>> darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
>>
>> and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
>> of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
>
>Ignoring the basic logical fallacy of Tony's claims, shouldn't he be
>blaming Lysenkoism rather than Darwinism?
Probably, but Lysenko isn't a current threat to his
Biblical-literalist beliefs.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
<snip>
>Darwinian materialism, in the manifested form of ToE, said the God of
>Genesis does not exist.
No, it does not; no scientific theory mentions *any* deity.
Stop lying about this. (And it *is* a lie; you know better.)
<snip>
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186089288....@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> > I have put a name in the subject header, *and* started a new thread,
> > and Tony hasn't even posted for a couple of days and may not see this,
> > but I have trouble getting his attention anyway, so please excuse me.
> >
> > In his July 24 post, "Stalin's Communist regime was atheistic,
> > materialistic, and darwinian at its core," T. Pagano made the
> > following two _argumenta ad consequentia_ against evolutionary theory:
> >
> > first, that Marxism was (in the words of Plekhanov) "Darwinism in its
> > application to social science," and that "materialistic doctrines like
> > darwinism ... guided them in formulating their murderous actions,"
> >
> > and, second, "the darwinian, materialistic, and atheistic worldview
> > of Stalin and his regime offerd NO limits to behavior."
> >
> > Please note that these two arguments contradict one another.
>
> There is no contradiction.
>
> Darwinian materialism, in the manifested form of ToE, said the God of
> Genesis does not exist.
That is a lie. The ToE says that it knows nothing about God - you have
yourslef even written here on t.o. that ID and Darwinism are similar - that
neither of them says anything about God.
WRT to the God of Genesis, he never was. The true God is not the God of
Genesis, since Genesis is a mythological account created by people who did
not know better. Just like ID is a myth created by people who wants to
revitalize the God of Genesis. That is even more diificult that revitalizing
T. Rex.
With all moral barriers removed via the surety
> of scientific evidence, that is, since God does not exist we can do as
> we please.
Even if you believe God exists, you are free to do whatever you want. Read
that again: You and everyone else on this planet are freee to do whatever
you want, if you want to. What is there to hold you back? God won't stop
you. You have yet to prove that 'atheists' are less moral in their behavior
than so called 'Christians'
WRT politics: Politicians - especially totalitarian regimes and dictators
have an agenda. They pursue the implementation of their agenda with all
means available, and rationalize their actions by using whatever arguments
they may find useful. It does not matter whether this or that regime used
this or that argument. If a theory is tru, it is true, and you can hardly
blame the theory for the way it is being used by people.
The production and use of nuclear weapons is evil. Why don't you reject
nuclear physics? (I don't believe in your God, and still I find modern
warfare evil, how do you explain that?)
"Murder is not wrong, it is called selecting our enemies
> for extinction, since we are apes, and since the fit will survive, we
> can implement our political and social agenda with all moral restraint
> out of the way."
>
> Ernst Mayr, "Growth of Biological Thought" 1982:536
>
> "....(considering the subsequent success of Lysenko), in the period up
> to the end of the 1920s there was probably no country in which
> Darwinism, including the theory of natural selection, was as widely
> accepted as in Russia."
>
You should stop reading all kinds off junk. Go back to finishing your paper.
What you tell us here tells us nothing
> Ray
>
>
> For now, SNIP...
>
>
>
Rolf
What you wrote is almost like an analysis of your own self.
Why do you write this sinister attack on another person?
You are yourself refusing to listen to sound advice about how you should
mend your ways before it is too late but you will not listen. Heal yourself
befor you begin healing others. See the beam in your own eye.
> Ray
>
>
> SNIP....
>
>
Rolf
"T Pagano" <not....@address.net> wrote in message
news:apagano-apj4b395femgt...@4ax.com...
You write as if Darwinism is some kind of religion that people hold to in
order to justify their behaviour. That is nonsene. I suggest you know
nothing about why people behave like they do. I aslo believe that within the
fields of psychology and sociology and social anthropology et cetera we will
find much more accurate information about that subject.
What makes you an expert on human behaviour? Is there no limit to
creationist hubris?
Ernest Major
>My news reader shows the post referenced by Steven J to be dated July
>25th not 24th.
>
>1. My argument of July 25th (not the 24th) was NOT, per se,
>"against" evolutionary theory at all but how it has been applied. The
>premises I presented there were offered to show Ernest Major that
>Darwinism was an intergral part of the Russian communist worldview
>including Stalin's and that this world view guided Stalin.
>
>2. This was offered to counter Ernest Major's parochial view that
>Darwinism was only about "biology" and had nothing to do with
>behavior. Unfortunately he conveniently forgot that natural
>selection is an indispensible component of darwinism which involves,
>in part, behavior.
It would help reasoned debate if you did not misrepresent me.
>
>3. (1) and (2) pretty much collapses the rest of Steven J's post.
>
>
--
Alias Ernest Major
wf...@comcast.net
wrote:
>Darwinism (that is, natural selection) is morally neutral to all
>behavior and will continue to engender the heinous murderous atheist
>acts which we have witnessed since it was offered in 1859. Acts which
>eclipse every bad act committed in purely religious terms in all of
>human history.
>
>Regards,
>T Pagano
>
>>-- Steven J.
when one reads the murderous, genocidal, slave bearing history of the
christian religion, it's a wonder creationists have the temerity to
accuse others of what they, themselves have been guilty of for a
thousand years.
TomS
<slrnfb4co4.fic....@rotten.egg.sandwich>, AC stated..."
[...snip...]
>I've been leaning more and more towards genetic linguistics as THE
>analogy of evolution, mainly because people seem more capable of
>understanding that language changes over time. They'll accept transitionals
>like Middle English or Old Norse far more easily than they would
>Archaeopteryx (I honestly don't know why, Archie being such an incredibly
>powerful *visual* demonstration of transitional form).
>
Haven't some linguists been using the algorithms developed for
analyzing DNA ancestry to study the family trees of languages?
--
---Tom S.
"There was a lot more to magic, as Harry quickly found out, than waving your
wand and saying a few funny words."
JK Rowling, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, Chapter VIII, page 133
John Harshman
> On Aug 2, 10:10 pm, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:23:20 -0000, "Steven J."
Let me raise a simple and obvious point you didn't mention in your
demolition of Pagano's "argument".
>>b. Plekhanov, who is considered as the founder of Russian communism,
>>regarded marxism as 'Darwinism in its application to social science'.
>>Stalin was in his mold.
>>
>
> Ernest Major has posted more of that quote, indicating that Plekhanov
> saw Marxism and Darwinism as applying similar methods of analysis to
> two different subjects, not that the economics and sociology of
> Marxism literally were derived from the biology of evolutionary
> theory. I think this falls under my above-announced category: the
> mere empty assertion that one's ideas are "scientific," and does not
> establish that Marxism is actually based on evolutionary theory.
I suppose Pagano has to start with Plekhanov, because otherwise he has
the problem of prae hoc, ergo non propter hoc. Marxism can't be an
application of Darwinism for a very simple reason. Can anyone tell us
the publication dates of the Communist Manifesto and the Origin of
Species? Or perhaps he wants to claim that Plekhanov and other Russion
communists were not Marxists but Darwinists instead.
Ray Martinez
Why are you feigning ignorance? The Mayr quote plainly said Darwinism
and natural selection flourished in Russia despite Lysenko.
> Do you actually have a copy of the book?
Of course I own a copy.
> If so why did you
> chop the opening word "paradoxically" out of Mayr's quote?
>
Because it had no effect on the fact. All quotes must be edited at
some point. If you feel my editing changed the quote then please
explain your reasoning?
> Did you read any of the book _Darwin in Russian Thought_ that Glenn
> posted. If so check out the chapter (#10) "Marxism and Darwinism" that
> shows the *differences* between Marxism and Darwinism. Do you think
> Malthusian population dynamics are compatible with Marxist egalatarian
> views? Darwinian gradualism with radical social revolution?
>
The Malthusian population principle was arguing ***against*** Poor law
programs in Britain. Malthus wanted the poor to starve to death so
they would not breed. Marxism, idealistically, desires the exact
opposite: the poor worker deserves a better lot and the only way for
this to happen is for the State to institute his political and social
totaltarian ideology.
> Darwinian gradualism with radical social revolution?
In Victorian England, the public was indoctrinated with transmutation
(= progressive development) theories under the guise and hope that the
same would be seen as representative of their plight and therefore
accepted. These two are non-sequiturs.
> Can we blame Darwin for both Hitler AND Pol Pot?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
He has some responsibility.
Ray
wf...@comcast.net
the blame for hitler's hatred of jews belongs with the christians. cf
'dabru emet'....
Ray Martinez
> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:10:05 GMT, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
We do not deny these atrocities. The point here is that post-Darwin
Atheism, that is educated 20th century Atheists armed with the
scientific "facts" and ramifications of Darwinism, instantly proceeded
to commit genocide on a scale never seen in calendar history. Not
counting the Holocaust, Atheist regimes in the 20th century murdered
at least 100,000,000 million persons.
Ray
Alex McDonald
*How* many? Exaggerating for effect is one thing, but this is ridiculous.
--
Regards
Alex McDonald
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>> Ray, what exactly was the point of your quote of Mayr earlier in this
>> thread?
>
> Why are you feigning ignorance? The Mayr quote plainly said Darwinism
> and natural selection flourished in Russia despite Lysenko.
Why did you omit the part about "paradoxically"? "Darwinism" and
"Natural selection" "flourished" because it's the best scientific
explanation for the evidence. It also "flourished" in the US and other
western countries.
>
>> Do you actually have a copy of the book?
>
> Of course I own a copy.
Have you read it?
>
>
>> If so why did you
>> chop the opening word "paradoxically" out of Mayr's quote?
>>
>
> Because it had no effect on the fact.
Except to change the meaning.
>All quotes must be edited at
> some point. If you feel my editing changed the quote then please
> explain your reasoning?
Because as Mayr pointed out, the paradoxical notion of "Darwinism" being
used in a country that rejected the mechanism of evolutionary change that
Darwin uncovered.
>
>
>> Did you read any of the book _Darwin in Russian Thought_ that Glenn
>> posted. If so check out the chapter (#10) "Marxism and Darwinism" that
>> shows the *differences* between Marxism and Darwinism. Do you think
>> Malthusian population dynamics are compatible with Marxist egalatarian
>> views? Darwinian gradualism with radical social revolution?
>>
>
> The Malthusian population principle was arguing ***against*** Poor law
> programs in Britain. Malthus wanted the poor to starve to death so
> they would not breed.
Actually, Malthus did not want people to starve. He was warning that
starvation would occur is nothing were done to reduce the population.
> Marxism, idealistically, desires the exact
> opposite: the poor worker deserves a better lot and the only way for
> this to happen is for the State to institute his political and social
> totaltarian ideology.
Which is irrelevant to the scientific principle of evolution.
>
>> Darwinian gradualism with radical social revolution?
What don't you understand about this?
>
> In Victorian England, the public was indoctrinated with transmutation
> (= progressive development) theories under the guise and hope that the
> same would be seen as representative of their plight and therefore
> accepted. These two are non-sequiturs.
The "public" was becoming aware that the evidence showed that species were
not immutable. This fit in with the idea of "progress" which the
industrial revolution ushered in. This of course predated Darwin by several
decades.
>
>
>> Can we blame Darwin for both Hitler AND Pol Pot?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> He has some responsibility.
Why? Because he uncovered the priciple by which life diversified? How
could Darwin be responsible for the behavior of two people he never met, and
never would have supported?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 3, 2:07 am, w...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:10:05 GMT, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Darwinism (that is, natural selection) is morally neutral to all
>> >behavior and will continue to engender the heinous murderous atheist
>> >acts which we have witnessed since it was offered in 1859. Acts which
>> >eclipse every bad act committed in purely religious terms in all of
>> >human history.
>>
>> >Regards,
>> >T Pagano
>>
>> >>-- Steven J.
>>
>> when one reads the murderous, genocidal, slave bearing history of the
>> christian religion, it's a wonder creationists have the temerity to
>> accuse others of what they, themselves have been guilty of for a
>> thousand years.
>
> We do not deny these atrocities.
Who is the "we" here? Do you really imagine yourself to be speaking for
anyone but yourself?
> The point here is that post-Darwin
> Atheism, that is educated 20th century Atheists armed with the
> scientific "facts" and ramifications of Darwinism, instantly proceeded
> to commit genocide on a scale never seen in calendar history.
Atheism preceeded Darwin, and the scientific facts have no "ramifications"
that would excuse the commission of genocide. The atrocites of Stalin, and
other 20th century despots had nothing to do with the scientific principle
of evolution.
> Not
> counting the Holocaust, Atheist regimes in the 20th century murdered
> at least 100,000,000 million persons.
However those people were murdered for political and personal reasons. It
had nothing to do with the fact that life has evolved.
DJT
Ye Old One
If I've told you once I've told you a billion times - DON'T exaggerate
Dishonest Ray - it makes you look VERY stupid.
That number is larger than the total number of humans, including our
pre-human ancestors, that have ever existed.
>
>Ray
You are nearly as stupid with numbers as McClueless, and look what he
got - over a year of looking like a total moron following his claim
that millions of textbooks used Piltdown Man as key evidence for
evolution.
I refuse to even give it a Chez Watt nomination it is just so stupid.
--
Bob.
Glenn
Or are you referring to a typo, which are not rare in a forum such as
this? That would make you look very stupid.
I found another instance of this mistake, made by Perplexed in Peoria
last year. Apparently referring to Spintronic's Wiki quote:
"DNA damage, due to environmental factors and normal metabolic
processes inside the cell, occurs at a rate of 1,000 to 1,000,000
molecular lesions per cell per day"
he replied: "Much more stable than you might think by extrapolating
your worst-case figure of 1,000,000 million lesions per day in a
diploid genome of 7 billion base-pairs."
>
> You are nearly as stupid with numbers as McClueless, and look what he
> got - over a year of looking like a total moron following his claim
> that millions of textbooks used Piltdown Man as key evidence for
> evolution.
>
> I refuse to even give it a Chez Watt nomination it is just so stupid.
>
I'm amazed at your wisdom, in comparison. Did I miss your
demonstration of an algoritm that expresses a rational number in less
bits than expressing the numbers themselves?
wf...@comcast.net
>On Aug 3, 2:07 am, w...@comcast.net wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 03:10:05 GMT, T Pagano <not.va...@address.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Darwinism (that is, natural selection) is morally neutral to all
>> >behavior and will continue to engender the heinous murderous atheist
>> >acts which we have witnessed since it was offered in 1859. Acts which
>> >eclipse every bad act committed in purely religious terms in all of
>> >human history.
>>
>> >Regards,
>> >T Pagano
>>
>> >>-- Steven J.
>>
>> when one reads the murderous, genocidal, slave bearing history of the
>> christian religion, it's a wonder creationists have the temerity to
>> accuse others of what they, themselves have been guilty of for a
>> thousand years.
>
>We do not deny these atrocities.
then why point to creationist morality as being the standard bearer
for scientific truth?
The point here is that post-Darwin
>Atheism, that is educated 20th century Atheists armed with the
>scientific "facts" and ramifications of Darwinism, instantly proceeded
>to commit genocide on a scale never seen in calendar history
uh...wrong. it was xtians...not 'darwinists' who committed genocide.
it was technology that made it possible. it was 20 centuries of xtian
hatred of jews that laid the foundation.
if you read the document 'dabru emet' written by JEWISH scholars, it's
apparent xtians, not scientists, are responsible for antisemitism....
your lies notwithstanding.
. Not
>counting the Holocaust, Atheist regimes in the 20th century murdered
>at least 100,000,000 million persons.
there are no 'atheist' regimes. there are fascist regimes. there are
communist regimes. there are no 'atheist' regimes simply because
atheism is not an ideology.
and this has what to do with evolution?
answer: nothing.
Richard Clayton
Atheist regimes murdered over 100 trillion people? (That would be
100,000,000 million, or 100,000,000,000,000, or 1x10^14.) That would be
a good trick, given that the world population is somewhere around seven
billion-- less than a ten-thousandth of the "100,000,000 million" you cited.
Tell me, Ray, is your understanding of mathematics as good as your
understanding of biology?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime
Ye Old One
Dishonest Ray did write 100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred million
million) didn't he?
>
>Or are you referring to a typo, which are not rare in a forum such as
>this? That would make you look very stupid.
Would it? In what way?
>
>I found another instance of this mistake, made by Perplexed in Peoria
>last year. Apparently referring to Spintronic's Wiki quote:
>"DNA damage, due to environmental factors and normal metabolic
>processes inside the cell, occurs at a rate of 1,000 to 1,000,000
>molecular lesions per cell per day"
>he replied: "Much more stable than you might think by extrapolating
>your worst-case figure of 1,000,000 million lesions per day in a
>diploid genome of 7 billion base-pairs."
So?
>>
>> You are nearly as stupid with numbers as McClueless, and look what he
>> got - over a year of looking like a total moron following his claim
>> that millions of textbooks used Piltdown Man as key evidence for
>> evolution.
>>
>> I refuse to even give it a Chez Watt nomination it is just so stupid.
>>
>I'm amazed at your wisdom, in comparison. Did I miss your
>demonstration of an algoritm that expresses a rational number in less
>bits than expressing the numbers themselves?
The claim was that a truly random string of digits could not be
compressed. That was rubbish.
--
Bob.
Klaus Hellnick
Not
>>> counting the Holocaust, Atheist regimes in the 20th century murdered
>>> at least 100,000,000 million persons.
>> If I've told you once I've told you a billion times - DON'T exaggerate
>> Dishonest Ray - it makes you look VERY stupid.
>>
>> That number is larger than the total number of humans, including our
>> pre-human ancestors, that have ever existed.
>>
> A billion is more than the total number of humans? Amazing.
>
> Or are you referring to a typo, which are not rare in a forum such as
> this? That would make you look very stupid.
Glen, you are looking very stupid, here. Ray claimed one hundred
thousand billions, not 1 billion. That was clearly not a typo, nor can
you comprehend numbers. Ye Olde One pointed out that the number was
ludicrous, yet you still could not take the hint. Then you accused
others of being stupid ...
Klaus
Ray Martinez
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I said one hundred million. This is a conservative figure to say the
least. Russian and East Bloc and Chinese and Southeast Asian and Cuban
and Korean Atheist-communist regimes, with Darwinism as their theory,
murdered in cold blood, probably 250 million persons during the 20th
century. The American news media, who are of course Darwinists
themselves and ultra-liberals, refused to report Atheist-communist
atrocities to the degree that the numbers represent because they
wanted peace at any cost with these nations.
This is what happened when Atheists, after becoming empowered with
Darwin's "facts," that is, alleged evidence of God's non-existence
confirming Atheist faith, acquired power. They instantly surpassed and
out-did any Church caused atrocity in previous history. This is why
Atheists cannot be trusted with power.
Look what Darwin hath wrought:
Congratulations Atheists: in ten decades of time you murdered more
persons than were previously murdered in all of calendar history.
Ray
Cemtech
pyram...@yahoo.com says...
Right, can't trust atheists and can't trust theists for the same reason.
So what's left?
--
And Dishonest Ray is always right!
"Dr. Scott is never, I repeat, never wrong about anything. However,
there was one thing he was wrong about, ..." - Ray Martinez
And Dishonest Ray will never again...
"Regardless, I will not ever participate at any Wiki ever again, in
fact I just obtained my own Wiki." - Ray Martinez
wf...@comcast.net
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I said one hundred million. This is a conservative figure to say the
>least. Russian and East Bloc and Chinese and Southeast Asian and Cuban
>and Korean Atheist-communist regimes, with Darwinism as their theory,
well, no. communism was their theory.
>
>This is what happened when Atheists, after becoming empowered with
>Darwin's "facts," that is, alleged evidence of God's non-existence
>confirming Atheist faith, acquired power. They instantly surpassed and
>out-did any Church caused atrocity in previous history. This is why
>Atheists cannot be trusted with power.
gee. when one considers that millions of blacks died at the hands of
christian slaveholders, one can only marvel at the racism of
creationists...
>
>Look what Darwin hath wrought:
>
>Congratulations Atheists: in ten decades of time you murdered more
>persons than were previously murdered in all of calendar history.
communists just completed what christians started.
*Hemidactylus*
kill during our war their? Did either the North Vietnamese or US bring
_The Origin of Species_ into the picture at any time? What was the
religion of France and subsequently the tyrants we supported in South
Vietnam?
Whose image is emblazoned everyhere you look in North Korea? Is it
Darwin? OTOH what's the religion of the South Korean cult leader
owning the right-wing Washington Times?
What is the predominant religion of the right-wing counter-
revolutionaries we proxied against the Soviets in Latin America.
What's the religion of Cuban exile fringe groups (the orgaaizatons
that harken back to the Bay of Pigs) in Miami?
>
> The American news media, who are of course Darwinists
> themselves and ultra-liberals, refused to report Atheist-communist
> atrocities to the degree that the numbers represent because they
> wanted peace at any cost with these nations.
>
Who ended the bloodshed n Cambodia? Atheist/Darwinian Vietnamese
perhaps? Who (buddied up with Kissinger and Nixon) was friends with
the Khmer Rouge and had a border skirmish with the evil Vietnamese?
Atheist/Darwinian China?
>
> This is what happened when Atheists, after becoming empowered with
> Darwin's "facts," that is, alleged evidence of God's non-existence
> confirming Atheist faith, acquired power. They instantly surpassed and
> out-did any Church caused atrocity in previous history. This is why
> Atheists cannot be trusted with power.
>
What two Christian religions do we see in the region formerly known as
Yugoslavia? Religion has done much to bring those people together.
Were the Serbs atheistic Darwinists or the Russians who are still
backing them diplomatically against the idea of an independent Kosovo.
Could Orthodox ties be playing a role here? Conversely what was the
religion of the Croatians who, as allies of the Nazis, rounded up
their Orthodox Serb enemies during WWII?
>
> Look what Darwin hath wrought:
>
Darwin hath wrought nothing more than a deeper understanding of how
nature works. His theories were incomplete and needed advances in
genetics and molecular biology to see how they operated and how they
weren't totally right (gemmules out...neutral alleles in).
>
> Congratulations Atheists: in ten decades of time you murdered more
> persons than were previously murdered in all of calendar history.
>
What's the religion of the guy who recently thought nuking Foggy
Bottom would be a good idea? What's the religion of the idiots who
think, even though we are still faced with the dangers of HIV, that
teaching children about the existence of condoms is a bad idea. Do you
think they go to sleep every night with a bad conscience about raising
ignorant children who might refuse to use a condom when they break
down and have sex and thus increase their chances of contracting a
disease or having an unplanned pregnancy. Shame on them.
Shane
Another Ray terminological inexactitude that is so easily checked it
is amazing that he didn't apologise for a simple mistake and move on.
Here is the direct quote.
"Atheist regimes in the 20th century murdered at least 100,000,000
million persons."
Apparently Ray didn't even bother to check his post, but just assumed
that his opponents were dishonest.
> This is a conservative figure to say the
> least. Russian and East Bloc and Chinese and Southeast Asian and Cuban
> and Korean Atheist-communist regimes, with Darwinism as their theory,
> murdered in cold blood, probably 250 million persons during the 20th
> century. The American news media, who are of course Darwinists
> themselves and ultra-liberals, refused to report Atheist-communist
> atrocities to the degree that the numbers represent because they
> wanted peace at any cost with these nations.
>
> This is what happened when Atheists, after becoming empowered with
> Darwin's "facts," that is, alleged evidence of God's non-existence
> confirming Atheist faith, acquired power. They instantly surpassed and
> out-did any Church caused atrocity in previous history. This is why
> Atheists cannot be trusted with power.
>
> Look what Darwin hath wrought:
>
> Congratulations Atheists: in ten decades of time you murdered more
> persons than were previously murdered in all of calendar history.
Perhaps Ray can answer this question, because no other creationist
I've come across has had the courage to answer;
With respect to large scale deaths and genocide, is it worse to kill a
large number but a small percentage, or a large percentage of a small
number.
For example, is Mao, the overseer of the killing of (I'm guessing
here) 100 million--approx 10%--of the chinese people, worse than those
that killed 100% of the Tasmanian aboriginals?
And if so why?
And if not, what is the significance of pointing out how bad Mao et al
were, when the theistic inspired genocides of history have eliminated
entire tribes and races of people?
Richard Clayton
No, you said "at least 100,000,000 million." That would be 100
trillion. Of course, you could have simply said "Whoops, that was a
typo, I meant 100 million." But your arrogance apparently didn't allow
for that...
> This is a conservative figure to say the
> least. Russian and East Bloc and Chinese and Southeast Asian and Cuban
> and Korean Atheist-communist regimes, with Darwinism as their theory,
> murdered in cold blood, probably 250 million persons during the 20th
> century. The American news media, who are of course Darwinists
> themselves and ultra-liberals, refused to report Atheist-communist
> atrocities to the degree that the numbers represent because they
> wanted peace at any cost with these nations.
This has been explained to you many times. The theory of evolution
makes no behavioral prescriptions of any kind; it is no more or less
moral than the theory of gravity or the theory of fusion. I wouldn't
argue that the communist regimes of the 20th century were ruled by
bloody-handed tyrants, but "Darwinism" was neither the cause nor the
effect of these state-sponsored massacres.
Note too that all of these communist regimes also accepted the theory
of gravity; do you think amoral, godless gravity contributed to the purges?
Canada's government officially accepts evolution. Are you living in
fear of hordes of rabid Darwinists descending from the north to cleanse
the reproductively unfit?
People are cheerfully murdering each other in Sudan today; without
checking a book, Ray, would you bet that the genocidal maniacs behind
the slaughter in Darfur are creationists or "Darwinists"?
> This is what happened when Atheists, after becoming empowered with
> Darwin's "facts,"
Why do you put "facts" in scare quotes, when you refuse to discuss any
of them? If you're so convinced the evidence is on your side, why do you
run like a deer from every discussion of the facts?
> that is, alleged evidence of God's non-existence
> confirming Atheist faith, acquired power.
The theory of evolution neither confirms nor denies the existence of
God. This has been explained to you many times. You lie when you repeat
this implicit untruth.
> They instantly surpassed and
> out-did any Church caused atrocity in previous history. This is why
> Atheists cannot be trusted with power.
So, do you think that the religious fundamentalists of the Bush
administration have made the United States a better place?
Have the religious fundamentalists of the Taliban or al Qaeda made
Afghanistan or Iraq better places?
> Look what Darwin hath wrought:
The fundamental keystone of all modern biology?
> Congratulations Atheists: in ten decades of time you murdered more
> persons than were previously murdered in all of calendar history.
Hey, Ray, you said your attorney directed you not to respond to me any
further. Did he have a change of heart? Or were you just making it up as
an attempt to save face?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime
Ye Old One
No you didn't.
>This is a conservative figure to say the
>least. Russian and East Bloc and Chinese and Southeast Asian and Cuban
>and Korean Atheist-communist regimes, with Darwinism as their theory,
>murdered in cold blood, probably 250 million persons during the 20th
>century.
Cite?
> The American news media, who are of course Darwinists
>themselves and ultra-liberals, refused to report Atheist-communist
>atrocities to the degree that the numbers represent because they
>wanted peace at any cost with these nations.
>
>This is what happened when Atheists, after becoming empowered with
>Darwin's "facts," that is, alleged evidence of God's non-existence
>confirming Atheist faith, acquired power. They instantly surpassed and
>out-did any Church caused atrocity in previous history. This is why
>Atheists cannot be trusted with power.
Well, six thousand years of religion killed many more and proved that
you cannot trust religious people to run things.
>
>Look what Darwin hath wrought:
Knowledge - something religion doesn't like.
>
>Congratulations Atheists: in ten decades of time you murdered more
>persons than were previously murdered in all of calendar history.
Liar!
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
*Hemidactylus*
of Darwinism. To an extent Malthus had an influence on Darwin's
thought, but he applied this to address biological phenomena. Darwin
was also influenced by Adam Smith and the invisible hand notion of
laissez faire. But natural selection addresses a biological problem.
Perhaps social Darwinism carries Darwinian thought over into the
social realm and humans in relation to eachother, but it's not a
necessary carryover for evolution by selecton to be accepted.
Ironically the same creationists who criticize Darwinism for its focus
on ruthless competition in populations are apparently well overlapped
with conservatives who apply the same notions to social problems.
Conservatives stress ruthless economic competition in the social
sphere. They dwell on race, as many of them inherited the Southern
Democratic conservative mores that brought us Jim Crow segregation.
The archetypal arch-conservative was not Ronald Reagan, it was Barry
Goldwater who opposed Civil Rights legislation and helped usher in the
infamous conservative Republican "Southern Strategy". We saw the
undercurrent of how race was still an issue with the way Willie Horton
was used in the 88 election, the way people viewed the Rodney King
incident, how John McCain had been treated in South Carolina during
the 2000 cycle with the "brown baby" baiting and the comment made by
Trent Lott alluding to Strom Thurmond's Dixiecrat past. Conservatives
also tended to view the _Bell Curve_ book more favorably. Let's not
forget the gaffe Rush Limbaugh made regarding a black NFL quarterback.
And let not forget the image of the welfare queen as a way to convince
people that social services needed to be cut drastically.
So for creationists, who dovetail well with conservatives, to accuse
Darwinism of racist biology is quite ironic.
And economic conservativism sounds about as socially Darwinistic as
you can get. All they do is drool over the idea of competition as a
magical elixir for the market place and how some invisible hand will
guide things for the best as long a government does't mess with the
natural order.
I'm no a fan of Freudian psychology, but I think the term "projection"
is an appropriate one to use when applied to the way creationists as
conservative fellow travelers bash evolution for perceived support of
social ills. The same conservative who would limit or eliminate the
teaching of evolution in schools becaue they dislike Darwinian natural
selection as a mechanism that usurps the role of their beloved creator
would have no problem with the teaching of economics to kids that
stresses ruthless competition in the marketplace which when all is
said and done has the same outcome as a program of social Darwinism.
Ray Martinez
I subsequently said 100 million and corrected the typo. Why have you
failed to recognize? Is it because you are a Darwinist and an Atheist?
> entire tribes and races of people?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ray
Richard Clayton
No, you didn't. You simply insisted later that you'd said something
else. You COULD have just said "Oops, that was a typo." You didn't.
You just claimed "I said one hundred million." (Of course, you could
prove me wrong, just by providing the post in which you "corrected the
typo.")
Why do you consistently think you can lie about the content of your
posts when they are archived in perpetuity? Is it because you think
your personality is so compelling that every reader will simply take
you at your word?
Ye Old One
Maybe it is because he is truthful and you are Dishonest Ray.
--
Bob.
Shane
Another Ray lie. You didn't correct anything, your merely insisted
that your first error was correct.
Here are the two quotes by you;
"Atheist regimes in the 20th century murdered at least 100,000,000
million persons."
"I said one hundred million."
See Ray it works like this, if you were correcting the earlier
statement, then your second one would have said something along the
lines, of I *meant* 100 million, but you could not even admit to such
a minor error, so you insisted that your initial statment said
something it obviously does not.
As to why I have failed to recognise your correction, the reason is
simple, you didn't make one, you merely insisted that your original
statement was correct, when it obviously is not.
I see that you are a typical cowardly creationist and choose to run
away rather than confront this issue.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> > We do not deny these atrocities. The point here is that post-Darwin
>> > Atheism, that is educated 20th century Atheists armed with the
>> > scientific "facts" and ramifications of Darwinism, instantly proceeded
>> > to commit genocide on a scale never seen in calendar history. Not
>> > counting the Holocaust, Atheist regimes in the 20th century murdered
>> > at least 100,000,000 million persons.
>>
>> Atheist regimes murdered over 100 trillion people? (That would be
>> 100,000,000 million, or 100,000,000,000,000, or 1x10^14.) That would be
>> a good trick, given that the world population is somewhere around seven
>> billion-- less than a ten-thousandth of the "100,000,000 million" you
>> cited.
>>
>> Tell me, Ray, is your understanding of mathematics as good as
>> your
>> understanding of biology?
>> --
>> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
>> Richard Clayton
>> "Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." - Optimus Prime- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> I said one hundred million.
Actually, you wrote: "100,000,000 million persons." A mistake perhaps?
> This is a conservative figure to say the
> least. Russian and East Bloc and Chinese and Southeast Asian and Cuban
> and Korean Atheist-communist regimes, with Darwinism as their theory,
What evidence do you have that the Russians, Chinesee, SE Asian, Cuban or
Korean "atheists" have "Darwinism" as their theory? Scientists throughout
the world use evolutionary theory to good effect. Why would the countries
above be given title to it?
> murdered in cold blood, probably 250 million persons during the 20th
> century.
There is no doubt that varioius regimes have executed many people, however
what evidence do you have that "Darwinism" had anything to do with that?
> The American news media, who are of course Darwinists
> themselves and ultra-liberals, refused to report Atheist-communist
> atrocities to the degree that the numbers represent because they
> wanted peace at any cost with these nations.
What evidence do you have that the news media in the US are "Darwinists", or
are "ultra liberals"? Where do you get the idea that the new media has not
reported executions in other countries?
>
> This is what happened when Atheists, after becoming empowered with
> Darwin's "facts," that is, alleged evidence of God's non-existence
> confirming Atheist faith, acquired power.
The facts that Darwin discovered did not, and cannot "confirm" any lack of
belief in God. There is no such thing as a "Athiest faith", in fact, it's
an oxymoron. The theory of evolution does not provide any evidence that
God doesn't exist, and it doesn't provide any support for such a concept.
> They instantly surpassed and
> out-did any Church caused atrocity in previous history. This is why
> Atheists cannot be trusted with power.
Where is there any evidence that atheists have been more atrocious in
behavior than religionists?
>
> Look what Darwin hath wrought:
Darwin has "wrought" a better understanding of how nature works.
>
> Congratulations Atheists: in ten decades of time you murdered more
> persons than were previously murdered in all of calendar history.
What evidence do you have to support such a conclusion? Where do you get
the idea that atheism had anything to do with the reasons for why people
were killed?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> > I said one hundred million.
>>
>> Another Ray terminological inexactitude that is so easily checked it
>> is amazing that he didn't apologise for a simple mistake and move on.
>> Here is the direct quote.
>>
>> "Atheist regimes in the 20th century murdered at least 100,000,000
>> million persons."
>>
>> Apparently Ray didn't even bother to check his post, but just assumed
>> that his opponents were dishonest.
>>
>
> I subsequently said 100 million and corrected the typo.
But you didn't admit to a "typo" and didn't correct your previous claim.
You tried to pretend you never said it.
>Why have you
> failed to recognize? Is it because you are a Darwinist and an Atheist?
Maybe because you didn't correct anything. I'm not an atheist, and I don't
worship Darwin, yet I could see you made an error too.
snipping
>> Perhaps Ray can answer this question, because no other creationist
>> I've come across has had the courage to answer;
>>
>> With respect to large scale deaths and genocide, is it worse to kill a
>> large number but a small percentage, or a large percentage of a small
>> number.
>>
>> For example, is Mao, the overseer of the killing of (I'm guessing
>> here) 100 million--approx 10%--of the chinese people, worse than those
>> that killed 100% of the Tasmanian aboriginals?
>>
>> And if so why?
>>
>> And if not, what is the significance of pointing out how bad Mao et al
>> were, when the theistic inspired genocides of history have eliminated
>> entire tribes and races of people?
So, Ray, why no answer?
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your attempt to act like, and brand a grain of sand (corrected
mistake) to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
only be explained by your Atheism.
I am quite relieved that your kind needs to slander me as a liar;
logically, based on the ugly facts of Atheist inflicted genocide, it
means I have spoken the truth. Your slander is equivalent to murder in
this situation since you cannot carry out the latter in this case.
In addition, since you are also a Darwinist we know that you practice
the Marxist rationale that the ends (evolution veracity) justifies the
means (lying). The same is a continuous model used against those who
oppose your theory as I have just pointed out.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
snip
>
> Your attempt to act like, and brand a grain of sand (corrected
> mistake) to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
> million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
> only be explained by your Atheism.
Ray, you tried to call me a thief because I used my work internet connection
to post on T.O., even though I had permission to do so from my company.
How is that not making a "grain of sand" into a "mountain"? Also, you
haven't demonstrated that those people were killed because of atheism.
There were many political, personal, and other reasons those murders were
committed.
>
> I am quite relieved that your kind needs to slander me as a liar;
Ray, no one "needs" to "slander" you. You make yourself a liar whenever
you tell obvious lies.
> logically, based on the ugly facts of Atheist inflicted genocide,
What makes you think that atheism was the reason for that "genocide". You
might as well blame the genocide of the American Indians on the European
invader's cultivation of apples.
> it
> means I have spoken the truth.
No, it means your claims haven't been supported.
>Your slander is equivalent to murder in
> this situation since you cannot carry out the latter in this case.
How is Shane's non slander, equivalent of "murder"? Since Shane didn't
"slander" or libel anyone, why would you imagine he wishes to murder you?
>
> In addition, since you are also a Darwinist we know that you practice
> the Marxist rationale that the ends (evolution veracity) justifies the
> means (lying).
What is your rationale for lying, Ray? Not that Shane actually did
anything that requies a rationale, nor is "the ends justifies the means" a
Marxist concept, but why do YOU continue to lie? How do you rationalize it
for yourself?
> The same is a continuous model used against those who
> oppose your theory as I have just pointed out.
Your ''pointing out" was wrong. Shane didn't "slander" (or libel) you.
You, however have lied about others, and committed libel yourself. How do
you justify this behavior?
DJT
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>100
>million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century
Prove it.
--
Bob.
Rolf
Quoting "Freakonomics" by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner:
"Around 1920 . the klan was no longer only a Southern states phenomenon, but
active over large parts of the USA. This time it did not target only black
people, but also Catholics, Jews, communists, unionists, immigrants,
agitators and others disturbing the status quo. In 1933, when Hitler came
into power, Will Rogers became the first to draw the parallel between the
klan and the new threat in Europe: "Newspapers all write that Hitler is
trying to copy Mussolini", he wrote. "To me it looks as if it is the Ku Klux
Klan he is copying."
This table from the same book:
MURDERS
(per 100.000 citizens)
England Belgium/ Scandinavia Switzerland/ Italy
Netherland Germany
Century:
13 & 14 23 47 - 37
56
15th - 45 46 16
73
16th 7 25 21 11
47
17th 5 7.5 18 7
32
18th 1.5 5.5 1.9 7.5
10.5
19th 1.7 1.6 1.1 2.8
12.6
1900-1949 0.8 1.5 0.7 1.7
3.2
1950-1994 0.9 1.5 0.9 1.0
1.5
Ray, why isn't Darwinism-atheism reflected in murder statistics?
Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186520412....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Good for you, but it would be even better if you stopped relieving yuorself
here and got cracking instead to get your paper out soon.
Shane
> Your attempt to act like, and brand a grain of sand (corrected
> mistake)
Another Ray lie, the mistake was not corrected as demonstrated above,
you merely insisted that your original statement was correct.
> to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
> million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
> only be explained by your Atheism.
Another Ray lie, I did not ignore that statement because you never made
that statement. You stated that the deathtoll was 1,000,000 million,
which is so obviously ludicrous that it should be ignored.
> I am quite relieved that your kind needs to slander me as a liar;
As I never spoke it would not be slander but libel, however calling a
person a liar by actually demonstrating his lies is not libel, it is
truth, which is the one sure way to refute an accusation of libel.
> logically, based on the ugly facts of Atheist inflicted genocide, it
> means I have spoken the truth. Your slander is equivalent to murder in
> this situation since you cannot carry out the latter in this case.
I didn't slander you as my communication was written, so libel is your
only valid accusationeven if what you suggest is the truth, which it
obviously, and demonstrably, is not.. So as I am not guilty of the first
part of your accusation, I cannot be guilty of the second. It seems
however that as you have incorrectly accused me of slander and have
comprehensively failed to make your case, it seems that in your heart
you are the murderer.
> In addition, since you are also a Darwinist
Nope, I do not worship Darwin, nor his theory, and more than you worship
Newton because you accept his explanation of gravity.
> we know that you practice
> the Marxist rationale that the ends (evolution veracity) justifies the
> means (lying).
As it is you who is the demonstrable liar in this thread and others,
then it seems that you are the one that believes that lying for jesus is
ok. However you even fall short of that less than lofty ideal, as you
merely lie to protect Ray Martinez. What is really sad is that you feel
the need to lie over such a trivial mistake, that, as another poster
pointed out, has been made by at least one other in the newsgroup.
>The same is a continuous model used against those who
> oppose your theory as I have just pointed out.
I have no theory, so you have pointed out a strawman.
And after accusing me of ignoring your arguments about genocide, which
are impossible to address as they are so ludicrous, you completely
ignore the qustion i asked you, and have asked a number of
creationists/theists who have presented more rational versions of your
argument. I will ask it again;
Is a person who kills a small percentage of a large population--I.e. Mao
killing, say 10% of 800 million chinese--worse than those that killed
100% of a small population--I.e. those that killed all 10,000 or so
Tasmanian aboriginals.
If so why?
If not, why do you imagine that pointing out what you consider to be
atheist inspired genocides is a valid argument against the religion
inspired genocides that have actually eradicated entire tribes and races
of people?
Lets see if you will ignore this for the third time in this thread.
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1186520412....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> snip
>
>
>
> > Your attempt to act like, and brand a grain of sand (corrected
> > mistake) to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
> > million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
> > only be explained by your Atheism.
>
> Ray, you tried to call me a thief because I used my work internet connection
> to post on T.O., even though I had permission to do so from my company.
You were caught by your own admissions. Now you are engaged in
attempted damage control via more lying. For someone who thinks
nothing of slandering anyone who opposes evolution, the truth, as it
crept out of your own keyboard, had a strange way of finding the light
of day. Now you desparately want me to believe you after the lies you
invent about myself and other persons? Okay, Dana, if you say you are
not stealing by posting from work then I guess we have to take your
word on it. Since you have moved does your new boss know that you
conduct private affairs on company computers and time?
Ray
wf...@comcast.net
>
>In addition, since you are also a Darwinist we know that you practice
>the Marxist rationale that the ends (evolution veracity) justifies the
>means (lying). The same is a continuous model used against those who
>oppose your theory as I have just pointed out.
>
>Ray
ray's cute. he equates science with marxism.
he should read f. a. hayek's 'why i am not a conservative'. hayek,
one of the doyens of today's ultra right wingers, took particular
exception to creationism. he was hardly a marxist.
Ray Martinez
Evading 100 million murders by Atheists in the 20th century via a
silly misrepresentation.
> > to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
> > million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
> > only be explained by your Atheism.
>
> Another Ray lie, I did not ignore that statement because you never made
> that statement. You stated that the deathtoll was 1,000,000 million,
> which is so obviously ludicrous that it should be ignored.
>
> > I am quite relieved that your kind needs to slander me as a liar;
>
> As I never spoke it would not be slander but libel, however calling a
> person a liar by actually demonstrating his lies is not libel, it is
> truth, which is the one sure way to refute an accusation of libel.
>
Since you are an Atheist and I am a Christian I am not the least bit
concerned with you calling me a liar. Anyone can scroll back and see
how you have completely blown out of proportion an honest typo that
was corrected in the next post.
> > logically, based on the ugly facts of Atheist inflicted genocide, it
> > means I have spoken the truth. Your slander is equivalent to murder in
> > this situation since you cannot carry out the latter in this case.
>
> I didn't slander you as my communication was written, so libel is your
> only valid accusationeven if what you suggest is the truth, which it
> obviously, and demonstrably, is not.. So as I am not guilty of the first
> part of your accusation, I cannot be guilty of the second. It seems
> however that as you have incorrectly accused me of slander and have
> comprehensively failed to make your case, it seems that in your heart
> you are the murderer.
>
> > In addition, since you are also a Darwinist
>
> Nope, I do not worship Darwin, nor his theory, and more than you worship
> Newton because you accept his explanation of gravity.
>
All Atheists worship Darwin.
It is not a matter of opinion. Literature is bursting at the seems
with books praising the man who refuted the existence of God. Denying
only shows the public and confirms that Atheists are brazen liars or
extremely deluded.
I worship a Man who walked the Earth at one time; I suggest that you
admit the obvious and face yourself.
> > we know that you practice
> > the Marxist rationale that the ends (evolution veracity) justifies the
> > means (lying).
>
> As it is you who is the demonstrable liar in this thread and others,
> then it seems that you are the one that believes that lying for jesus is
> ok. However you even fall short of that less than lofty ideal, as you
> merely lie to protect Ray Martinez. What is really sad is that you feel
> the need to lie over such a trivial mistake, that, as another poster
> pointed out, has been made by at least one other in the newsgroup.
>
Glenn pointed out the typo (up-thread). Why have you not acted like
him?
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Aug 7, 2:17 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1186520412....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>> > Your attempt to act like, and brand a grain of sand (corrected
>> > mistake) to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
>> > million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
>> > only be explained by your Atheism.
>>
>> Ray, you tried to call me a thief because I used my work internet
>> connection
>> to post on T.O., even though I had permission to do so from my company.
>
> You were caught by your own admissions.
Ray, I was not "caught" by anything. Where do you get the idea that what I
was doing was wrong?
> Now you are engaged in
> attempted damage control via more lying.
More lying would imply that I lied before. I have not. You, on the other
hand have lied quite consistently about me. What 'damage' do I need to
"control"? Your lies are not my doing.
> For someone who thinks
> nothing of slandering anyone who opposes evolution,
Ray, you may "think nothing of slandering" your opponents, but I don't. I
have never "slandered" anyone, nor have I engaged in libel as you have done.
Your charge of "slander" is false, and itself is libelous. You know that
I've never "slandered" you, or anyone else. You only use that charge to
avoid having to deal with the physical evidence of human evolution.
> the truth, as it
> crept out of your own keyboard, had a strange way of finding the light
> of day.
The truth is that you lied about me. You continue to lie about me. I
have stolen nothing, but you called me a thief, because you can't deal with
the evidence for human evolution that I've presented.
> Now you desparately want me to believe you after the lies you
> invent about myself and other persons?
What "lies" have I "invented"? Everything I've said about you, and
others is the truth.
> Okay, Dana, if you say you are
> not stealing by posting from work then I guess we have to take your
> word on it.
Since my word is good, unlike yours, that's a reasonable thing to do.
> Since you have moved does your new boss know that you
> conduct private affairs on company computers and time?
Why would that matter, Ray? The company I worked for before had no
problem with it. If my new company has a problem with using the computers
for accessing the internet, they will let me know. In any case there was
no theft involved. Now, how about apologizing for your lies about me?
Again, why do you feel that you can lie about me, and not be called to task
for it?
snipping what Ray has ignored.
DJT
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> Another Ray lie, the mistake was not corrected as demonstrated above,
>> you merely insisted that your original statement was correct.
>>
>
> Evading 100 million murders by Atheists in the 20th century via a
> silly misrepresentation.
Ray, how does pointing out your own mistake "evade" the murders which you
have not shown to have anything to do with "atheism"?
>
>
>> > to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
>> > million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
>> > only be explained by your Atheism.
>>
>> Another Ray lie, I did not ignore that statement because you never made
>> that statement. You stated that the deathtoll was 1,000,000 million,
>> which is so obviously ludicrous that it should be ignored.
>>
>> > I am quite relieved that your kind needs to slander me as a liar;
>>
>> As I never spoke it would not be slander but libel, however calling a
>> person a liar by actually demonstrating his lies is not libel, it is
>> truth, which is the one sure way to refute an accusation of libel.
>>
>
> Since you are an Atheist and I am a Christian I am not the least bit
> concerned with you calling me a liar.
But Ray, you are a liar, and that has nothing to do with your dubious claims
to Christanity.
> Anyone can scroll back and see
> how you have completely blown out of proportion an honest typo that
> was corrected in the next post.
Just as you have "blown out of proportion" several of my statements, in
order to make false charges against me. Pot calling the kettle black, no?
>
>
>> > logically, based on the ugly facts of Atheist inflicted genocide, it
>> > means I have spoken the truth. Your slander is equivalent to murder in
>> > this situation since you cannot carry out the latter in this case.
>>
>> I didn't slander you as my communication was written, so libel is your
>> only valid accusationeven if what you suggest is the truth, which it
>> obviously, and demonstrably, is not.. So as I am not guilty of the first
>> part of your accusation, I cannot be guilty of the second. It seems
>> however that as you have incorrectly accused me of slander and have
>> comprehensively failed to make your case, it seems that in your heart
>> you are the murderer.
>>
>> > In addition, since you are also a Darwinist
>>
>> Nope, I do not worship Darwin, nor his theory, and more than you worship
>> Newton because you accept his explanation of gravity.
>>
>
> All Atheists worship Darwin.
What evidence do you have for this claim? Where is there a "Church of
Darwin"? Where has any atheist ever stated that he or she worships Darwin?
>
> It is not a matter of opinion.
Which, in Rayspeak means "it's entirely my opinion".
> Literature is bursting at the seems
> with books praising the man who refuted the existence of God.
Darwin did not refute the existance of God, nor could any man do so.
Darwin is rightly praised for his scientific work. He's not worshiped.
> Denying
> only shows the public and confirms that Atheists are brazen liars or
> extremely deluded.
Or that shows that Ray is the deluded one.....
>
> I worship a Man who walked the Earth at one time;
Yes, we know you worship Gene Scott. You reject the teachings of Jesus,
and attack his followers.
> I suggest that you
> admit the obvious and face yourself.
Why should Shane "admit" something that is false on it's face?
>
>
>> > we know that you practice
>> > the Marxist rationale that the ends (evolution veracity) justifies the
>> > means (lying).
>>
>> As it is you who is the demonstrable liar in this thread and others,
>> then it seems that you are the one that believes that lying for jesus is
>> ok. However you even fall short of that less than lofty ideal, as you
>> merely lie to protect Ray Martinez. What is really sad is that you feel
>> the need to lie over such a trivial mistake, that, as another poster
>> pointed out, has been made by at least one other in the newsgroup.
>>
>
> Glenn pointed out the typo (up-thread). Why have you not acted like
> him?
Because Shane is more intelligent than Glenn.
DJT
Klaus Hellnick
> Ray
>
BULLSHIT! You wrote:
"Not counting the Holocaust, Atheist regimes in the 20th century
murdered at least 100,000,000 million persons."
Klaus
>
>
*Hemidactylus*
*hardcore* atheist, venomously anti-Marxist, and her Objectivist
philosophy was akin to the laissez faire type of Smith and von Mises.
Some non-religious right types like her. William Buckley wasn't
particularly fond of her and IIRC commissioned Whittaker Chambers to
do a hit piece on a book of hers in the _NR_. She was no friend of
Nazis OBVIOUSLY and wasn't overtly Darwinist that I recall, but I'd
place her more in the realm of atheistic social Darwinism. She owed
some debt to Nietzsche I suppose. She was unique.
Point being was Rand, as goofy as her philosophy was, cannot be
labelled Marxist nor Nazi. She was an atheist (couldn't believe
someone as intelligent as WF Buckley could believe in Gott). but was
responsible for no genocidal acts....an infamous extramarital affair
perhaps, but no genocidal acts.
To be fair, I'd say that, if foggy memory is correct, she would look
at the atrocities committed by the USSR on its unsmiling masses (see
Rand's HUAC testimony) and by the Nazis upon Jews and other groups as
acts of unbridled statist power.
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Why have you intentionally evaded the correction post?
Nobody disputes that I wrote it, Klaus. The issue is why have Atheists
like Shane and Richard not accepted the typo like Glenn did? Do you
now understand? I expect you to own up to your mistake lest Shane
calls it a lie.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1186534191.2...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 7, 2:17 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1186520412....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
> >> snip
>
> >> > Your attempt to act like, and brand a grain of sand (corrected
> >> > mistake) to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
> >> > million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
> >> > only be explained by your Atheism.
>
> >> Ray, you tried to call me a thief because I used my work internet
> >> connection
> >> to post on T.O., even though I had permission to do so from my company.
>
> > You were caught by your own admissions.
>
> Ray, I was not "caught" by anything. Where do you get the idea that what I
> was doing was wrong?
>
Its better for you to drop it or be a man and admit.
> > Now you are engaged in
> > attempted damage control via more lying.
>
> More lying would imply that I lied before. I have not. You, on the other
> hand have lied quite consistently about me. What 'damage' do I need to
> "control"? Your lies are not my doing.
>
We never expect you to admit, Dana. Since you were caught by words
that came from your own keyboard. I have no interest in listening to
your denials.
Ray
Shane
Nope. Lets look at your claim.
You claimed that atheists murdered 100,000,000 million people in the
20th century.
When it was pointed out to you that this was ludicrous, you did not sy,
'Oh my I made a mistake, silly me, here is what i actually meant', which
would have earned you deserved respect, you went for plan be which is
deny, deny, deny, and posted this comment;
"I said one hundred million."
Whic is two things
1. an obvious lie, and
2. not a correction..
>>> to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
>>> million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
>>> only be explained by your Atheism.
>>
>> Another Ray lie, I did not ignore that statement because you never made
>> that statement. You stated that the deathtoll was 1,000,000 million,
>> which is so obviously ludicrous that it should be ignored.
>>
>>> I am quite relieved that your kind needs to slander me as a liar;
>>
>> As I never spoke it would not be slander but libel, however calling a
>> person a liar by actually demonstrating his lies is not libel, it is
>> truth, which is the one sure way to refute an accusation of libel.
>>
> Since you are an Atheist
Incorrect.
> and I am a Christian
A highly dubious claim backed by no discernible evidence.
> I am not the least bit
> concerned with you calling me a liar.
Which is more evidence that you are most likely not a christian and are
biblically illiterate.
> Anyone can scroll back and see
> how you have completely blown out of proportion an honest typo that
> was corrected in the next post.
Actually that is a lie. Anyone can scroll back and see how you admitted
no error, did not correct you error and simply insisted your first
statement was correct.
Here let me post the two pertinent commets of yours again, just so we
don't lose focus;
"Atheist regimes in the 20th century murdered at least 100,000,000
million persons."
"I said one hundred million."
>>> logically, based on the ugly facts of Atheist inflicted genocide, it
>>> means I have spoken the truth. Your slander is equivalent to murder in
>>> this situation since you cannot carry out the latter in this case.
>>
>> I didn't slander you as my communication was written, so libel is your
>> only valid accusationeven if what you suggest is the truth, which it
>> obviously, and demonstrably, is not.. So as I am not guilty of the first
>> part of your accusation, I cannot be guilty of the second. It seems
>> however that as you have incorrectly accused me of slander and have
>> comprehensively failed to make your case, it seems that in your heart
>> you are the murderer.
>>
>>> In addition, since you are also a Darwinist
>>
>> Nope, I do not worship Darwin, nor his theory, and more than you worship
>> Newton because you accept his explanation of gravity.
>>
>
> All Atheists worship Darwin.
Actually it is far more likely that none of them do.
> It is not a matter of opinion. Literature is bursting at the seems
> with books praising the man who refuted the existence of God.
Literature is bursting at the seams with books praising Newton too, very
few people worship him. I also take it that you conflate praise with
worship. in which case you do worship Gene Scott and the Apostle Paul,
which makes you an idolator.
And Darwin did not refute the existance of god, that is an
impossibliity, just as you cannot refute the existence of Thor.
> Denying
> only shows the public and confirms that Atheists are brazen liars or
> extremely deluded.
Well this thread shows that one of us is that way and I rather suspect
posterity will show it to be you. Just look upthread for your lie about
how many people atheists supposedly killed in the 20th C and your
delusion that you have somehow corrected your error.
> I worship a Man who walked the Earth at one time;
Charles Darwin walked the earth at one time.
> I suggest that you
> admit the obvious and face yourself.
I tried facing myself, but not being a contortionist gave up. No wonder
you are so angry all the time, if you are constantly trying to face
yourself.
>>> we know that you practice
>>> the Marxist rationale that the ends (evolution veracity) justifies the
>>> means (lying).
>>
>> As it is you who is the demonstrable liar in this thread and others,
>> then it seems that you are the one that believes that lying for jesus is
>> ok. However you even fall short of that less than lofty ideal, as you
>> merely lie to protect Ray Martinez. What is really sad is that you feel
>> the need to lie over such a trivial mistake, that, as another poster
>> pointed out, has been made by at least one other in the newsgroup.
>>
>
> Glenn pointed out the typo (up-thread). Why have you not acted like
> him?
I have acted like him I also pointed it out, see just above. and it was
not a typo, it was the inclusion of a whole superfluous word or a
superfluous number.
And for the third time Ray runs away from the hard questions, preferring
to focus on his own limitations rather than address the issue at hand.
The very issue he claims I am running away from. So here is another Ry
delusion. But let us restore the questions and see if Ray is man
enouught or Christian enough to face up to them;
And after accusing me of ignoring your arguments about genocide, which
are impossible to address as they are so ludicrous, you completely
ignore the qustion i asked you, and have asked a number of
creationists/theists who have presented more rational versions of your
argument. I will ask it again;
Is a person who kills a small percentage of a large population--I.e. Mao
killing, say 10% of 800 million chinese--worse than those that killed
100% of a small population--I.e. those that killed all 10,000 or so
Tasmanian aboriginals.
If so why?
If not, why do you imagine that pointing out what you consider to be
atheist inspired genocides is a valid argument against the religion
inspired genocides that have actually eradicated entire tribes and races
of people?
Lets see if you will ignore this for the third [now fourth] time in this
thread.
*Hemidactylus*
Typo be damned you need to demonstrate a convincing connection between
Darwinism, atheism and the murders of millions. I'm not talking about
vague unsupported assertions. I'm talking about detailed well
referenced causal chains established from reputable sources. Is should
go something like Darwin--Darwinism--atheism--Nazism--murders and
Darwin--Darwinism--atheism--Marxism--murders. You should also make
sure you can't refute yourself by pointing out # of cases where
Darwin--Darwinism--atheism--whatever--no murders. And you should
conider that maybe Darwinism doesn't necessarily lead to athism
(Teilhard and others) or that athesm doesn't necessarily lead to
murders (Ayn Rand and others).
Dawkins may be an ornery bastard at times but I don't see any evidence
he was responsible for any acts of political mass murder or genocide
in the 20th century. Same goes for Gould, who leaned a little more
towards Marxist thinking. Was Ernst Mayr a political mass murderer
when he wasn't doing ornithology and writing excellent books about
Darwinism? What about many of the other evolutionary biologists that
are respected as eminent scientists in the 20th and 21st century? Sure
there were those with checkered pasts (Konrad Lorenz comes to mind),
but were they the rule or exception? Lorenz ran in Nazi circles, but
was he directly related to the Holocaust?
If you take a typical modern Marxist and mention the hyperdarwinian
fields of sociobiology or evolutionary psychology, what number of
colors will their face turn before they scream in angst and pour ice
water over your head? I assume most Marxists believe in
equipotentiality, egalatarianism and the overwhelming effects of
social forces (akin to Durkheim's sociological views) on outcome over
innate or genetically inherent forces.
*Beliefs* in nature and nurture can go to the extremes as we see with
what happened in Nazi Germany and Pol Pot's slaughter in Cambodia. I
would assume, as high as their magnitudes are vis a vis killing of
innocent people, these are exceptional cases and cannot be simply
generalized as an outcome of what atheistic Darwinism has wrought.
In the case of Nazi Germany you would be excluding very complex
contigencies such as the struggles with France, liberation of the
Jews, rise of Wagnerian anti-Semitism via the cultural mecca known as
Bayreuth and numerous other factors unrelated to Darwin and his works.
Shane
> Why have you intentionally evaded the correction post?
Because there is no correction post. When the pure fantasy of this
number was pointed out to you, you did not say: I made a mistake and
meant to say 100 million. You merely insisted that you said 100 million
in the first place, which is an obvious lie,
Here are you exact words.
"I said one hundred million."
No apology, no admission of error and no correction of the number, just
a bald statment that was actually a lie about your previosu remark.
And Note that Klaus snipped just past what you laughably claim to be a
correction post, but which is, in fact merely you reinforcing your
complete absence of integrity in this matter. So you accuse Klaus of
something he went to pains to avoid.
> Nobody disputes that I wrote it, Klaus. The issue is why have Atheists
> like Shane and Richard not accepted the typo like Glenn did?
Aside form me not being an Atheist, because you did not own up like an
honest person to making a mistake, but rather tried to bluster your way
past an obvious error. What this says about your fragile ego and
morality is very enlightening.
> Do you
> now understand? I expect you to own up to your mistake lest Shane
> calls it a lie.
I do call what you said a lie. Klaus has merely pointed out that he
agrees and you have then proceeded to lie about him. Are you going for a
record today or something.
Richard Clayton
But there's the problem, Ray: You didn't write "I meant 100 million,"
you wrote "I _said_ 100 million." (Emphasis mine.)
It's only an issue because it's typical of your constant lying in
talk.origins. If you so cheerfully lie about trivial matters--
especially when the simple hard truth is publicly archived in a previous
post-- why do you expect that anybody would take your word on important
matters?
Oh, and speaking of lies, Ray... I still haven't heard from your
attorney. Did he call Stanford and find out that Gene Scott's
self-proclaimed academic honors were as phony as a three-dollar bill?
Did he explain to you that your case was therefore hopeless? Did he even
exist in the first place?
--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"Freedom is the right of all sentient beings." — Optimus Prime
Ray Martinez
The issue in this topic is genocide conducted by Atheists who were
educated in, and accepted Darwin's theory. When you (or anyone for
that matter) bring up non-Atheist led atrocities in a manner that
seeks some type of percentile comparison, you are, in effect,
admitting the former and attempting to downplay severity by saying
"what about them?"
What about them, Shane?
What's the point?
Ray
SNIP....
Ray Martinez
The degree of lie and slander is equal to the degree that Dr. Scott is
perceived as a threat to your theory.
Ray
Shane
So name one?
> When you (or anyone for
> that matter) bring up non-Atheist led atrocities in a manner that
> seeks some type of percentile comparison, you are, in effect,
> admitting the former
Nope, i am trying to find out why you consider a large number, but a
small percentage of deaths inherently worse than a large percentage of a
small number of deaths. I know that you do feel this way by the manner
in which you constantly harp on the 100 million, but ignore the 100%.
And as for ignoring the deaths, that is another laughable error you are
making. Explicit in my question is the example of Mao who, if the simple
maths is beyond you, I guesstimate killed 80 million alone, so it seems
my numbers may be even greater than yours, although I do not know if Mao
was an atheist.
> and attempting to downplay severity by saying
> "what about them?"
Nope I actully consider that 20th C genocides were probably worse than
even you now estimate, but probably not as high as 100,000,000 million.
> What about them, Shane?
Addressed above and in the questions you keep running away from.
> What's the point?
The point is that you continue to evade the questions I posed, I wonder
why that is? What is it about them makes you want avoid the stark
reality that the only reason that 20th Century genocides--atheist
inspired or not--killed more people than in all of history combined--a
highly dubious claim itself, is that there were
A. a lot more people to be killed, and
B. methods of mass killing unavailable to the past tyrants.
So I will ask again and see if you are still afraid to face up to this
question;
Is a person who kills a small percentage of a large population--I.e. Mao
killing, say 10% of 800 million chinese--worse than those that killed
100% of a small population--I.e. those that killed all 10,000 or so
Tasmanian aboriginals.
If so why?
If not, why do you imagine that pointing out what you consider to be
atheist inspired genocides is a valid argument against the religion
inspired genocides that have actually eradicated entire tribes and races
of people?
Lets see if you will ignore this for the fifth time in this thread.
Klaus Hellnick
There was no correction post, only a flat denial.
Klaus
Wombat
Don't rely on Glenn to bail you out next time, he can't read
100,000,000 million any better than you. The right thing to have done
is say "sorry" or "oops" rather than behave like a certain robot in
the novel "The City and the Stars".
Wombat
Wombat
That has got to be about the most hilarious thing I have read this
month.
Wombat
Elf M. Sternberg
> Your attempt to act like, and brand a grain of sand (corrected
> mistake) to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
> million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
> only be explained by your Atheism.
No, you vile, repulsive idiot. They were murdered by
ideologically-driven monsters like yourself who could stand to have no
other gods or authorities beside their own. Your brand of religion
and the brands of ideology that committed murder spring from the same
core belief, best spoken by the Roman Catholic doctrine, "Error has no
rights."
You're an abyss, Martinez.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.pendorwright.com/
richardal...@googlemail.com
How true, how true.
This confirms that there are no lies or slanders on the "evolutionist"
side of the debate.
Thank you for this confirmation.
RF
Richard Clayton
I agree. Since my post contained neither lies nor slander, Doctor
Scott is not a threat to the theory of evolution.
Feel free to prove me wrong: Point out a single lie in my post. Just
one.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 7, 2:17 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1186520412....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>> > Your attempt to act like, and brand a grain of sand (corrected
>> > mistake) to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
>> > million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
>> > only be explained by your Atheism.
>>
>> Ray, you tried to call me a thief because I used my work internet connection
>> to post on T.O., even though I had permission to do so from my company.
>
>You were caught by your own admissions. Now you are engaged in
>attempted damage control via more lying.
I've never seen Dana lie. Has anyone else?
>For someone who thinks
>nothing of slandering
Please moron, look up the word and stop misusing it. It is IMPOSSIBLE
to "slander" someone on usenet.
>anyone who opposes evolution, the truth, as it
>crept out of your own keyboard, had a strange way of finding the light
>of day. Now you desparately want me to believe you after the lies you
>invent about myself and other persons? Okay, Dana, if you say you are
>not stealing by posting from work then I guess we have to take your
>word on it. Since you have moved does your new boss know that you
>conduct private affairs on company computers and time?
Can you prove that he does it in company time. If not, shut up.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Aug 7, 6:36 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1186534191.2...@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 7, 2:17 pm, "Dana Tweedy" <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1186520412....@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
>> >> snip
>>
>> >> > Your attempt to act like, and brand a grain of sand (corrected
>> >> > mistake) to be a mountain (lie) while ignoring the fact that 100
>> >> > million persons were murdered by Atheists in the 20th century, can
>> >> > only be explained by your Atheism.
>>
>> >> Ray, you tried to call me a thief because I used my work internet
>> >> connection
>> >> to post on T.O., even though I had permission to do so from my company.
>>
>> > You were caught by your own admissions.
>>
>> Ray, I was not "caught" by anything. Where do you get the idea that what I
>> was doing was wrong?
>>
>
>Its better for you to drop it or be a man and admit.
It would be better if YOU drop it, or at least be honest for once in
your life and admit YOU are in the wrong.
>
>> > Now you are engaged in
>> > attempted damage control via more lying.
>>
>> More lying would imply that I lied before. I have not. You, on the other
>> hand have lied quite consistently about me. What 'damage' do I need to
>> "control"? Your lies are not my doing.
>>
>
>We never expect you to admit, Dana. Since you were caught by words
>that came from your own keyboard. I have no interest in listening to
>your denials.
Silly little troll Dishonest Ray, can't you do better than that?
>
>Ray
--
Bob.