News you won't see in controlled mainstream media.

Not all conspiracies are secret. This can make it a lot easier for historians. But some are bound to ask "how can it be?" The answer is simple: in any conflict, it's important to accurately gauge the strength of one's opposition. Conversely, it's prudent to throw off the enemy's estimates of one's own strength.

When Erwin Rommel arrived with his panzers in North Afrika (sorry - I forget the name of the town), he held a parade. Every panzer passed through town... and doubled back around and passed through again... and again... and again. Why waste so much precious fuel? Why have the troops waste time when they could be deploying or resting? The crafty Field Marshall knew British spies were present, and they'd be watching the parade, counting panzers.

You may have heard that evolutionism was introduced, and it won the day on scientific merit. One by one, scientist after scientist became convinced.... blah blah baloney! Evolutionism had been plodding along for decades, convincing next to nobody who wasn't a borderline atheist. How'd they turn it around? It was politics. One by one, evolutionists were placed in all key positions - first in England, and later in other technologically advanced countries, as they continually praised Darwin for making it happen.

The X Club is the best known of the groups. This is a case where one needs to follow the link, because their activities cannot easily be summarized.

Even reading that article, one doesn't get the full story. The article on the ringleader, Thomas Henry Huxley, tells even more details.

The names of the members are all links to articles, and it can take quite a while to get the picture.

The X Club included a banker and a politician. They had an extended network of connections in government, industry, and science. Before long, they were deciding who'd receive what award and who'd hold what office in several of the major scientific societies. They extended their network to France & the U.S. and that's all the further I can say without more research. They also promoted "Higher Criticism" and happily supported churches which claimed one can be a "Christian" without believing the Bible.

I'm guessing it'll turn up that the organizations they fostered in France & the U.S. resembled the parent organization, but I honestly haven't got that far yet. I never was a speed-reader.

Keep in mind, none of this is secret. Once they got established, they became very open about it. Then, just as now, they wanted it well-understood that anyone getting in their way would have a very difficult time. I'm doing my best, but I confess I may be overestimating their influence - just as they intended.

I have high hopes for an educational discussion.

Been digging a little more in the Google mines.

Found this book review/summary about "T.H. Huxley: Early Proponent of Publicly Funded Research".

Also discovered another biographical article.Gotta say, it's no big surprise he won the "distinguished" Darwin medal. I bet I can guess how that happened.

Doesn't look like any one resource is going to have all the information. The X Club was mighty busy, and they were around for quite a long time.

I got some new leads on their links to America, but I'm growing tired. Can't promise anything soon. Thought I had a lead on the infiltration of Scandanavia, but it dead-ended on me.

Where are these guys in relation to the Theosophical Society and Blavatsky, and the like, that fueled Adolf Hitler's ideas of evolution, survival of the fittest and arayan supremacy?

This is a silly fantasy in your head. You could just as easily claim that Galileo masterminded the conspiracy of astronomy, and little by little astronomists took key positions of power. The fact that scientists were actually convinced by the evidence apparently hasn't crossed your mind.

There's a separate forum here for conspiracy theories.

No I could not. I am unaware of any similar machinations in astronomy. Where's the evidence?


I consider this forum more appropriate because the conspiracy theory forum deals with controversial, disputed conspiracies. If I am mistaken... It's Russ' call.

I see you haven't been educated yet on your role. Evolutionists don't dispute the X Club - they may brag about it, or emphasize what great scientists were members, or sometimes suggest it could've done this or that better (you know, trying to learn from past mistakes). They sometimes get around to the infighting and side with one or another faction. Another basic theme is still to prevent accurate assessment of the organization's strength.

It might be advisable for you to consult your clergy before proceeding further. I don't know what they'd do about someone denying the 'miracles' of the X Club.

On the other hand, I can't see you being excommunicated as a bad thing, so feel free to continue. What exactly are you disputing here? Did wiki make all this up in their heads?

Nice question. I'd suggest an "advanced search" combining the names of the mentors of X Club members with members of of the T Society.

I vaguely recall a connection between their mentors and commie pioneers - might be this same T Society - my memory's inferior to most, so I always keep having to verify.

Most interesting to me right now: so many member of the network served on Royal Navy ships in non-military positions. Can't be coincidence. I'd like to know who was setting them all up with these jobs. It's formula too: after their tours, they write books. Surely not everyone in the RN wrote a book after his tour - there's not enough people to read them all! Couldn't be a standard practice. If the mastermind behind this is human, there's a chance he can be discovered.

I submit as evidence this "game".

See, evolutionists aren't hiding it at all! They're proud of the political savvy and the tactics employed by the X Club.

Yet its ideas became generally accepted, partially due to the influence of astronomers in powerful positions. Some had the ears of kings. They just didn't have a dinner club.


That the X Club existed is not in dispute. That they are responsible for the almost universal scientific acceptance of evolution today, is. I repeat, the fact that scientists were actually convinced by the evidence (and continue to be) -- rather than browbeaten and bamboozled by this group of people -- apparently hasn't crossed your mind.


I'm honestly not passionate enough about the subject to care much. What I see -- what any serious scientist sees -- is that evolution explains the evidence well, and no one has proposed an alternative model that comes close. The history or politics become irrelevant when you look at it this way.

What is your alternative model, and can it be tested and falsified?

Okay, I started - just barely started - looking into this, and it soon became apparent that this is the type of group X Clubbers would "keep at arms distance", for political reasons. They were always concerned with political appearances.

For example, look at how they treated atheists. They didn't appoint open atheists to key positions, or award them with honours. It would be politically risky. They also took steps to deter anyone from charging them with atheism.

Huxley was very abusive of the English language in this regard, establishing the use of "science" as a euphemism for atheism, and coining the deceptive term "agnostic". As gnosis = knowledge, it would indeed have been appropriate for him to profess to be agnostic, but that's not what he meant.

Anyway, to understand these relationships, think of F.D.R. and the American Communist Party. F.D.R. dared not admit any affinity, but actions speak far louder than words. X Clubbers were very reluctant to take political risks, only sticking their necks out when their agenda required it.

Earlier, I did see where someone connected to the X Club was big-time into mesmerism. I'm sorry, but I have forgotten the name.

Did these "some" become convinced before or after they obtained their positions? Did they obtain their positions on merit, or was there finagling involved?

I have presented evidence. Where is yours?


It has indeed. I have kept my eyes open, but I have come across no YEC scientists in the era who were persuaded. Only a few very nominally (for political reasons) "creationist" scientists who saw the opportunity to "come out of the closet".

Neither do I see evolutionist historians bragging about conversions.

If you have evidence...


Who can fault you for not caring? But some of us do care. We study our enemy's tactics that we may learn how to counter them.

Do you attempt to derail all threads, or just the ones I start?

----------------------------------------------------
But an important issue has come up:
Even if the X Club was successful, would its success be limited to Great Britain?

Anyone familiar with the Victorian Era should have no problem beginning to understand the answer. The very term "Victorian Era" applies worldwide - not just to British territory. That's because there was one undisputed superpower during the timeframe.

Just as all eyes were on the U.S. during the second half of the 20th century, so all eyes turned to the British Empire. They were dominant economically, militarily, technologically, and politically.

Into this setting comes the X Club. They take over nearly all key scientific positions. They establish funding to industrialize, propagandize, and (further) politicize science (both kinds, science as science, and science as euphemism for atheism).

I think the international aspect of their campaign is where the awards come in. They convey prestige by means of awards, but this isn't enough. They establish new awards in order to pile it on. Means nothing domestically - everyone knows they're just patting themselves on the back. But internationally, these awards are a powerful propaganda tool.

Also noteworthy is the appeal of Social Darwinism, a philosophic phenomenon which spread rapidly among the whole world's exploitationists. One member of the X Club was pushing Social Darwinism - I remember that much. So the X Club had potential allies everywhere. Greedy, wealthy potential allies.

People viewing my "Cracking Down" thread should also take note of the ease with which circular arguments in favor of evolutionism can be formulated. The common peasant may not have been well-equipped to counter such fallacious reasoning, and the scientists who were well-equipped were being systematically replaced.

I think I'll do some more digging. To use a mythbusters phrase, the worldwide spread of evolutionism by means other than scientific merit: "totally plausible" at this point.

Perhaps a simple but quite real inherent fear of the Anglican church was a motive in that.

But the timeline is roughly the same, with this group perhaps predating the Theosophical society by a decade or so. So obviously they were all peers and sharing information and ideas somewhere. It would be inappropriate to suggest they were ignorant of each others' 'work' or writings. Theosophy is a combination of the words theology and philosophy, essentially giving us the same innate meaning as 'agnostic' and greatly influencing liberal movements in the chuch as well. Considering that they were contemporaries, lack of mention of each other by either group is more likely to be viewed as silent approval rather than discord.

I read that Thomas Huxley studied with a mesmerist early on. Aldous Huxley, his grandson, was openly influenced by the Theosophical Society so the relationships obviously existed for him, he seems even to be have been born bred and raised within that frame of ideas so the question literally begs.

Also since no hard evidence of evolution actually exists to permit one to actually say 'scientists were convinced of the evidence', all one can truly say is, they were convinced by the narrative, by the ideas, eg;theories, set forth in certain eloquent ways.

- all of them for your info, with the same few parroted lines. Caution is likewise advised lest she use her most frequent tactic to turn it into more bickering about how she is offended by something or another. wasting your time with that one is also not advised even if it becomes methodically clear she is prompting the offense that offends herself.

Based on what I read from your link, these X-clubbers were trying to influence the opinion of scientists. It also seems that they were involved in the political process to some extent. They even probably tried to influence the politics of the Royal Society of scientists to forward what they thought was a viable theory.

The real question is not if there were prominent non-scientists trying to influence scientific thought and theories. That happens now with the National Academy of Scientists, and the National Science Foundation on one side and the Discovery Institute, Focus on the Family and Trinity Broadcasting on the other. Oh wait...one side HAS scientists...my bad. Seriously, there are also non-scientists on the side of evolution who try to influence science standards.

Regardless, the existence of politically powerful adherents to one side or the other is irrelevant to the truth or falseness of a particular hypothesis. The Discovery Institute is trying to influence science education through the political process. You would not say that their use of that venue guarantees the falseness of their hypothesis, would you? Therefore, the existence of the X-Club says NOTHING about the theory of evolution being fact, fantasy or something in between.

nor should it, I think that's the point. Which you seem to have gotten right in a backwards sort of process.

Just out of curiousity, who do you think is more influential today? Brittney Spears, Hillary Clinton, or Samantha Somogosh??

wiki's bio page on T.H.Huxley saysThey have nothing about this Thos. Chandler, and there are several others. I may find out more if I continue searching for the Royal Navy connection, but I'll leave the mesmerism angle for you or someone else.


There was not much alternative. Little, if any, of the "box 2" evidence was available in their day.

As per your request, here is some information about mesmerism:

Bandit Hypnotizing Bank Tellers, Cashiers
http://www.local6.com/spotlight/15694571/detail.html


-text-
ROME, Italy -- A mysterious bearded man in Rome is wanted by police for using hypnotism to mesmerize cashiers and bank tellers while he steals thousands of dollars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMAGES: Bandit Caught On Tape
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surveillance video from inside a store that aired on CCTV showed the man walking up to a supermarket cashier and apparently mesmerizing her before stealing cash.

The same man is believed to be responsible for robbing banks.

A bank teller said the man approached her, leaned over and told her to "look into my eyes," the report said. The next thing she noticed was her till was empty.

Another cashier handed over more than $1,200 after she said she became mesmerized by the man.

Local 6 reported that the victim's don't remember any of the theft, only that their actions seemed natural at the time.

Watch Local 6 News for more on this story.

Yes, although it's surprising to see you word it that way. Most evolutionists try to portray them as a group of scientists. Good to see you making progress.
Nice understatement work.Oh that's even better. Like Stalin tried to influence the government of the USSR.

Perhaps you didn't read so much. Or maybe you know something I don't. Maybe the influence of the X Club is being grossly overstated as a part of some propaganda plot? Can you let us in on it, or is it verboten?The real question, when one deals properly with history: what happened?
When one deals improperly therewith: what can we say happened?

Seems you ran out of steam before you got around to anything beyond the DI & Focus on the Fam. etc. having scientists and the other side having non-scientists.
This is just history. The merits of evolutionism being what they are, it's interesting to investigate how it ever became accepted by educated people. Until we see a Histories Mysteries episode explain this, I s'pose we'll have to investigate on our own.

If you have evidence to contribute, I hope you'll share. And this includes box 2 evidence in the other thread. Right now it's looking like their arguments were largely, perhaps entirely circular at the time. It's no wonder politicians liked them.

As the X Club held their meetings at the Athenaeum Club it's hard to imagine they didn't rub elbows with serious policy-makers from the very start.

All I've seen so far is that their influence and wealth continued to grow. I noticed their propaganda machine had trouble initially, and they had some infighting - other than that, they appear to have been extremely successful. At this point, I'd be very interested in any setbacks they may have experienced.

An influential group of people spread scientific ideas.

You are trying to paint them to be evil conspirators who converted the saintly creationist scientists to their evil ways, or forced them to submit so that they could have some career success.

Sorry but that doesn't fly. It's a silly fantasy in your head.

I'll say again: this is all irrelevant. Evolution explains the evidence. No one has yet produced a model which explains it better. Most scientists will also have concluded this. No conspiracy theories required.

Oh, I didn't know they had the military at their disposal. That's a completely different story! How many creationist scientists did they purge? I don't remember anything about scientists disappearing, never to be seen again. They must have done a good job at covering their tracks. Maybe they hypnotized the neighbors of those scientists that they had killed.

We can say those people used their influence improperly. It happens all the time. Using your influence to get people to accept your ideas happens in all walks of life. Hence the Salem Witch trials and the requirement to believe in God in order to hold office in Maryland.

Probably true, I forgot how much influence the "evil empire of evolutionism" has over the media. That's probably why the porn industry can still function in this country because of the influential evolutionists trying to inject evil everywhere they can. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the first amendment.

Why do I care what these folks in the X-club did. You seem to think their influence extends to now even though the club ended before 1900. So, what do you have that shows their continued influence? Perhaps their spirits are haunting the scientists today and causing them to continue to subscribe to a theory with no evidence in its favor?

Seriously, your comment on the merits (or lack thereof) of evolutionism (whatever that is!!!) seems to indicate that you believe there is no evidence for evolution (surprise!, surprise!). It is unfortunate that your stating such does not make it so. Perhaps you should provide some evidence that your statement is correct.
Of course this same scientific method that cannot ferret out the (to you) glaring inadequacies of evidential support for evolution, seems to provide mountains of modern conveniences for you to take advantage of....Medicine, computers, aircraft, space flight...to name a few. What is it that allows scientists to be so intelligent in those areas of science yet makes them so stupid when it comes to biology, geology and cosmology?

Did I say they converted any saintly people at all? I take it back. Sorry.

See above. I'm sorry. I don't recall saying it, but if you say I did... better safe than sorry, I s'pose. Telling lies is a nasty habit.
Say it again and again and again. Say it as many times as your religion requires. Find a mirror and mesmerize yourself with it. The rest of us will give up our research when we decide it's time. You don't set our schedule. You may be closer to the Royal Society than the rest of us, you may be better connected with them. We're not intimidated!

Who's "we"?

More importantly, what's the result? That's what one hopes to discover by investigating history.
I had not considered this angle. Is there evidence of a connection?
I don't know why you care - you tell me.

Judging by the number of books still being written about them and the ideas they promoted, I'd say quite a few people are being influenced by them now. Evospeak is still widely used - that's more evidence. Intimidation is still practiced in support of their views. I could probably think of more, and I'd probably overlook a few things.

I haven't seen Wilbur or Orville around lately. Do you maintain their influence is missing from the present day? Are their ghosts involved? And I'm told Nietsche is dead also, for what that's worth. There is a thread listing and categorizing the evidence. You've seen it.

On the contrary. I have maintained that proper application of the scientific method will ferret out mistakes. I'm close to concluding that's why you're afraid to apply it.

Your second question is poorly worded. If I were compelled to answer that one, all the evidence points to evolutionism. But they aren't stupid. They're deceived. Some may be only playing along. It's hard to tell. We are attempting to investigate how the deception took place. Why do you oppose this investigation?

Now that I think about it, there's a pattern: the more someone becomes involved in evolutionism, the less they seem capable of applying the rules of science. They contradict themselves more frequently, and their words make sense less frequently. Maybe there is some stupification involved at some point after all. 'Nother topic.

ummm... you get a bunch of liars?

just guessing.

Linda Lou said...


Below, read "errors" as "random processes".


Errors cannot produce high symmetry.

Errors cannot produce highly ordered information such as DNA.

Errors cannot produce interconnected systems with high codependencies, such as:

- rods/cones-eyelid-optical nerve-brain
- muscle-tendon-nerve-brain
- dual, symmetrical ear equilibrium systems
- ear-hair (detector)-converter (mechanical-to-electronic)-nerve (transmitter)-brain (processor)


An example of a brilliantly-designed sensory system which happens to have a mirror image device on the other side of the head:

The deflection of the hair-cell stereocilia opens mechanically gated ion channels that allow any small, positively charged ions (primarily potassium and calcium) to enter the cell. Unlike many other electrically active cells, the hair cell itself does not fire an action potential. Instead, the influx of positive ions from the endolymph in Scala media depolarizes the cell, resulting in a receptor potential. This receptor potential opens voltage gated calcium channels; calcium ions then enter the cell and trigger the release of neurotransmitters at the basal end of the cell. The neurotransmitters diffuse across the narrow space between the hair cell and a nerve terminal, where they then bind to receptors and thus trigger action potentials in the nerve. In this way, the mechanical sound signal is converted into an electrical nerve signal. The repolarization in the hair cell is done in a special manner. The perilymph in Scala tympani has a very low concentration of positive ions. The electrochemical gradient makes the positive ions flow through channels to the perilymph.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hair_cells


A word to the common-sensed.

My miniscule understanding of DNA is that it's much more than just a bunch of finely arranged chemicals/biological or organic matter.

It's actually a language and is generally dealt with as a language, not as a chemical sequence or arrangement. Language interpreters and decoders are hired to work on projects involving DNA research.

If it were a matter of simply putting all the right chemicals/organic matter is a pot and stirring... you still would not get working DNA because of the intricacies that are involved in the language that the sequences define.

which is why scientists have been thus far unable to create viable life even with all the right chemicals on hand.

DNA is not merely a chemical reaction. It's a language very foreign to mankind.

Russ we've had this exact same conversation before and I don't see why we need to repeat it.

This is the argument from incredulity, which is what ID essentially boils down to: you don't believe it could have evolved, so it must have been brought into existence by God.

One, we need to look at the first life at its most basic. Self-replicating molecules. Second, we can see that life has changed over millions of years, and that the earliest organisms were simple compared to many that exist now. If God created everything at the same time, then why would he produce the illusion of it evolving over time, and why would he sort it in the fossil record for us? Is he having a joke?

Third, why should creationism be the default explanation for everything that seems improbable to someone? Every theory that stands on its own two feet needs to explain why it's right and the others are wrong. IDers work hard to show why evolution is wrong but they don't seem to be able to produce asy testable or falsifiable evidence for why they are right.

If you're tired of hearing these things CTD, then try listening to them so I don't have to keep repeating them to you.

The old "argument from incredulity" dodge. Mightn't you all come up with a new dodge which isn't a false accusation?
Redefining life? How convincing is this? If I apply your definition of 'life' and LinearAQ's def. of 'self-replicating molecules', diamonds are alive. What kind of science is that?

And the source of your illusion is the topic of this thread. Please give credit where credit is due.
Who said it should?

Say again? Just kidding. I'm immune to your mantras and chants. If there's any unaccounted-for non-circular evidence, please present it in the appropriate thread.

It isn't a dodge, it's a logical fallacy. Something isn't necessarily impossible just because you think it is.


I did not gather from his comments that he thinks diamonds are alive.
What is the most basic definition of life? If molecules are self-replicating, surely that's pretty basic. What is your definition of life?


Why else do creationists try so hard to convince people that evolution is a joke, an illusion, etc, if they don't think that the default explanation is creation? What other model do they suggest?


You do indeed seem to be immune to listening to what I say, yes. Denial of evidence does not lead to truth however.


You also seem to be immune to any explanations of why the ToE is not circular reasoning and keep repeating your own "mantra." I'm waiting in your "Cracking Down" thread for you to explain why you think any or all of the things in your boxes do not fit with the ToE.

Don't leave us in suspense, what's the result? Is the Theory of Evolution a bunch of made up lies that were pushed onto the unsuspecting science establishment and is held there by a conspiracy of ardent atheists bent on world domination? Does this conspiracy still hold sway over all scientists even though the Theory of Evolution can be easily disproved and the scientist disproving it would win the Nobel prize? Please provide more evidence than a club of men who championed a theory that they thought was true.

No, there is no evidence of a connection, but that doesn't stop AIG from saying it is true.

The fact that scientists conclude that the evidence in the natural world supports the Theory of Evolution, is not evidence that those men pushed something onto the scientific establishment that they believed was not true. Their actions in getting support for the Theory of Evolution among scientists is not evidence that the Theory of Evolution is not true.
If using political action to push a theory onto the public automatically meant that the theory was untrue, then ID is automatically made untrue by the actions of the Discovery Institute and their lawyers.

I didn't know Wilbur and Orville politically influenced the acceptance of heavier-than-air flight. I don't think Nietsche had a lot of influence on politics or science in his lifetime, so I doubt that he was able to force scientists to accept his philosophies.

I saw a thread where you claim this, but fail to support even one of your assertions.

Please provide this "proper application" so I can see where I have it wrong. If you have time, could you point out the indicators in my posts that show I am afraid to apply the scientific method?

If they are so easily deceived with evidence that you (don't know chemistry, don't know biology...by your own admission) can easily see through, then they must be pretty stupid.

Another baseless claim with no evidence to support it whatsoever. Of course you'll start another topic. Bullcrap is cheap.

Did you gather that I said he does?

It's quite difficult to deny that 'ardent' atheists are anything less than very very bent on attempting to remove any and all mention of God and christianity from the public sphere, from textbooks, from signage, from monuments, from insignias, from history, from anything essentially, that they can get their hands on and claim lack of separation of church and state (whether the claim be true or not). So, though 'world domination', as in a quest for power and rule, may not be fully within their sights or grasp, and even I would say that that is highly unlikely, one cannot overlook the fact that their efforts are an obvious attempt to dominate opinion in places and force many times a minority opinion upon the majority of others, even if that includes denying history and ancestry and long standing much loved traditions.

Whereas prayer has been removed from schools and other places to assuage atheists, whereas the pledge of allegiance has been removed from schools and other places because the word God was contained therein, whereas poorly informed and poorly educated civil servants have in places denied the rights of Christians to pray, to speak, to assemble and so forth. Many lawsuits have been the result of poorly informed civil servants overexerting their opinions upon christians or others, and in most every case Christians do prevail because although an atheist may have the right to not partake in prayer, he does not have the right to force his opinion on others as he claims others might do to him, nor does he have the right to deny the civil liberties of those who do believe in God to express their opinion, publicly or otherwise.

The call by atheists to remove the mention of God from all things everywhere is far more a violation of the civil rights of those who disagree with them than it is a violation of the civil rights of atheists to permit long standing beliefs and traditions to continue, since it is not required of atheists to partake in those beliefs. Yet atheists do attempt to force non-atheists to partake in their beliefs, by removing or forbidding mention of anything which opposes their beliefs, and even using the school system to teach and indoctrinate their beliefs while forbidding the teaching of opposing beliefs. And they have used and do use the public arena, within the school system as an example, to attempt to dominate opinion and belief. Whether or not 'world domination' is part of their agenda is questionable, but neither can it be left out of the equation due to the proof that already exists concerning their efforts at local and even higher levels. Mixed in with that however is the teaching of many other ideas which have rushed in to fill the gap left by the removal of Christian based beliefs, in America and Europe especially. It is the natural inclination of humanity to ask of and ponder their origins. And a vacuum is created in this area through the efforts of atheists, with no forethought whatsoever as to the future implications of what will possibly fill that void or what beomes of that void in the human heart and mind. Where an answer once existed or was given as a choice or a possibilty, even in all of it's imperfections as to the suitability of all persons, it is now seen as forbidden by many due to the efforts of atheists who have taught others falsely concerning the rights of others to believe and even concerning what they believe. It is preferable, by many examples, by atheists to enable the teaching of superstion and mysticism than to permit the mention of the name Jesus. There is very much to be said about their agenda, because it does not appear to be fully oppossed to the teaching of spirituality altogether. It is however, ardently opposed to the teaching of Christian beliefs.

Concerning atheism and the many false teachings contained therein, they have been most ardent in this area, about history, about Christianity, about your rights as an individual to speak and express your own beliefs. And they do often use lies to coerce their desires and opinions.

I agree that some very public atheists are actually what I call anti-theists. They take things too far.

Incorrect, both children and teachers can pray in school if they want and it doesn't interrupt class. They just can't force other people to pray or be part of a group prayer.
You wouldn't want a Muslim teacher to ask your children to pray to Allah, so a Muslim parent shouldn't have to worry about his children being forced to pray to God in the name of Christ.

What school has removed the pledge of allegiance?

If your child has been stopped from praying or speaking about God, then you have a right to protest to the school board. If the praying or speaking about God was disruptive (praying loudly during a math test...etc), then the teacher has the obligation to stop it.

Do you have an example of Christians being denied the right of assembly?

Then you wouldn't be bothered by a judge putting up the 4 Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path of Buddhism in his courtroom?

How does the teaching of "their beliefs" force you to partake in them?

Then you believe that atheists should be prevented from entering the political process?
Is that just atheists or all non Christians?

Then you believe that the US should be a Christian theocracy?

Are you saying that atheists have taught that people don't have the right to believe what they want? Please provide a quote by an atheist that substantiates this.

Unless you are saying that atheists falsely teach that people do have the right to believe what they want. Then I have to ask why you think people don't have the right to believe what they want.


Since there are many examples, please provide one example where atheists advocated the teaching other superstitions while opposing the teaching of Christian beliefs.

This is a good place to start if you are unaware of the things going on in the world around you:

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14099

I can understand how you would think so. Unlike pop history, I prefer to do research before reaching conclusions.


Seems this could be incongruous. Would 'all scientists' include those on the Nobel Prize Committee?

Request noted.

And lack of evidence hasn't stopped you from falsely claiming AIG said something they didn't. I think I see how this works... Do you think the X Club's propaganda machine operated on similar principles?

Damage control? You may need to do better.

Are you aware of the conclusions of your fellow evolutionists* who've looked into the subject? Might they know what they're talking about, or is there some evidence they're blowing smoke?
Untrue. I provided three links supporting my claim that circular reasoning is invalid.

My question wasn't answered I see. And I dispute that people lacking insights are stupid. It's rather difficult to learn what one isn't taught or doesn't observe. "Stupid," on the other hand, refers to people who consistently fail to learn things that are clearly presented to them, and even then one needs to allow for lack of aptitude in a given area.

Oh, I wouldn't say "no evidence". I'm confident others have observed this pattern. It's not like effective steps are being employed to conceal it.

*I'm poor at remembering names. The list has some I don't recall. It may contain men of science in addition to evolutionists.

Not making a lot of progress on the American front. Found the Metaphysical Club, which is pretty much what the X Club would have been if you believe the downplay angles presented. There's been a book published (2001), so it's drawing new attention. Wiki book link. Harvard book link

There were only four members, and they don't seem to have conspired so much as collaborated. The book argues that their influence is not commonly appreciated. Probably true. William James was connected with quite a few celebs, and I notice more than a couple of evolution-pushers on the list.

I'll keep looking. It's seems possible that the American program was fairly decentralized at the time, and didn't consolidate until later on.

Yet you bring up this topic as if that were the case.

Sure, but my comment was a purposeful overstatement. You have brought up the fact that some scientists don't agree with the conclusions of most. Of course if they did bring up conclusive evidence that evolution could not have happened, you believe that the scientific community would not be able to recognize that evidence. The inability of most scientists to understand evidence is the main reason the fields of Medicine, Physics, Chemistry, Electronics, and Geology are in the poor state that we find them.

AIG links the teaching of evolution directly with the moral decay in society. See here
Please take back your accusation that what I stated was false.

So now you claim that their actions do make the Theory of Evolution untrue? Evidence please or take that one back too.

Well informed we are...no? Since almost all of them are ID or creation proponents except the ones that are quoted out of context, I don't see how what Russ provided (What? Can't go to the original sources?) is worth anything at all.
Yes, and I agree that circular reasoning is invalid. So what! You failed to even try to show that use of the items in box 1 as evidence in support of evolution WAS circular reasoning. Well, except to say it was so and that I was suppose to accept what you say as fact.

So most scientists are not taught the scientific method? You have evidence of this?
If they were taught the scientific method, then they apparently couldn't learn it or apply it properly. From my point of view and from your definition above ("consistently fail to learn things that are clearly presented to them") that means that most scientists are stupid. This is especially so in the fields of biology and geology since they work with the stuff every day.

Of course, it could be a mass conspiracy of almost all scientists. Yes...that must be it!! They are all in on it and are lying about the evidence in favor of evolution and hiding any evidence that refutes evolution. In fact, they hide the evidence so well that scientists that disagree with them (Dr. Abraham) can't even find it.

Yet these "others" also fail to provide one scrap of evidence that "stupification' is occurring. Of course you wouldn't say "no evidence", saying so would mean you would have to take back that baseless claim. So how about you actually pony up with something that might achieve a level higher than "because I say so".

I read all of the articles from 2008 and 2007. Not one of them mentioned that the people "discriminating" against the Christian groups (Americans for the separation of Church and State...for example) were atheists. They could have been Hindu, Muslim or Jewish. In fact, the only time the people being charged with discrimination were called anti-religious was when the article quoted a Christian on the side of the people being discriminated against.

I will agree that if other religions are allowed to do something (using public facilities for meetings, tax exemption...etc) then Christian organizations deserve the same rights...and should fight for them.

BTW: Do you intend to have a snide remark implying that I am unintelligent in every reply that you address to me?

Can I use this for a refutation?

An atheist cannot be shown for the act, so saying that the act has influenced ___ cannot be used in supporting this idea. Since an atheist cannot be shown to be absent, I cannot say that the act has influenced ___ is a refutation of that idea.

It seems to work for others.


Have I implied you are unintelligent in every thread? Gosh I'm so sorry. I'l try to keep things simpler. I'll do my best to keep things within a K-7 age range.

Is there any particular reason you see it at all fit for Christians to have to fight for the same things that are freely given to others? Is this part of the american legal system or is this a judgement call a person makes on a case by case basis depending on how they feel at the moment? Why do people believe this? Do you think it is because they are well-informed or ill-informed and who taught them this?

For instance, if Molly gets a free soda in the cafeteria, why is it ok to threaten Amy with loss of her kindetgarten degree for getting a free soda while she is humming 'Jesus Loves Me?'

Also, in regard to this:

Exactly which 'Christian' beliefs do you believe I believe that would support a Christian theocracy?

For instance, we do not celebrate Christmas to any large degree, or easter even, in our house, so if the USA were a Christian Theocracy according my personal standards, would you have a problem if I, as president of the theocracy, asked you to stay home on Saturdays and did not light the 50 foot spruce in front of the White House in December and did not send invitations for an easter egg hunt and told you to never mind about paying your taxes for the most part because most of it gets wasted on things like evolution grants, billlions upon billions wasted on searches for life on other planets and weapons of war anyway but make sure you give to the poor who are hungry and living right next door to you? Or would that be unChristian in your view?

How exactly do you see this Christian Theocracy working? Should it force my Christian views on the general population, Catholic Christian views, Mormon, Evangelical, Pentecostal, which? Do you actually believe all christians everywhere actually agree on everything?

You seem to have a fear of a Christian theocracy, you have mentioned it before. Somehow it looks like a rather very unfounded fear from my perspective.

Perhaps you would be wise to investigate the meaning of ill-informed and where/who plants these types of ideas in peoples' minds and why and then ask yourself if this problem might not be inclusive of many other things you also believe. It's rather obvious you have already been subtlely duped before and thus one needs to ask where else this is affecting you and your ideas and behaviors and judgements of others. It's not possible to be duped only once past age 12 or so if you are susceptible to that sort of thing..

Shifting gears, eh? I recall reading quite an understatement in an earlier post.

When I need to find out what my beliefs are, I'll ask myself.

You're welcome to your opinion.

Perhaps you're thinking of something else. I didn't see anything about porn or amendments.

Take back what? A claim you try to put in my mouth? You made it up - you get to take it back.

Do you even know what "out of context" means? I declare, your filthy mantras need to be overhauled.

So your claim that I didn't provide support is FALSE, that's what. Duh!

Also false. I tried many ways to show you what constitutes circular reasoning. I'm not responsible if you refuse to learn.

You have my question in your post, but it remains unanswered.

You said it - you provide evidence.

The next time you try to put words in my mouth, you may wish you hadn't.
You can call them what you want.

Somehow I doubt this is accurate...

Oh? Have you asked them? And just how much more evidence is required?

But just for laughs, here's some.

Hi CTD,

Instead of bickering here, why not pop over to 2 other threads: Cracking Down and CTD's FAQs. I'm waiting to hear your reasons for thinking that horse evolution has been disproved, what your dating methods of a young earth are, and why you think genetics falsifies evolution. Every time I ask you to back up what you say, you seem to come up empty-handed with every excuse in the book. Nothing you are saying here has contributed any evidence to your case.

Either back these assertions up with evidence, or concede that you cannot.

Thank you very much, I enjoyed reading this. So much so that I felt rather sad that I've been banned from there.

You fail to provide evidence for what you're saying here, when there's only 2 evolutionists to talk to, neither of whom is a scientist. You attempt the same tactics on another forum with actual scientists and seem to think that by linking to that discussion, we will see how "stupified" they are. I'm rather puzzled. Dr. Adequate, Jar, Brad, Wounded King and Chiroptera all had interesting things to say and you seem to have disappeared somewhere on page 4.

Brad participated well. Although he isn't always the clearest writer, I've never seen any indication of insincerity or intent to deceive in his posts. The others seem to have mistook my book review for a debate on the book's contents. I find it quite amusing that they fault Dr. Sanford for publishing it publicly rather than hiding the information from the general public. They seem upset that their censors didn't get a shot at his work. In spite of his record and proven scientific ability, most evolutionists aren't interested in his conclusions, or how he derived them from the evidence.

At any rate, the presence of the most transparent variety of lies is valid evidence of stupification. It would take a great deal of effort to be deceived by such. You may admire the fabricators, but I think you could find better persons to emulate. You must not have noticed the lack of success these bunglers enjoyed.

Another insult, bravo! I'm glad I could help you meet your weekly quota. What is the number of non-Christians that you are required to treat poorly in order to maintain your Good Christian status?

Where did you get the idea that I said Christians should be required to fight for their rights? I said that Christians should get the same rights as members of any other religion. If they are being denied their rights then they should fight for them. I will try to be more clear in my responses.

I specifically stated that it is NOT ok to threaten her with anything just because she loves Jesus.
The ACLU agrees: here and here.

Also, in regard to this:
Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Exodus 20:8 - 10: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates

They seem to want their moral code to become law. Some are appropriate: No stealing, no murder. Some don't seem appropriate: No Homosexuality, Limits on free speech, No other God but ours.

Then you think it would be ok to tell Muslims and Hindu's that they cannot practice their religion?
You think it is ok to make certain books, movies and artwork illegal?

What do you think I have been duped about and what information made it "obvious" that I had been duped?

If I don't believe that I have been duped I would not have asked those questions of myself.

Maybe you can help me out by showing me something that makes me understand where I have been duped. Remember, K-7 only <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

You have my apologies for actually taking you seriously. You did a good job of putting out an initial set of baloney that hooked me. Then, I was compelled to continue responding or have you believe that I actually agreed with your imbecilic statements. Now it has come down to your completely and purposefully pretending you don't get what I am asking. Additionally you spend most of your posts shifting the burden of proof. Throughout our entire exchange you have provided close to nothing to support your outlandish statements even after being directly asked. You have continuously insulted those who have acted in good faith to debate you.

I see that I was getting emotionally affected by your continued twisting of my statements and your unrelenting dodging of requests that you supply anything in support of your assertions that I now realize you don't believe anyway. They are just your way of having sport with others who take this conflict seriously.

While I disagree with the position that many fundamentalist Christians take with regards to the Theory of Evolution, I respect their position and am willing to debate them without playing dishonest semantic games. I see that you are not able to avoid the low road and representing yourself as a Christian is an impediment to their cause.

I am reasonably sure that you will now declare some sort of victory, having taken me to this point. That would be completely in character for a troll such as yourself.

CTD, you are makiing up a lot of stuff about how this author has been persecuted.

When I read that discussion, I see intelligent and educated people commenting that the book says a lot in the way of criticising evolution -- it's a religion, etc etc -- yet, as Dr. Adequate pointed out, there is zero in the way of evidence to back it up.

I can see where you're taking your lessons from, if you're reading books like that.

None actually. But ask a stupid question and you get a stupid answer, you know. It probably has more to do with inertia, maybe it's physics.



Thanks, that would be nice.



Kind of hanging on a thread there aren't you?




hmmm... and I would have thought it was the other way around. I think if you look at the real world you'll see a certain type of long established law and certain others who don't like those laws who want their moral code to become law. Homosexuals are a good example of that. You could throw polygamists in there too I suppose. Mosty sex battles going on in that realm, it appears. Limits on free speech? Hmmm and I would have thought it was the other way around. I think if you look at the real world you'll see a certain type of long established law and certain others who don't like those laws who want to suppress free speech, especially as concerns the right of certain religious groups such as christians who might want to pray in public, or sing hymns or carols or mention thier faith in a graduation speech. No other God but ours? Hmmm and I would have thought it was the other way around. I think if you look at the real world you'll see a certain type of long established law and certain others who don't like those laws who want to forbid the mention of one religion to give their own more space to grow. I realize you deny that evolution is a religion, and I can agree with you to some extent in that, but only some extent. The problem I have with it is that if evolution's main opponent is not religion...Christian, Jewish, Muslim, whatever... then why are the proponents of evolution so vocal about not teaching things like creation and other religious beliefs? It's not as though math teachers are on the podium arguing that creation interferes with geometry.

One could say, from the examples you've given, that we either already live in a theocracy, or that evolutionists are attempting to make their god supreme.



Where did you get that idea? It sort of jumped in here out of the blue.

I think it's perfectly fine to allow muslims to practice their religion. However, I do not think it's perfectly fine for them to kill family members or others who want to leave that religion. Nor do I find the mass hysteria that erupts when they feel offended particularly pleasant. In regard to Hindus, I find their caste system more than just a bit inhumane and their burial customs extremely distasteful. But they are free to do what they please, as long as they are able to keep their customs and behaviors contained within their own communities. However, if members of their own communities complain of mistreatment, then it becomes another issue altogether if they choose to look to the rule of established law for recompense or justice, in the USA for example. In their home countries, Egypt or India for example, the rule of law is alredy established to uphold their primary religious beliefs, Muslim or Hindu. Many muslims and Hindus actually come to the USA seeking relief from persecution, so exactly why you pose this question this way is questionable in itself.



Such as?



Your views are extremely slanted in a way that presents Christians as being the enemy, as wanting a theocracy etc.

The truth is, without Christianity... and by Christianity I must exclude catholicism for one major reason which you will see, and so I refer to Christianity as post-reformation... without Christianity chances are excellent we would all still be living in a theocracy, of kings, ruled mainly still by the Catholic church. Christianity brought an end to theocracies throughout Europe. it was a very bloody battle. Yet there you sit, with an apparent elementary school understanding of Christianity which allows you to comfortably view Christians as the enemy without ever acknowledging them for your freedom. Either you were poorly instructed, deceitfully instructed, or skipped school. Only you know which, but your views are well developed from that elementary level of error.

I was looking for documentation of the potential link between the Metaphysical Club and Asa Gray, Darwin's primary North American contact. He "...in 1842 was appointed professor of natural history at Harvard University, a post he retained until 1873." This provides a good opportunity for him to be in contact with Metaphysical Clubbers William James and Charles Peirce, as well as Charles' father, Benjamin.

So far, I find no mention of a relationship among these men. But my eye fell upon something of interest in the wiki Metaphysical Club article.Hmmmm... Uh-huh. No direct connection? Pretty subjective term, that. No evidence for us to evaluate how direct or indirect it may have been, either.

First stop: wiki's New Thought Movement article. Not much help.No big deal.

Second stop: wiki's list of New Thought organizations. Where I found The church is an internal wiki link, but it leads to a dead end - the article has been removed.

First denial, then removal of evidence. Pretty much anyone can edit wiki, and it looks like someone's doing exactly that. Here I found another Metaphysical Club was founded in Boston (stomping grounds of original members) in 1895. There's a lot of information on the cults here. Theosophy, Mary Baker Eddy, Metaphysical Club, it's a mess - more accurately, a tangled web. It's not impossible that the 2+ Metaphysical Clubs were independent, but it's looking improbable.

Here's another potential source on the movement. I don't pretend to have sorted very much of this out. I think in the U.S. the evolutionists applied the lessons they'd already learned: nobody accepts the scientific arguments for evolution unless predisposed to do so. The strategy may have been to first instill a favorable predisposition, then let natural affinity take its course.

Just before posting, I found a handy New Thought History Chart. Looks like someone's done some homework after all!

You and your <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hehehe.gif" alt="" />trusted physician know this how?

I shall venture to guess: There's no evidence because Dr. A says there's no evidence. And Dr. A says there's no evidence because there's no evidence. And there's no evidence because Dr. A. says there's no evidence.

I'll stop before I get dizzy.

Smearing a book doesn't alter the contents. It didn't work on any of the books of the Bible either. Intelligent people recognize patterns. Stupified people, well their record is what it is.

Having read the book, I know it contains evidence. How successful were the lies of your friends?<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/boogie.gif" alt="" /> I still know the truth.

I can see your stance on the issue of religious freedom. In light of the fact that certain Christian factions broke away from the Catholic Church there appears to be a trend since that time to allow differences in beliefs about God and Christ. I realize that this was probably an influence in the idea of man's inherent freedoms.
However, that does not mean that the efforts of certain factions of Christianity should be allowed to avoid criticism. Thomas Jefferson was a forthright advocate of religious and personal freedom. That advocacy should not allow him to avoid criticism for owning slaves.

The call to arms by some hard-line Christians to force their morality upon people who don't subscribe to the precepts of the Bible, is what concerns me. While not the majority, probably, they seem to have a lot of influence. I should not have generalized their ideals to include all Christians.

Didn't you get the hint? This is irrelevant. LinearAQ and I have presented clear questions to you and you are hiding out here trying to pad out your conspiracy fantasy. You capacity to ignore everything we say and carry on with the same old unfounded assertions is truly astonishing.

This is getting ridiculous. Why don't you quit the trolling here already.

The people you were talking to on EvC were not only familiar with the book and its claims, at least one of them actually knew the author. Assassinating people's characters does nothing to prove any point other than that you are trying to wind them, or other people, up.


And guess what? You won't report any of it to us. Because in your fantasy world, "It's true because I say so" actually means something to someone.

I noted that Brad was honest, to the best of my knowledge. Even he hadn't read the book. And as talkdeceptions had no article on it, the rest couldn't be very familiar with it at all in your sense.

The only one who claimed to have actually read the book said it was good, and did the job. Then he proceeded to rant unintelligibly against Christians and everything we believe.

I was asked for evidence of stupification. I provided it. Now I'm accused of character assassination. Looks like I fell right into your trap. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cry.gif" alt="" />You're too clever for me. Woe is me!

Hey! Wait a minute! I didn't force anyone to say anything stupid. I didn't force anyone to tell moronic lies. I'm in the clear!<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tauntyou.gif" alt="" />





It's not the job of a book reviewer to transcribe the contents of the book. I'm willing to accept fair criticism of my rookie effort, but not junk like that.

Now I think I'll return to the topic. Oh, did you think you could sidetrack me indefinitely?

We'll let others be the judge of your conversation from EvC then, if they want to read it. I confess I'm surprised that you even linked to it here because as far as debates go, it wasn't creationism's finest moment.


In other words, you intend to continue presenting assertions without evidence and then changing the subject when you are asked to give some.


This whole thread is irrelevant to the issue of evolution. Attempting to build a conspiracy fantasy around a group of scientists does not give one shred of evidence for creationism.

And if groups like the Discovery Institute end up forcing science teachers to say something about creationism in science classes . . . and if a creationist becomes president . . . then will you be moaning about the influence of certain groups of people with certain ideologies? Get real.

I don't think it's irrelevant.

I also don't think the intent is to provide evidence for creationism.

I have to agree with you, it is relevant to an extent. While not intended to be evidence for creationism, it is an attack against evolutionists though the implication that the X-Club inordinately influenced the conclusions by scientists of the day. CTD just threw out the implication and then refused to provide anything more than his say so as evidence that it was true. If trying to influence opinion through rhetoric and debate were proof that what is being said is untrue, then most of what preachers said from their pulpits is untrue. I'm not willing to believe that. I think what a preacher, scientist, teacher or politician says should be judged on the evidence not how stridently they announce it or who they tell it to.

Considering the number of scientists extant in the timeframe being discussed, it shouldn't be hard to find cases of legitimate creationists being convinced by the "overwhelming" evidence. But nobody's producing evidence to support this version of history. I honestly am not stumbling across them in my own research.

Neither am I failing to support my discoveries. I've included many links with my reports, more than I honestly expect people want to read. Your accusation is fit to fool only the very dimmest of wits.

But back to the other side of the equation. We have a boring, unsupported argument that the history I am presenting is tantamount to calling all scientists in certain fields "stupid". Clearly they have nothing better, for they've had a good amount of time and still haven't produced any evidence.

Would anyone care to count the links I've provided in support vs. the links provided by evolutionists in support of their claims? Not that abundance of links decides an issue, but look who's bring this one up. Their house is glass; mine is iron.

You all can <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/taz.gif" alt="" /> all you want. It won't change history.

A theocracy requires a person at the helm who is believed to divinely appointed by God or as a god. Caesar ruled the Roman empire that way, the Romans worshipped him as their god. The title 'pope' comes from the romans in that sense. The popes of the catholic church likewise following suit in roman fashion, have viewed themselves, and have been viewed by catholics, as either divinely guided or standing in the stead of God on earth, leading also to the idea that the kings of Europe were chosen by God. the kings of Europe however did not make their own decisions, they were subjects of the church themselves, until Henry the 8th refused that subjegation (divorce problems) and opened his own branch of the catholic church in england, which became the anglican church. No other christian denomination (aside from some cults that pop up here and there claiming to be Christian and led by some reincarnated Jesus) that I am aware of, shares this belief of divine leadership. So from that perspective, the only denomination still that could ever rule as a theocracy remains the catholic church unless the USA is to annoint a king claiming the same.

A govt requires the support of it's citizens, requires not desires, in order to exist. We know the routes taken by unpopular govts, such as the catholic church as the leader of europe, and even Stalinist Russia for example, to ensure support and quell opposition, there are many many more examples. It's usually quite bloody and involves enormous amounts of propoganda, some of which may be true propoganda well drilled into the heads of the citizens and some not so true, well drilled also. The fear of death or exile and removal from family is often used. For instance, the streets of first millenial europe were littered with human carcases and parts thereof, as warnings to dissenters. The gullotine was used in France up until 1939 to punish 'criminals'. One shouldn't need to ask why plague was rampant.

At any rate, hopefully you get the idea so far. The point at which the protestant reformation really took hold in Europe coincides with the advent of the printing press. Up until this point most 'Christians, we really should call them catholics, all of europe was Catholic, not necessarily by choice, but anyway.. most catholics had never read the bible, they would have been lucky to even have heard it since liturgys were given in Latin, a language few of them understood. The first major publication that came off the first printing press that we know of was the gutenberg bible, if I remember correctly. For quite some time, owning a copy of a bible was considered a crime by the catholic church, punishable by burning at the stake. It took some time but eventually so many people left the catholic church that it no longer had the financial support it needed to continue on as it had. So, mostly what broke the camels back, was money or lack thereof.

I think you'll find most Christians today very wary of the catholic church still, whose ideas remain virtually the same in regard to it's pope and his position as divine, god on earth. Reason being, they themselves fear a return to theocracy.

Anyway, just something for you to mull over.

That may not have addressed everything but I am a bit busy right now.

Thomas Jefferson... there is a lot of hypocrisy everywhere all you have to do is look around with eyes wide open and mind unfettered.


Such as?

And yet it happened, because evolution is now accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. And this is because it explains the evidence so well, not because they are haunted by the ghosts of the X-Club.


These seems to be a misunderstanding of "evidence" here. You've given links to information about people and groups. None of this proves that there was a conspiracy amongst heathen scientists to subvert the true believers in creationism for their own diabolical ends. You've made it up.


You only think this because you have deliberately ignored what LinearAQ and I have been presenting to you. I've linked to this in another thread but it's such an informative read, and pertinent to your comment as well, that I will link to it here:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent


No, because you have not proved here that evolution is a giant conspiracy, and you have offered very little evidence for any of your claims on other threads.

Personally I find it rather interesting that the greatest interest in ideas of evolution began to be generated at about the same time as slaves were freed in england and then the civil war was fought in America, accomplishing the same.

Although there were always some evolution promoting persons who disagreed with the idea, one of evolution's first pragmatic purposes was to be used as a soapbox for those who declared that negroes were animals or an inferior race.

This is a very interesting statement from a proponent of evolutionary thought, Linear. as I mentioned breifly above, you can probably find hypocrisy of some form or another no matter where you look. However, Thomas Jefferson probably did not consider his slaves to be his equals, on a human level, as deserving the same rights of religious and personal freedom as himself.

In fact, evolution is the means through which the american and european slave-owning upper classes convinced themselves of that. Though the ideas expressed verbally may not have made much press during Jefferson's day, they most certainly abounded. A century later, those ideas did make press and in great numbers, likely perhaps in vocal opposition to the idea of freedom for the negro slaves. The ideas of evolution you work with today are directly decended from the same school of thought. You might want to do some research concerning it. Evolution may seem fair and friendly as you look at fossils and microbes, but that was never truly it's primary purpose. It's primary purpose, judging from the amount of literature concerning evolution and racial selection, from the very beginning, appears quite strongly to have been to promote racism and the 'superior' white race and upper classes in particular.

Here are just a few examples of evolutionary thought in the late 19th century, which also led to what is known as 'eugenics':


====

Definition of Negro

'By the nearly unanimous consent of anthropologists this type occupies ... the lowest position in the evolutionary scale . . . the cranial sutures . . . close much earlier in the Negro than in other races. To this premature ossification of the skull, preventing all further development of the brain, many pathologists have attributed the inherent mental inferiority of the blacks, an inferiority which is even more marked than their physical differences . . . the development of the Negro and White proceeds on different lines . . . in the former the growth of the brain is . . . arrested by the premature closing of the cranial sutures ... The mental [differences] are at least as marked as the physical differences . . . No full blooded Negro has ever been distinguished as a man of science, a poet, or an artist . . .'


Encyclopaedia Britannica,1898,TheWernerCo.,NewYork,Vol. 17 pp.316-318

-----------------------

'No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible [to assume] that, when all his disabilities are removed, ... he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out by thoughts and not by bites.

Huxley, Thomas, 1871. Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews Appleton, New York, p. 20


---------------

'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time, the anthropomorphous apes. . . will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla. ... It has often been said ... that man can resist with impunity the greatest diversities of climate and other changes; but this is true only of the civilized races. Man in his wild condition seems to be in this respect almost as susceptible as his nearest allies, the anthropoid apes, which have never yet survived long, when removed from their native country.'


'I could show [that war had] done and [is] doing [much] . . . for the progress of civilization . . . The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date . . . an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.'

Darwin, Charles, 1896. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex; The Works of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Company, New York pp. 241-242, 343




-------------

There is plenty more out there, Linear. and it's hardly a dead idea.



'we must rid ourselves of the false prophets of cultural salvation and the witless preachers of human equality. The future of our species . . . is dependent on [the application of evolutionary] biology. We must have fewer and better men, not more morons . . .

Hooton, Eamest Albert, 1941. Why Men Behave Like Apes and Vice Versa or Body and Behavior, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Because some people have co-opted the ToE in the past in an attempt to justify their beliefs and behaviours, does not mean that the ToE is wrong. Anyone can abuse an idea or make a strawman out of it.

There is no evidence that black people are inferior to white people. And "survival of the fittest" is a term which describes how organisms with a beneficial mutation reproduce at a greater rate than non-mutated organisms, and eventually take over the gene pool for that species, creating a speciation event. It was never meant to condone the behaviour of amoral people looking for a reason to justify mistreating other people.

Criticise the people, not the theory they misunderstood or misused. You will be hard-pressed to find anyone today who claims that a certain race of people is less evolved than another, because that is a preconceived notion, and the evidence is not there. Even scientists can be guilty of this, if it supports racist beliefs, but the days of that seem to be gone.

The problem is, ToE was not co-opted by it's earliest proponents, they were the ones who defined it and made it public through their writings. They taught the ideas, they coined the phrases. The age old idea that blacks are inferior to caucasions, that they are part ape, was one of, if not the, reason the idea ever existed in the very first place.

It's a very very old idea, that certain races are inferior to other races. It's even mentioned in the Koran, that jews are monkeys.

Come about the american revolution, the idea that all men are created equal with liberty and justice for all, the insurmountable numbers of sermons preached on that subject alone from protestant american pulpits, and the strong but troubled consciences of many people in regard to the issue of slavery, and only then do we see 'scientific' efforts to prove the idea that blacks are not equal to whites biologically, that God did not create them as men as he created white men. Not to disprove the idea, Linda, to prove the idea for the main part.

If you fail to recognize that you and I, and our forefathers are the same people that inhabitated these shores and Europe before that, of the same mind more or less, and of the same customs and traditions more or less, regardless of miles and years, perhaps simply look at the costumes worn by the KKK, albeit 200-300 years later, they are the same costumes worn by the inquisitor executioners of the catholic church. People are slow to forget the things that have been seared into their consciousness for generations upon generations. The Salem witch trials, which you love to mention, are nothing more than the baggage of a european people who knew no other means of solving certain problems, this was their tradition and way of life, regardless of miles and years, regardless of their so-called Christian ethics. Your ancestors may have left rome, but the discrimination, behaviors and blood lust of the colliseum never really died, it lived on in catholicism... your ancestors may have left the bloody catholic streets of europe but the discrimination the behaviors and bloodlust of the inquisitors never really died, it came to america just like everything else came to america and every now and then it's ugly face pops up quite recognizably.

If you want to try to claim that thousands of years of bloodlust and powerlust have suddenly disappeared completely from human consciousness, i wish you luck.

The fact that the idea of evolution and eugenics led quite obviously to the mass slaughter of millions of so-called non-arayans by the Nazis and their allies during WWII speaks for itself. It is not even that far behind us. especially considering the fact that quite a number of Nazi scientists and doctors were recruited by the USA after WWII.

Historically speaking, it's quite recent that the scientific community in this respect has been taken to task concerning ideas of racism inherent in the theory of evolution.

You cannot avoid it, it is the foundation of the idea itself, and that foundation is centuries older than the attempts to whitewash it.

Numerous inhumane medical experiments have been conducted on various populations right here in America as well, led by ideas of ToE and eugenics. And these things are still going on.

So... good luck denying it.

A modern evolutionist by the name of Gould has written somewhat about it also. You grew up in the post civil rights age of the USA. I did not, not completely anyway. And I know full well what I was taught about blacks, what was commonly taught about blacks, well into the early 1970's or so. And I also know it was taught in textbooks.

Serfs were the slaves of feudal Europe, Slavs were the slaves of the Ottoman empire, and to fuel the fortunes of capitalists in the new world, Africans were captured and became the new labor force as well as a commodity, building the fortunes of the new world. The theory of evolution helped persuade the new world that slavery was ok. It developed, not on it's own, not as a purely scientific quest, but to defend slavery and the rights of wealthy slave owners. And it is their wealth that funded it, to defuse the accusations of abolitionists.

Pretty simple, Linda... volumes upon volumes of historical evidence and writings about it.

<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/uymtnldunb.jpg">
Anthony Benezet, Some Historical Account of Guinea, London, 1788


"Take up the White Man's burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child."

Rudyard Kipling 1899

You don't seem to have paid any attention to my previous post. I explained to you how natural selection works and what "survival of the fittest" means, and that people like Hitler were misrepresenting this. It doesn't mean that the ToE is wrong, just that he was wrong in what he claimed it to mean. "Survival of the fittest" in no way suggests that some people are better than others or that it's OK to be horrible to each other.

You also are implying that Darwin was racist. Care to back that up with evidence?

Did I imply Darwin was racist? Gosh I'm so sorry.

I'll have to be more careful about which of his writings and memoirs I choose from to assuage your needs.

Maybe we should should rip those pages from his pages his books and let you be in charge of history.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/computerhammer.gif" alt="" /> LindaLou <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/followtherules.gif" alt="" /> history meister <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/death.gif" alt="" />.

You said:


Darwin was its earliest proponent and he defined it. If it is inherently racist as you seem to be claiming, then you need evidence to support this assertion. Unless this is not what you're saying, in which case all you can truthfully say here is that some people misrepresented the ToE in order to use it as bogus evidence for racist ideas.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/death.gif" alt="" /> [color:"red"]!! HEREBY ANNOUNCING !! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/death.gif" alt="" />

Darwin, Charles, 1896. The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex; The Works of Charles Darwin, D. Appleton and Company, New York pp. 241-242, 343

!! IS NOT PART OF THE PROGRAM !!!
[/color]


Is that better, Linda?

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/death.gif" alt="" /> [color:"red"]!! HEREBY ANNOUNCING !! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/death.gif" alt="" />

ANY AND ALL COMMENTS OR REVIEWS OF DARWIN'S DESCENT OF MAN SUCH AS

First let me warn other readers: I agree with the other reviewers that this book is extremely racist and sexist and thus extremely offensive for non-white or female readers (Hitler's Mein Kampf is nothing in comparison!)This book may drive them crazy, they'd better not read it. To Darwin's discharge I must say that he wrote at a time where most readers were white males, so he was not expecting women or non-whites to read this book I guess he would be horrified if he saw that we have educated the "inferior races" (or "savages" as he calls them) and that we have also given equal rights to women.) ...

What I find most valuable with this book is that, after reading it, I realize it is the key for understanding the 20th century. I agree with the other reviewers that the 20th century has been mainly influenced by Darwinism. And I add that this happened not only in a direct way, but also indirectly through nazism/facism and marxism/socialism/communism (were'nt Marx and Engels darwinists, and did not Marx want to dedicate his book Das Kapital to Darwin, although the latter refused to have his name associated with marxism?) And was not WWI driven by the "biological necessity" of selection, as the Germans would put it? Darwin's Descent of Man helps understand why the 20th century was the bloodiest ever, with, besides WWI and WWII, the nazi's killing 6 millions innocent Jews (an inferior race according to Darwinism) and the socialists murdering over 100 millions innocents civilians who were not embracing socialism quickly enough....

http://www.amazon.com/review/R1KOCR5DCTARE5

!! ARE NOT PART OF THE PROGRAM EITHER !!!
[/color]

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/death.gif" alt="" /> !!!!! BY THREAT OF STUPEFICATION BY THE HISTORY MEISTER !!!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/death.gif" alt="" />

To recap, you said:



And I said:



You are doing nothing but cutting and pasting baseless inflammatory rhetoric. Evidence to support your assertions please. That means giving concrete reasons why you think Darwin and the ToE as I described it earlier were/are racist (and sexist now, apparently). If you cannot, then I suggest you end the subject now. You might try reading RAZD's definitions of evolution as a starting point to help you.

Allow me to assist in fleshing this out a bit. I've found some interesting information. I'll present it here one step at a time.

1.) When properly understood, evolution refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking (the concept that organisms of a species conform to a specific norm; in this view variation is considered abnormal) for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helped eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.

2.) Genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous genetically, so all humans are only one biological race. Evolution does not teach racism; it teaches the very opposite. We're all brothers and sisters, dude.

3.) Racism is thousands of years older than the theory of evolution, and its prevalence has decreased since Darwin's day; certainly slavery is much less common and acceptable now. That is the opposite of what we would expect if evolution promotes racism.

4.) Darwin himself was far less racist than most of his contemporaries.

a.) Virtually all Englishmen in Darwin's time viewed blacks as culturally and intellectually inferior to Europeans. Some men of that time (such as Louis Agassiz, a staunch creationist apparently) went so far as to say they were a different species. Charles Darwin was a product of his times and no doubt viewed non-Europeans as inferior in ways, but he was far more liberal than most: He vehemently opposed slavery, and he contributed to missionary work to better the condition of the native Tierra del Fuegans. He treated people of all races with compassion.

b.) The views of Darwin, or of any person, are irrelevant to the fact of evolution. Evolution is based on evidence, not on people's opinions.

5.) Racism historically has been closely associated with creationism, as is evident in the following examples:

-- George McCready Price, who apparently is to young-earth creationism what Darwin is to evolution, was much more racist than Darwin. He wrote,

The poor little fellow who went to the south
Got lost in the forests dank;
His skin grew black, as the fierce sun beat
And scorched his hair with its tropic heat,
And his mind became a blank.

In The Phantom of Organic Evolution, he referred to Negroes and Mongolians as "degenerate humans."

-- During much of the long history of apartheid in South Africa, evolution was not allowed to be taught. The Christian National Education system, formalized in 1948 and accepted as national policy from 1967 to 1993, stated, among other things, that white children should 'receive a separate education from black children to prepare them for their respective superior and inferior positions in South African social and economic life, and all education should be based on Christian National principles'.

The policy excluded the concept of evolution, taught a version of history that negatively characterized non-whites, and made Bible education, including the teaching of creationism, and religious assemblies compulsory. Strange what you find when you hunt around a bit.

The Bible Belt in the southern United States fought hardest to maintain slavery.

Henry Morris, of the Institute for Creation Research, has in the past read racism into his interpretation of the Bible:

"Sometimes the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have even become actual slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane, practical matters, they have often eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites" (Morris 1976, 241).

Do you think it's accurate for someone to claim that Chrstianity is inherently racist because of the beliefs and practices of these people and others?

6.) As I've said repeatedly, none of this matters to the science of evolution.

Darwin wrote a letter declining the dedication of an unnamed book on atheism, but he wrote it to Edward Aveling. Aveling's common-law wife was Elanor Marx, Karl's daughter, and she inherited his papers. They got mixed up with Karl Marx's papers, and the letter was assumed to have been to Marx. This view found ideological favor in Russia, so it was widely repeated. Later, a letter from Aveling, requesting permission to dedicate his book The Student's Darwin to Darwin, was found among Darwin's papers. Darwin declined permission and argued that science should not address religious matters directly (Colp 1982; Carter 2000).

Darwin did have a copy of Das Kapital, but its pages were unseparated when he died, so he never read it.

None of this matters to the science of evolution.

This is a PRATT. There are more here. I don't suppose it occurred to you to check the validity of any of these claims.

Evolution isn't responsible for World War 1 or 2 or eugenics either. Do we need to discuss?

O-Tay!

As usual, I am stupified.

i'll just leave y'all with this link to mull over why what goes around comes around and around and around leaving nothing but a stench of stale hot air.

In Spanish “Linda” Means Beautiful

…but, can a racist be beautiful?

http://www.goodschools.com/lindabb.htm


needless to say, you argue like a bougeois parlor chair but you hold the spoon of a peon.

This says nothing different from what I stated above. Also, if the reasoning here is that racist views invalidate entire theories or ideologies, then I've also given enough evidence to invalidate Christianity on the basis of the racism of some creationists' views.

I'm sure you'll agree that this is all pointless, and that it does not address the actual issue anyway, which is that evolution explains the evidence.

Why not write some of your own words rather than telling me to read websites, or cutting and pasting from them? Can you explain your own views on the matter, and cite some evidence for them?

Sure.

Peons recite the words of their masters and then they dig their graves with their spoons.

should I call you mammy?

All right then, I rest my case.

Have you ever considered that maybe you are more evolved than a lot of people and that is why so many people have difficulty with these difficult ideas you present?

It's really strange that you harass people all over the internet with your 'difficult' ideas, btw.

What's not real difficult is picturing you with a conical hat and a torch at this point.

Rest in peace.

Personally, I find it interesting that the idea of African Americans being the descendants of Ham and thus servants of whites in perpetuity came into prominence at that same time.

Also, preachers in England and the US started emphasizing the passages in the Bible (from both Paul and Peter) that slaves should obey their masters as they would Christ. The passages concerning the treatment of slaves (Exodus, or Deuteronomy) were also brought up partially to address cruel masters but also to show that slavery was condoned by God. He wouldn't have rules for it if He didn't want it to exist. He outlawed murder and theft but not slavery, so it must be ok. Those are the types of arguments put forth by the Protestant Clergy in the Calvinist churches of the south.

Darwin may have been a racist. Shoot, almost all whites were racists back then and thought whites were superior to all others. However, to use that as an argument against evolution is simply an ad-hominem fallacy and does not provide any evidence as to the truth or falseness of evolution itself. Just as the pulpit pounders preaching in favor of slavery does not provide evidence as to the truth or falseness of the Bible or Christ's sacrifice.

I find it interesting too. Considering also that Darwin had studied theology. He was probably also exposed to writings by Aristotle in those studies, from which his own seem to be only an extension as far as the ideas of inferiority of certain peoples/classes are concerned.



Some did, for sure. I am not trying to make excuses for them.



I'm pretty sure that in Exodus or Deut you'll find that God instructs the hebrews to treat their captives well, to remember that they were once slaves in Egypt. There are also ideas presented in regard to the freeing of captives/slaves.

In that regard however, it's quite clear that slavery was the common practice between different cultures back then, when one people conquered another. That practice is still very much in effect btw. I don't think you'll find anywhere in the bible where God desires slavery to exist, condones it, only that he acknowledges it exists and provides remedies. In the NT, where it is mentioned eg; slaves obey your masters, keep in mind also that those words are directed to the faithful, some of whom were slaves in Greece or Rome. There is no mention of race or mental inferiority. Slaves could be descended from any people, many found themselves in slavery due to debt for instance. Children were sold into slavery to pay debts.



You are contradicting yourself. He wouldn't have rules for it if He didn't want it to exist.

God gave to Moses all sorts of commandments for things he apparently didn't enjoy (theft, murder) but was unable to deny the existence of. The commandments concerning murder, for example, do not mean God wants murder to exist. He did not give Moses any rules for things he 'wanted to exist'... ? no, he gave Moses rules for all sort of things.., but for those he did not approve of, including behaviors within approved behaviors, such as marriage and adultery within marriage, or incest within families, or eating certain foods etc he admonished the hebrews. Because he made rules for eating or not eating certain foods does mean eating violated his commandments. Slavery is mentioned a number of times. It does not mean God condones it anymore than murder or adultery, but rather it is a situation which requires remedies.

...He outlawed murder and theft but not slavery, so it must be ok.
The type of slavery that was practiced in the new world was theft... the Atlantic slave trade conducted itself primarily through the theft of persons. It's not difficult to see that, unless of course you choose to view Africans as animals in which case it becomes a roundup of cattle more or less. No where in the bible is this type of behavior or thinking condoned.



Darwin's writings, thought generally of as the foundation of evolution by many, eg; Darwinian Evolution, are nothing more than a veiled attempt to define, in a somewhat scientific manner, racial and class distinction. It's like tossing a caste system into western culture using science as a guise to defend itself.

Though Darwin, in all of his attempts to try to prove that the 'civilized' European white man is superior to other peoples, may have actually shot himself in the foot, taking all of western culture with him. I hesitate to call the Atlantic slave trade civilized behavior to begin with. But nonetheless, looking back 100 years it's more than evident that his ideas, as popular as they may have been and as difficult to rid from academia as they are, have actually become a foundation for the very things (atheism, abortion, breakdown of mores and traditional family values etc) that may, in the end, bring western culture to a halt more or less and allow it to be conquered, and perhaps even likewise enslaved, by another people more numerous than ourselves, most likely, muslims, perhaps the Chinese, hard to say. In Europe today for instance, there is a crisis of childlessness among white europeans and even govts have begun to decry the situation. Labor forces have dwindled, taxpayer bases likewise for the govts. The opposite is true for muslims of any nationality. The opposite is also true in India. China currently enforces population control but still far outnumbers any rival in that area. Whether it be a soft conversion to different values, a slow influx of those values/people or wars remains to be seen.

Darwin's racial and class distinctions as 'scientific' and predisposed toward european culture are not appreciated by other cultures and people, and these ideas as they are still being taught, divide us, even as americans, rather than unite and strengthen us. They provide precedence for racism and class struggle. They even assuage the emotional needs of the wealthy and powerful few to overlook the needs of wage workers, who afterall, are mentally inferior to themselves.

Please remind yourself of the title of the posts here at the moment: "What, not who."

The ToE explains evidence such as the fossil record and variation. As I explained earlier, genetics validates the ToE, and also shows that human races are all part of the same species.

Tell me, if you would, what makes you think that the ToE enforces race and class distinction.

Rest in peace, Linda.

Your case is closed, remember?

If there is any confusion within your highly evolved and thusly beyond conventional diagnositics self, just reread the post. Every question you just asked is answered there already.

When someone replies to me with the weird sort of muddle that I saw here, what else do you expect me to say? There is now something here to respond to.

Let's simplify this. Evolution and genetics show that the races of people are related to each other. None of us are "more evolved" than others. To me this directly contradicts racist ideas. I'm asking you to explain why you think that evolution instead supports racism. We're looking at the scientific evidence, remember, rather than what various people said or did.

You'll find an example in the NT where an Ethiopian man get saved and baptised too Linear. No class distinction there, no thought of the african being less of a man than Paul in God's eyes.

Also, Moses had a black wife.

I have no idea why all of that was overlooked by Christians who believed the same as Darwin, that blacks were inferior to whites or less human except that their own desires persuaded them regardless of what is written in the bible.

you'd be surprised to know how many people call themselves christians and have never read the bible. or the number of non-christian people who have something to say about the bible and have never read it either.

Today, a lot of people get a good deal of their information from the media, even from entertainment, where racism continues to be rampant as well and influences people quite a bit, true or not. At least you can say we are well entertained, more so than any culture in recent history, for better or worse.

Are you saying that Darwin came up with the idea that Ham's descendants are the Africans?

Only male Hebrews who were slaves were required to be freed, any other "race" and female Hebrews could be kept for life

Leviticus 25:44
" 'Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

Leviticus 25:46
You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

There was a difference: Hebrew men--Free after seven years. Other races and Hebrew women--Keep for life if you want.

You seem to be saying that God allowed slavery for life because it was the practice of the time. Does He not want it now since it is not the practice is not popular?

Actually, taking cattle was stealing, which God says specifically is off limits.

The whole point of my slavery example was that some may have used the Theory of Evolution to justify dominion over other races, but they used the Bible too. Their misinterpretation of a set of writings to justify their greed and racism, does not invalidate the writings themselves.

You have evidence of Darwin's true intent for "making up" the Theory of Evolution? I would love to see it.


Please provide the causal links between the belief in evolution and the breakdown of morals in society.

If the belief in evolution is the cause of the breakdown of morals in society, how does the reaction to evolution make evolution untrue?

Please provide a current scientific text quote that teaches european culture is superior to all other cultures.

My point was:
Using a particular writing or Theory to justify socially unacceptable behavior does not make that writing or Theory untrue. Many people don't like what the Bible says, but their feelings don't make the Bible untrue.

Nope, never said it. Never even implied it. I don't know the Ham theory well anyway. I have heard the one about africans being descended from Cain.


Well, Linear, if the people around them sold their children or borthers as slaves who am I to tell them what to do? it still goes on today you in various parts of the world. Theft of persons is another matter. Note the distinct meaning of 'buy'.

It would seem that to simply throw a person onto the street after however many years of slavery would be inhumane Linear. Even the american slaves complained about it after the civil war.

I know they used the bible to justify themselves linear. that doesn't make it right, I never said it did.

Taking wild cattle is not theft Linear, rounding up bison or wild horses is not theft.

One has to wonder how much of that type of thinking, within Christian circles influenced Darwin. He did study theology and he was influenced by those ideas there can be no doubt.


You have evidence against it? His writings speak for themselves. Why don't you read them? He makes his intentions quite clear. No need for me to try to intersperse my ideas into a long dead corpse and his dried up pen.


if you have need to disprove it, provide your own non-causal links. Trying to make work for me? Do some yourself.


Well, considering that most of darwins' theory of evolution' is not scientific that would be very difficult. Most current 'science' does not agree with darwin's ideas, there are no real scientific studies based on them in that respect. The Nazis tried, but look where that got us. I guess that all speaks for itself too..

However, you'll find plenty of non-scientific attempts. Darwins ideas fail a scientific method, they've never been proven. But needless to say they have been very influential.