Does Darwinism Promote Racism?

That was an interesting article...well-said.

I just wish more people would try to understand that point.

If you read about the Dutch in the 1600's during the time their culture was heavily influenced by the Reformation (Christianity), they treated the Austronesian people in their colonial possession in Taiwan as equal Dutch citizens and even encouraged single Dutch men to intermarry with the Austronesian Christian women so to better learn their languages and cultures. You can see Taiwanese from a certain region in west Taiwan that obviously have Dutch ancestry.

But post-Darwin in the late 1800's, the English and remaining Dutch instituted Apartheid in South Africa.

Connection?

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi to my TimesDaily Forum Friends,

Is Darwinism directly related to racism? Does Darwinism support eugenics and euthanasia?

Bill, why would you judge any scientist or religion by a misguided disciple? Surely you see the flaw in this argument. I could spend the rest of my life trotting out case after case of the perverted actions performed in a god's name, the christian god if you like, and many with his blessing or at his command. Say the word and I can fill volumes.

Shall we go there?

Racism was around long before Darwin's grandparents were even born.

Sorry Bill, but that's a really dumb post.

Racialism and other forms of discrimination have been defended by every form of "scholar" and apologist under the sun, from mystical nationalism of the Nazis to the eugenics movement's advocates (supposed "progressives" as well as Nazis). "Social Darwinism" is well alive in many right wing circles.

Perhaps reading George M. Frederickson's seminal and rather exhaustive study of racism, The Black Image in the White Mind is the best treatment of such varied techniques of suborning prejudice.

The equation of social Darwinism to overt racism is rather like equating Herder's nationalism to racism and the Nazizeit. That is to say, the German mystical nationalists used Herder's work to justify the "natural superiority" of a mythic "Aryan Race." Similiarly, people misread Darwin and thwart its basic premise to the same ends: namely their own perverted ones.

Black Image is one of the most important works in the intellectual historiography canon, up there with The Virgin and the Dynamo however, people only are introduced to it in graduate school, to their misfortune.

Any science or religion may be perverted to prove a cause or belief. In the New World, Spanish religious figures defined the Indians as homunculi -- a being that appears human, but is not, to justify slavery and worse. The mark of Cain was justified to subject blacks as inferior to others. Both beliefs justified in the name of religion.

Madame Blavotsky, founder of Theosophy, predicted the coming of a superior aryan race that led to the NSDAP and the horrors that unleashed upon the world. Incidentally, Helen Keller became a believer in Theosophy and Lenin used some of its tenets in his brand of Marxism.

The communist used Darwin to support the rise of the new soviet man. But, only ended up producing many more of the old Russians drunks.

The Catholic church for all it dogma is quite at home with Darwin and his theory. With the new mapping of the human genome, we know there is only about 0.1 percent difference in the difference races DNA. Rather humbling to all those goose steppers and the shaven head bunch or the black muslims or the Hindutva for that matter.

*shakes head in disbelief at Bill*


DF

Why does it offend so many when an error is found in scientific theory. Scientists are after all just men. ALL men make errors. Darwin made lots.

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
*shakes head in disbelief at Bill* DF

Hi Deep,

You, the great evangelist from the church of atheism -- have nothing to say? While I disagree with several of the others; at least they had something to add.

Yet, all you have is another atheistic "cutesy.'

Oh, well, water finds it level -- even muddied water.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by miamizsun:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi to my TimesDaily Forum Friends,

Is Darwinism directly related to racism? Does Darwinism support eugenics and euthanasia?

Bill, why would you judge any scientist or religion by a misguided disciple? Surely you see the flaw in this argument. I could spend the rest of my life trotting out case after case of the perverted actions performed in a god's name, the christian god if you like, and many with his blessing or at his command. Say the word and I can fill volumes.

Shall we go there?

Hi Miami,

While I am happy that you see Darwin as perverted; we are not judging science by him. We are judging evolution by him -- and his very well known racists teachings and by his very well known racists friends -- specifically Margaret Sanger.

Keep in mind that Darwin is Evolution. And I do not deny that many who claimed to be Christian have done evil -- but no one Christian defines Christianity. Jesus is Christianity just as Darwin is Evolution. Jesus is not racists; never defines one by the color of his skin nor where he lives. The same cannot be said of Darwin and Sanger.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Yes to some degree it does promote religious racism.

quote:

Originally posted by Rolltideroll02:
Yes to some degree it does promote religious racism.

I know what racism is.

What is "religious racism"?

e

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
We are judging evolution by him -- and his very well know racists teachings and by his very well known racists friends -- specifically Margaret Sanger.

Keep in mind that Darwin is Evolution. And I do not deny that many who claimed to be Christian have done evil -- but no one Christian defines Christianity. Jesus is Christianity just as Darwin is Evolution. Jesus is not racists; never defines one by the color of his skin nor where he lives. The same cannot be said of Darwin and Sanger.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill,

A few points:

1.) The adjective you're looking for is "racist." "Racists" is the plural form of a noun.

2.) Darwin is not evolution. Put in another form, Darwin does not equal evolution.

3.) You suggest Christianity is not racist. But is it sexist? Sexism subjugates and thus negatively affects more than half of the population.

e

Jesus is not racists; never defines one by the color of his skin nor where he lives.

Really Bill

Matthew 15

26But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.

Humans and chimps share about 98.7 percent (originally thought to be 98.9 percent) of DNA. The miracle is that we are not hairy and swing from trees, not that chimps can't build cathedrals.

Darwin was an man who postulated a theory of evolution of all things, including man. He was also a deacon of his church. As science progressed problems with some of his ideas were found in error, but not his basic premises. New discoveries back up the idea of a progression of the species and extinction. Jefferson didn't believe in the theory of extinction, that God wouldn't allow it. He was wrong -- no mammoths in the US.

Evolution is a tool that God uses to allow free will in His universe. Nothing I write will change what either evolutionists or creationists believe. Have at it brethren! I'm letting the bears fight this one out. I'll settle for a rug.

Bill's initial post exemplifies what is called "selective" sourcing." Using the proper sequence of sources, carefully selected, one can "prove" that A=Ω. Did and do some racialists and ultranationalists misuse Herder, Darwin, and even the Bible? Yes.

Using Bill's "logic," I could produce an essay on how the Grimm Brothers led directly to the Anschluss and invasion of Poland, and then to the Manhattan Project and from thence to nuclear profliferation and from there status quo sine bellum with China which leads to the rise of WalMart.

So, Germanic linguistics leads to cheap Chinese trinkets in US stores. Mystery solved!

I have an old conference paper that I presented in 2002 in which I treat the 6 discrete modes of rearing slave children. In it, I avoid addressing the psychological ramifications of childhood slavery, as that has been treated to death, especially by Wilma King, however, I do insist that the white masters seeing white and black/bond children develop side by side with the average rate of development exactly the same in every area from walking to talking forced the "inferior racially" theory of white domination to be false before their eyes, hence they fell back on the legalistic, cultural, historical and religious apologies.

Biologically speaking, there is no such thing as "race," as a separation of species. The differences between what we term "races" is so superficial that they would not be worth mentioning were it not so obvious that it is a mere mechanism for differentiation. It is odd that we speak of the "markers" of race as beign skin color, when in reality, it is a combo of hair texture and color, skin color, eye folds or lack thereof, and "scissor shaped incisors".

There are Hopi and Navajo and other First Nations who it is hard to tell if they are Japanese or Siberian or what. We have no idea what "race" the ancient Egyptians were before Grecian and Roman contact and then Arab. Some Ethopians are extremely "caucasoid," and look very "Arab," while others are clearly from Central or Western African rootstock.

Oddly enough, the word "race" comes from the French version of the Latin "radix" which means "root." The is the same root in "race," "radical" when referring to exponents, and the roots of a plant.

What is race? It is concentrated genetics in open view in biology. In sociology and politics, it is much, much more.

What is my "race?" Family ancestry says mostly Celtic, as evidenced by my names, but my blood type is B- which is exceedingly rare except in the Mediterranean Coast in both Africa and Eurasia, yet family lore insists that my ancestors came from Cornwall, Wales, and SE England and Scotland. My hair looks like a mass of bird's nest gone awry until I hack it off in disgust. I tan like a Puerto Rican in one week of decent sun. Yet, I am White. The census and the school records and society say that I am.

Well, we call my dog Mother Maybelle a "rat terrier" for lack of a better term, loves to chase small game, but no wiry coat, shiny and longish like a spaniel, but black and white like a Jack Russell. I don't care what you call her, just call her "Good Girl" and give her a piece of pizza.

quote:

Evolution is a tool that God uses to allow free will in His universe. Nothing I write will change what either evolutionists or creationists believe. Have at it brethren! I'm letting the bears fight this one out. I'll settle for a rug.

I never thought of it like that. Good post, Howard.

quote:

Originally posted by Neal Hughes:
Bill's initial post exemplifies what is called "selective" sourcing." Using the proper sequence of sources, carefully selected, one can "prove" that A=Ω. Did and do some racialists and ultranationalists misuse Herder, Darwin, and even the Bible? Yes.

Very well said.

The original post made me think of this photo. I don't believe for a second that all Christians agree with this fellow, while he did back his arguments with biblical quotes and profess his faith in Jesus. At the same time, I don't think Bill actually believes that those who see value in Darwin's work are all racists.

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi to my TimesDaily Forum Friends,

Is Darwinism directly related to racism? Does Darwinism support eugenics and euthanasia?

Yes, it was once believed by many that the theory of evolution supported a superior race of humans. Subsequent test confirmed those primitive people's worst nightmare: That there is no discernible difference between races from an evolutionary standpoint.

"Scientists" once believed the earth was flat and the earth was the center of the solar system.

Scientific discovery also confirmed that we all are related to a single person that lived 60 to 80 thousand years ago. Wrap your head around that, Bill.

Edit: My point being that evolutionary science has proved rather conclusively that we are all brother's and sisters. Thanks be to Darwin.

When is the last time you saw some reprehensible KKK %!^*tard holding a copy of "Demon Haunted World"?

DF

quote:

Originally posted by Neal Hughes:
My hair looks like a mass of bird's nest gone awry until I hack it off in disgust.

Haw! Neal, you never fail to attract and keep my interest. Heck, I usually learn something as well. Keep it up. Please.

quote:

It is odd that we speak of the "markers" of race as beign skin color, when in reality, it is a combo of hair texture and color, skin color, eye folds or lack thereof, and "scissor shaped incisors".

Wow! The shape of a person's teeth is indicative of their race? That's very interesting. This could be a great topic of learning all by itself. I would like to know more, Neal. You've teased us with a little bit of interesting knowledge.

Do you think that KKK tard knows that the book he's holding was written by a bunch of long haired, barefoot jews?

I'm assuming that's a Bible he's holding, but with those dumb f'ers who knows.

A strong correlation between "shovel shaped" incisors and those with a lot of "Mongolian" aka East Asian ancestry is made. Ditto for a different texture of ear wax and the eye folds are too obvious.
The entire history of "race" facinates me: I find it equally interesting and repelling. But if you skin and scalp a person, cut out the eye sockets and muscles around them and then throw away the teeth, you cannot determine "race" except by DNA and then you don't know what proportions of markers show up in skin/hair/eye color, etc.

Gerns, Guns, and Steel by Jared Diamond explores how geography more than anything else has affected human culture. For example, he asks a simple question "Why didn't Zulu warriors riding zebras sweep up into Eurasia?" The conclusion is that the zebra can't be domesticated, and Eurasia is the center of empire because of the combination of weather, native animals and plants that were domesticated and therefore where advanced civilization first flourished -- not that any culture is more or less "advanced" mentally or artistically than another, but that the "things" that Eurasians had at their disposal led to urbanization, metallurgy, and the close proximity of living with animals led to a great immunity to many diseases for Eurasians as an inheritance.
Indeed, what is amazing is that Diamond is an ethnobiolologist who was in New Guinea often on field work when a man asked him "Why have you got so much cargo and us not?" It took him several years and a book, but he tracked him down and said, "Here is why we have so much cargo and you not: geography and cattle, hogs, poultry, metal ore, and horses."

The jews may have had long hair, but they wore sandals.

quote:

Originally posted by Howard Roark:
Jefferson didn't believe in the theory of extinction, that God wouldn't allow it. He was wrong -- no mammoths in the US.

Didn't you know HR, those are either bones that God spread around just for the heck of it, or the woolys were late for the ark.

Hi Daniel,

My original post said, "Jesus is not racist; never defines one by the color of his skin nor where he lives."

And you replied, "Really Bill, Matthew 15:26 'But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.'"

I can see that you do not have an understanding of this Scripture passage -- or you want to pull one verse out and try to use that to condemn Jesus Christ.

Let's take a look at the full Scripture passage:

Matthew 15:22-28, "And a Canaanite woman from that region came out and began to cry out, saying, 'Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is cruelly demon-possessed.' But He did not answer her a word. And His disciples came and implored Him, saying, 'Send her away, because she keeps shouting at us.' But He answered and said, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' But she came and began to bow down before Him, saying, 'Lord, help me!'

"And He answered and said, 'It is not good to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.' But she said, 'Yes, Lord; but even the dogs feed on the crumbs which fall from their masters' table.' Then Jesus said to her, 'O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish.' And her daughter was healed at once."

First of all, the Greek word used for "dogs" in this verse is not a derogatory term used to degrade someone; but instead is the word kynarion (kü-nä'-re-on), meaning a little dog or a puppy, a household pet.

As Pastor David Guzik of Calvary Chapel explains: "When Jesus called her one of the little dogs, He used little as a term of endearment. This softened the traditional Jewish slur towards Gentiles, which called them dogs in the most derogatory sense."

Pastor David goes on to explain: "The woman responds with great faith. She admits her low estate, and did not debate the issue when Jesus called her one of the little dogs. She asked Jesus to deal with her on her own low level - and so she received from Jesus. No wonder Jesus said, O woman, great is your faith!"

So, was Jesus being a racist and was He putting this woman down, belittling her? No. He was speaking to her gently, as one would to a beloved family pet -- drawing out fully her faith; her unwavering faith that Jesus Christ could and would heal her daughter.

Matthew 15:28, "Then Jesus said to her, "O woman, your faith is great; it shall be done for you as you wish." And her daughter was healed at once."

Oh, that your faith and my faith will be this strong.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net

Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!

quote:

Originally posted by dialectic.:

quote:

Originally posted by Neal Hughes:
Bill's initial post exemplifies what is called "selective" sourcing." Using the proper sequence of sources, carefully selected, one can "prove" that A=Ω. Did and do some racialists and ultranationalists misuse Herder, Darwin, and even the Bible? Yes.

Very well said.

The original post made me think of this photo. I don't believe for a second that all Christians agree with this fellow, while he did back his arguments with biblical quotes and profess his faith in Jesus. At the same time, I don't think Bill actually believes that those who see value in Darwin's work are all racists.

Hi Dialectic,

Thank you for that clarification. I never intended to say that all who follow Darwin's theory of evolution are racist.

What I did say is that Darwin himself, along with his friend, Margaret Sanger, were racist. History supports this. They both felt and taught that all other races were inferior to the caucasian white race -- and they both supported programs of eugenics to weed out the inferior races. While there are many Darwinians who may still believe this way; I was speaking of Darwin.

And, I showed you an example from a school text book stating that the caucasian race is superior. So, this Darwinian concept was being taught in our schools.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Let's take a look at the full Scripture passage: [...]

First of all, the Greek word used for "dogs" in this verse is not a derogatory term used to degrade someone; but instead is the word kynarion (kü-nä'-re-on), meaning a little dog or a puppy, a household pet.

[...]
So, was Jesus being a racist and was He putting this woman down, belittling her? No. He was speaking to her gently, as one would to a beloved family pet -[...].

Bill,

You're kidding, right?

You really fail to see that being treated like a "beloved family pet" is NOT, in fact, the same as being acknowledged as a person with full human status?

If this distinction is truly that difficult for you to grasp, I suggest you don a flea collar and dine on a delicious can of Alpo this evening. Perhaps it would serve as a gentle reminder to you of the difference between the realities of the two.

e

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Miami,

While I am happy that you see Darwin as perverted; we are not judging science by him. We are judging evolution by him -- and his very well known racists teachings and by his very well known racists friends -- specifically Margaret Sanger.

Keep in mind that Darwin is Evolution. And I do not deny that many who claimed to be Christian have done evil -- but no one Christian defines Christianity. Jesus is Christianity just as Darwin is Evolution. Jesus is not racists; never defines one by the color of his skin nor where he lives. The same cannot be said of Darwin and Sanger.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill, are you passing judgment on Darwin here? I'm pretty sure you understood what I said. Darwin's didn't pervert his observations or contributions or science. Some others may have on occasion, some atheist, some racists, and as we clearly see, radical christians.

The fact is, is that all animals, minerals and vegetables aren't equal.

Here is a one paragraph abstract of a very recent treatment of Darwin and race. It shows how Darwin was very much a product of the Victorian Era and its utter belief in the superiority of Western Civilization, although Darwin was a fervent crusader for anti-slavery.
The leap from "social" evolution from "biological" evolution was not clear in Victorian eyes, and this view was reinforced by ultranationalists and others who view even today The West as the apex of human achievement, although they could not last a week in a Papuan village without the largesse of the "savages."

Citation: STEPHEN G. ALTER, "RACE, LANGUAGE, AND MENTAL EVOLUTION IN DARWIN’S DESCENT OF MAN", Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 43(3), 239–255 Summer 2007.

Abstract:

quote:

Charles Darwin was notoriously ambiguous in his remarks about the relationship between human evolution and biological race. He stressed the original unity of the races, yet he also helped to popularize the notion of a racial hierarchy filling the gaps between the highest anthropoids and civilized Europeans. A focus on Darwin’s explanation of how humans initially evolved, however, shows that he mainly stressed not hierarchy but a version of
humanity’s original mental unity. In his book The Descent of Man, Darwin emphasized a
substantial degree of mental development (including the incipient use of language) in the
early, monogenetic phase of human evolution. This development, he argued, necessarily
came before primeval man’s numerical increase, geographic dispersion, and racial diversification, because only thus could one explain how that group was able to spread at the
expense of rival ape-like populations. This scenario stood opposed to a new evolutionary polygenism formulated in the wake of Darwin’s Origin of the Species by his ostensible supporters
Alfred Russel Wallace and Ernst Haeckel. Darwin judged this outlook inadequate to the task of explaining humanity’s emergence. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Darwin is hardly the absolute guide to evolutionary biology in the world. That is like saying that Marx was absolutely correct in every respect regarding economics. No addition, no reinterpretation, no revision or denial required. Case closed. No way! Scholarship does not work that way, nor does human nature. There will be revisionists, those who popularize formerly "lost" theories and writings.

I'm sorry Bill, but posting one exceprt out of one out of date textbook to claim that the sentiment of all other educators then flow unhindered in a straight line to the present is ludicrous -- and bad scholarship on top of it!

The "differentiated other" has existed since we split into tribes, nations, races and empires. The continued use of the "other" as pejorative and scapegoat will continue until the sun swallows us. One can only assume that "scientific" and "religious" explainations tend to be a bit more adequate for supporters to toe their line than just proclaiming "They differ, therefore they are inferior."

And, the battle between the Edicts of Lycurgus and Laws of Salon continue.

quote:

Originally posted by miamizsun:

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Miami,

While I am happy that you see Darwin as perverted; we are not judging science by him. We are judging evolution by him -- and his very well known racists teachings and by his very well known racists friends -- specifically Margaret Sanger.

Keep in mind that Darwin is Evolution. And I do not deny that many who claimed to be Christian have done evil -- but no one Christian defines Christianity. Jesus is Christianity just as Darwin is Evolution. Jesus is not racists; never defines one by the color of his skin nor where he lives. The same cannot be said of Darwin and Sanger.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill, are you passing judgment on Darwin here? I'm pretty sure you understood what I said. Darwin's didn't pervert his observations or contributions or science. Some others may have on occasion, some atheist, some racists, and as we clearly see, radical christians.

The fact is, is that all animals, minerals and vegetables aren't equal.

Hi Miami,

I am just saying that both Charles Darwin and his friend, Margaret Sanger, felt and taught that all other races were inferior to the caucasian white race. They supported programs of eugenics to weed out the inferior races.

That is racist. Am I jugding Darwin? No, only his racist belief. And, since the world's view of evolution is defined by Darwin's book; I naturally have drawn the line between his beliefs and his teachings, or his book.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

Hi Miami,

I am just saying that both Charles Darwin and his friend, Margaret Sanger, felt and taught that all other races were inferior to the caucasian white race. They supported programs of eugenics to weed out the inferior races.

That is racist. Am I jugding Darwin? No, only his racist belief. And, since the world's view of evolution is defined by Darwin's book; I naturally have drawn the line between his beliefs and his teachings, or his book.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

================================================

Bill, here is some information, from the Darwin wiki, that maybe you weren't aware of. I'm sure this will get you on track with respect to Darwin and his observations. Regards, miamizsun

Human Races

His encounters with the natives of the Tierra del Fuego on his Beagle voyage made Darwin believe that civilization had evolved over time from a more primitive state.
His encounters with the natives of the Tierra del Fuego on his Beagle voyage made Darwin believe that civilization had evolved over time from a more primitive state.

The questions of what "race" was, how many human races there were, and whether they could be "mixed", were key debates in the nascent field of anthropology in Darwin's time. After the American Civil War (1861-1865), the question of race and slavery were brought to the forefront in anthropology in the United States and Europe. Many scientists from the Southern U.S. were publishing long monographs on why the "Negro" was inferior and would soon be driven to extinction by newfound freedom, with an implication that slavery had been not only "beneficial" but "natural". Darwin was a long-time abolitionist who had been horrified by slavery when he first came into contact with it in Brazil while touring the world on the Beagle voyage many years before, and considered the "race question" one of the most important of his day. Darwin opposed the polygenism theory, developed by scientific racist discourse, which postulated that the different human races were distinct species ("polygenism") and were likely separately "created". To the contrary, Darwin considered that all human beings were of the same species, and that races, if they were useful markers at all, were simply "sub-species" or "variants." This view (known as "monogenism") was in stark contrast with the majority view in anthropology at the time, that Polygeny was supported by thinkers of many backgrounds, such as the zoologist, glaciologist, and geologist Louis Agassiz, and by later thinkers who would interpret Darwin's theory to imply that races had been evolved at different times or stages. Darwin's own views of this were that the differences between human races were superficial (he discusses them only in terms of skin color and hair style), and much of Descent is devoted to the question of the human races. Aside from the aforementioned encounter with slavery on the Beagle, Darwin also was perplexed by the "savage races" he saw in South America at Tierra del Fuego, which he saw as evidence of a man's more primitive state of civilization. During his years in London, his private notebooks were riddled with speculations and thoughts on the nature of the human races, many decades before he would publish Origin."

Hi Miamizsun,

The information below does not disagree with what you posted -- but, does expand upon it.

Two excerpts from http://backwaterreport.com/?p=888 :

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Although Darwin opposed slavery, he firmly believed that the evolutionary process had created superior and inferior races. He maintained in Descent of Man that human intellectual development was the product of natural selection and that natural selection had produced significant differences in the mental faculties of “men of distinct races.” [See Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, pp.109-110, 160, 201, 216.] In the same book, Darwin disparaged blacks and observed that the break in evolutionary history between apes and humans fell “between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla,” indicating that he considered blacks the humans that were the most ape-like. [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201] Darwin also predicted that “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201.] The racist cast of Darwin’s thought is difficult to deny.

Eugenics, which was directly influenced by Darwinism took root in America in the early twentieth century — some 33 states adopted forced sterilization programs to prevent the “feeble-minded” and other “defectives” from reproducing. Perhaps the leading lady of the Eugenics movement was the angel of death herself, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler’s director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned “The Negro Project,” her strategy for eliminating the black population. She believed in removing what she called “the dead weight of human waste.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Miami, I am not trying to discredit Darwin; only showing a negative which comes from Darwinism and his evolutionary teachings. By far, I am not the first to notice this.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Hi Miamizsun,

The information below does not disagree with what you posted -- but, does expand upon it.

Two excerpts from http://backwaterreport.com/?p=888 :

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Although Darwin opposed slavery, he firmly believed that the evolutionary process had created superior and inferior races. He maintained in Descent of Man that human intellectual development was the product of natural selection and that natural selection had produced significant differences in the mental faculties of “men of distinct races.” [See Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, pp.109-110, 160, 201, 216.] In the same book, Darwin disparaged blacks and observed that the break in evolutionary history between apes and humans fell “between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla,” indicating that he considered blacks the humans that were the most ape-like. [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201] Darwin also predicted that “[a]t some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201.] The racist cast of Darwin’s thought is difficult to deny.

Eugenics, which was directly influenced by Darwinism took root in America in the early twentieth century — some 33 states adopted forced sterilization programs to prevent the “feeble-minded” and other “defectives” from reproducing. Perhaps the leading lady of the Eugenics movement was the angel of death herself, Margaret Sanger, who drew upon writings from socialists and eugenicists. She even published articles from Adolf Hitler’s director of eugenic sterilization, Ernst Rudin, and spawned “The Negro Project,” her strategy for eliminating the black population. She believed in removing what she called “the dead weight of human waste.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Miami, I am not trying to discredit Darwin; only showing a negative which comes from Darwinism and his evolutionary teachings. By far, I am not the first to notice this.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

==============================================

On Darwin and Eugenics....

quote:

Darwin’s theories and writings, combined with Gregor Mendel’s genetics (the “modern synthesis”), form the basis of all modern biology. However, Darwin’s fame and popularity led to his name being associated with ideas and movements which at times had only an indirect relation to his writings, and sometimes went directly against his express comments.

Eugenics

Following Darwin’s publication of the Origin, his cousin, Francis Galton, applied the concepts to human society, starting in 1865 with ideas to promote “hereditary improvement” which he elaborated at length in 1869. In The Descent of Man Darwin agreed that Galton had demonstrated the probability that “talent” and “genius” in humans was inherited, but dismissed the social changes Galton proposed as too utopian. Neither Galton nor Darwin supported government intervention and thought that, at most, heredity should be taken into consideration by people seeking potential mates. In 1883, after Darwin’s death, Galton began calling his social philosophy Eugenics. In the 20th century, eugenics movements gained popularity in a number of countries and became associated with reproduction control programmes such as compulsory sterilisation laws, then were stigmatised after their usage in the rhetoric of Nazi Germany in its goals of genetic “purity”.

Bill, clearly some took Darwin's work and used it to try and justify their own, sometimes twisted, version of how things should be. Religion has been used in the same way.(Back in the day, I'm sure that even good christian people owned slaves and had a hand in their selective reproduction.) As stated above modern Biology gives him a lot of credit too. It is impossible to deny natural selection. It is the basis of selecting a mate. Are people attracted to inferior genetics? Given a choice for a mate, physical attraction plays a great role in the process.

Also, we have fossil evidence of man's evolution, and we see stark differences in human beings today. Can we see differences in physical and mental abilities? Of course, but some feel it isn't politically correct to point such differences. And some cry racism.

Selective breeding of all animals has been around for a long time. We all recognize this as a method of producing superior offspring and prized bloodlines. It would be extremely unlikely for a good looking, healthy young man, to choose a mentally retarded or seriously birth defected mate. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but the vast majority look for good mental and physical health when selecting a mate for reproduction.

Darwin's work was the foundation for today's modern evolutionary theory which has progressed dramatically with the help of current technology and scientific knowledge.

Science, unlike religion, can and will change in light of new evidence. Please keep that in mind when making that comparison.

regards, miamizsun

Please do not mix creation and Evolution. God did not create men and women out of apes. God created the first man out of dirt and water and the first woman was created by one of his ribes and dirt and water. Those of you who want to double check this Refer to Genesis. Evolution and the big bang theory is something those who do not believe in God came up with.

James Watson's theory may back up Darwin.
You can't argue with Watson background and achievements.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/fury-at-dna-p...sterners-394898.html

You can show all the data and articals you whish but I will never agree with Darwinism I faught against it in high school and again in college and I will continue to stand for what I believe in. Any person can write an artical and have it published if they so choose to it does not mean they are write with what they say.

The mark of Cain was justified to subject blacks as inferior to others. Both beliefs justified in the name of religion. [quote]

Howard, could you expound on the 'mark of Cain' with scripture reference please. thanks, hippiegirl.


my findings are quite different:

Genesis 4:15
[15] And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

John Wesley's Commentary:
And the Lord set a mark upon Cain — To distinguish him from the rest of mankind. What the mark was, God has not told us: therefore the conjectures of men are vain.

Matthew Henry's Commentary:
It is in vain to inquire what was the mark set upon Cain. It was doubtless known, both as a brand of infamy on Cain, and a token from God that they should not kill him.

my observation:
due to murdering his brother, the scripture says that Cain would have to till the soil for food. it also describes him as a fugitive and vagabond, with perpetual disgrace and reproach. but nowhere do i find that it speaks of an inferior race of people in conjunction with his curse.

quote:

Originally posted by Rolltideroll02:
You can show all the data and articals you whish but I will never agree

One who would claim to never change their mind even when enough evidence is produced is beyond ignorant and approached stupid.

Eve was not produced from Adam's "ribe!"

Willful ignorance, like racism, must be erased from civilized society.

Well, smarty pants, I suppose you have an artical to show Adam didn't have a ribe removed!

Were but that only a few of the sincerely Fundamentalist devout devote a smidgen of time to their orthography. . . Thank goodness English lacks accent marks!

My little dog Maybelle loves ribes by the way. I am amazed a 10 lb. dog can crack them open with her toothes.

If I recall, it was certain Christian theologists who first put forth the idea that blacks were a result of "the mark of Cain." In other words, Christians at one point (and many still do) believed that blacks were a result of a curse.

Here's an interesting conundrum for you Christians: if this "mark of Cain" scenario is not true, then explain the difference in the phenotypes of the various "races" of humans. If we all descended from Adam and Eve, why do people on different continents exhibit noticeable physical differentiation? See where this is going?

You can't have it both ways; you can't say we all came from Adam and Eve and then reject evolution at the same time. Either you accept that all humans derived from a single ancestral source and then evolved different characteristics based on environmental factors, OR you must say that God created numerous populations separately at the same time (which the Bible rejects).

The Bible's story of creation does not reject evolution, it actually embraces it. There is no other explanation.

Go Fish if you are going to quote someone you at least need to quote them correctly not just cut and past.

Sittin,

Nice to "meet" you.

It would take someone as thoroughly steeped in biblical nonsense as a theologian to invent something as wack as "The mark of Cain".

Why is it that here in 2008 almost all churches are racially segregated?

Religion is not a force for acceptance, love, universalism, or liberty. It is more likely to foster tribalism, us/them mentalities, I'm right/you're wrong thinking, prejudices, bigotries, and irrationalism.

DF

quote:

Originally posted by Buck Wheat:
James Watson's theory may back up Darwin.

BS.

He is one of, I'm sure, many academic racists. One can use the tools of science to make all sorts of twisted claims. That does not make them true.

quote:

Originally posted by Rolltideroll02:
Go Fish if you are going to quote someone you at least need to quote them correctly not just cut and past.

Giggle! Smirk!

Dont laff at Rolltideroll02, he done gone to college. He apeers to have spent all his time faughting Darwin wiles he was their, cuz he is write, any fool can write an artical.

I'm sure they is quiet proud of him at the Universty.

Hi SittinPurdy,

You say, "If I recall, it was certain Christian theologist who first put forth the idea that blacks were a result of "the mark of Cain." In other words, Christians at one point (and many still do) believed that blacks were a result of a curse."

The fact that all descendants of Cain were destroyed in the flood would negate any such thinking. Noah was a descendant of Seth; and the descendants of Noah's three sons did migrate to different parts of the known world: Japheth into the European nations; Shem into the Asian nations; and Ham into the African nations. No curse involved; only a wee bit of nudging and motivation from God; as I will discuss later.

Then, you ask, "Here's an interesting conundrum for you Christians: if this "mark of Cain" scenario is not true, then explain the difference in the phenotypes of the various "races" of humans. If we all descended from Adam and Eve, why do people on different continents exhibit noticeable physical differentiation? See where this is going?"

Our skin color comes from the amount of melanin in the skin; the more melanin, the darker the skin; the less melanin, the lighter the skin. Mid-range, or brown skin, is considered the normal amount of melanin -- and variations come from our ancestors adapting to their environments. So, I guess we can say that Adam and Eve were brown skinned; as were Noah and his sons. Japheth's descendants migrating to the cooler climates of the European nations would have eventually adapted by having less melanin; Ham's descendants migrating toward the hotter African nations would have had more melanin in their skin for protection from the sun's rays.

By the same token, body size, eye shape, hair type -- are all adaptations to environmental differences as described in the following excerpt from the web site: http://www.raceandhistory.com/historicalviews/rgh.htm

"The size and shape of the body are adapted to temperature and humidity. In hot and humid climates, like tropical forests, it is advantageous to be short since there is greater surface area for the evaporation of sweat compared to the body's volume. A smaller body also uses less energy and produces less heat. Frizzy hair allows sweat to remain on the scalp longer and results in greater cooling. With these adaptations, the risk of overheating in tropical climates is diminished. Populations living in tropical forests generally are short, Pygmies being the extreme example."

"The face and body of the Mongols, on the other hand, result from adaptations to the bitter cold of Siberia. The body, and particularly the head, tends to be round, increasing body volume. The evaporative surface area of the skin is thus reduced relative to body volume, and less heat is lost. The nose is small and less likely to freeze, and the nostrils are narrow, warming the air before it reaches the lungs. Eyes are protected from the cold Siberian air by fatty folds of skin. These eyes are often considered beautiful."

Finally, you say, "You can't have it both ways; you can't say we all came from Adam and Eve and then reject evolution at the same time. Either you accept that all humans derived from a single ancestral source and then evolved different characteristics based on environmental factors, OR you must say that God created numerous populations separately at the same time (which the Bible rejects). The Bible's story of creation does not reject evolution, it actually embraces it. There is no other explanation."

We are not rejecting evolution in the form of adaptation; for we know that over time people, animals, and plants do adapt to environmental changes.

What we, and the Bible, reject is the Darwinian form of evolution which states that some quadrillion years ago, there existed in a dark primordial swamp, somewhere in a dark jungle -- one simple little non-life cell; just a simple little fellow floating around, containing no life whatsoever. Then, suddenly the miracle occurred: viola! life appears from non-life! Of course, science tells us this cannot happen; that you cannot have life come from non-life; that you cannot have matter appear from non-matter. But, that small fact does not phase our Darwinian evolutionists. No sir! They will tell you that, given enough time, a quadrillion years give or take a few -- life did appear from that lifeless simple cell. You want a leap of faith; there you have it. And they claim that we Christians live on faith alone!

Now, to the next step. After life suddenly appeared in that lifeless simple cell -- then, it evolved into a lemur. Don't ask me why the lemur and not the toad frog. I have no idea. Actually, I would have thought the toad frog would have been the logical first live animal; since it loves the water and the swamps. It could have survived in the primordial swamp -- instead of having to live in trees like the lemur.

Have you ever wondered where that swamp and the trees came from -- if there was no Biblical creation?

However, this sweet little lemur hung around by himself for a few more million years -- then, whammo, he started evolving into monkeys, apes, and all sort of neat new animals.

And, eventually, one of those monkeys or apes decided, "I want to be a man. I believe I will just become a man so I can be smarter than all these other apes and monkeys." And, that is the Darwinian short story of how man evolved from that simple little lifeless cell floating in that dark old primordial swamp.

I am sorry; I guess I am just not smart enough or educated enough to have that much faith. Like the flow of a river; my faith takes the path of least resistance -- and I believe in the Genesis story of creation. It takes a lot less faith than the Darwinian theory -- and promises a much better eternal future.

So, to recap our Biblical story of the creation of man: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Jump forward a few days; and we have God deciding, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to our likeness. . ." (Genesis 1:26). Now all was well until a wee bit later, as Adam and his God created wife, Eve, were living in the paradise called Eden -- with all the animals living in peaceful coexistence, with all the fresh fruits and veggies they needed for good nutrition -- life was heavenly.

Then, the fallen angel, Satan, slithered into the garden in the form of a snake -- and began a conversation with Eve. Should Eve have been surprised at a talking snake? Why? Their whole existence was a miracle; why not a talking snake? So, old Satan tricked Eve with his fast talking and lies (shades of Darwinism?) and caused her and Adam to be disobedient to God. Man was then in a lot of hot water and was evicted from his garden home -- and had to start working for a living.

Now we fast forward about a thousand years to Noah and his infamous flood; where we are left with only Noah, his three sons, and their wives -- a new beginning.

Once again, we fast forward about three generations and we find an interesting fellow, Nimrod, a descendant of Ham. All the folks gathered together in the land of Shinar and Nimrod, their leader, decided to build a tower that will reach into heaven; not literally, but that was his thinking -- to build a very high tower, the Tower of Babel.

The main problem was that God had told Noah and his sons to, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth" (Genesis 9:1). And here they were all still clinging together in the land of Shinar. Maybe they were being fruitful and multiplying -- but, it was all in a cluster; not filling the earth as God had directed.

But, God always has a perfect plan -- and in His patient omniscience, knowing that the people needed motivation, He decided, "Let Us go down and there confuse their language; that they might not understand one another's speech" (Genesis 11:7). And, as a result, folks started to gather with those they could understand; and avoiding those whose language was different. Eventually, each group decided, "This neighborhood has gone to pot. We cannot understand what those foreign immigrants are saying. They refuse to speak our language; so, let's find a more upscale neighborhood where we will not have to tolerate those immigrants with their foreign languages." So, each group set out looking for their ideal neighborhood with no foreign speaking immigrants.

Consequently, Japheth's descendants migrated north into the European nations, where the cooler climates caused them to lose skin melanin and become white and pasty looking. Shem's descendants moved east into the tropical climates and maintained their normal skin melanin to stay with soft brown and yellow skin tones. And, Ham's descendants moved west into the hotter climates of the African nations, where they adapted by gaining more skin melanin, making them dark skinned.

But, notice one major point. The varying degree of skin melanin might change our outer skin color; the environment might change our facial and body features -- but, inside, we are still all the same human being that God created, with the same weaknesses, with the same flaws, with the same need for love and acceptance -- and with the same need to know our creator, God.

And, that, in a nutshell, is the story of man -- the true story.

The only curse upon mankind is the one brought upon man by the disobedience of Adam; the curse of being born with a sin nature and having that sin nature until we die or are raptured. Yes, all men have a sin nature; all men sin; it is just that we Christians are forgiven sinners.

I know, I know. I can hear our atheist and other non-believing Friends saying with a smirk, "So, you Christians can sin all you want and are forgiven; you have a free ticket to live like hell -- and still go to heaven!"

Well, yes and no. Yes, we Christians will always be sinners. Yes, we Christians can and will be forgiven for our sins -- when we repent, or turn from that sin, and ask His forgiveness.

So, what is the difference between the Christian believer and the non-believer? Well, the Christian believer has, by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, asked for and been given His free gift of salvation; we are assured, eternally assured, that we will be with Him for eternity. We have the Holy Spirit residing within us; never to leave us -- and He will always teach us, guide us, and convict us when we are disobedient to God.

You see, that is one of the big differences between a believer and a non-believer: the non-believer can commit a sin and feel no guilt, no remorse, for that sin. To him, it means nothing. It is a matter of, "So, what's the big deal? Everyone does it!"

Yet, with the believer, we do feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit which tells us that we have strayed from the straight and narrow path and that we need to get back on course. That is a blessed conviction; sort of like the auto-pilot in an airplane, always working to correct any variation from the straight path.

Now, you might ask, "Okay, but what about those sins you do commit; aren't you just as guilty as a non-believer?"

Yes, but we have a huge spiritual umbrella which prevents God from seeing our sins -- it is called the righteousness of Jesus, the blood of Jesus. When God looks at Bill Gray; He does not see the righteousness, or lack thereof, of Bill Gray -- He sees the righteousness of Jesus Christ -- and all is well.

Of course, in feeling the probing conviction of the Holy Spirit when we sin; we will, out of love for Jesus Christ, ask forgiveness for our sin and work hard to not repeat it.

This is how you can recognize a true Christian: that he will be convicted when he sins; that he will feel remorse; that he will strive to change whatever caused him to sin; and that he will strive to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

You might compare this to a person who professes to be a Christian; yet, will purposely live a Biblically sinful lifestyle; while trying to justify it by saying he/she was born this way. God made us all one way: a clean slate. What is written on that slate comes from life, it comes from our environment, it comes from many different external sources. Christians allow God to write upon their slate. Non-believers allow the world to write upon their slate. And, the difference is eternal.

A good example is the homosexual who claims to be a Christian, yet is living an active homosexual lifestyle. He is not living a Christian lifestyle. He might attend church, he might profess to be a Christian -- but, his chosen lifestyle denies his Christian profession.

I don't care if his church makes him a bishop -- he is snubbing his nose at God by continuing to live an active homosexual lifestyle -- and he is making matters even worse by claiming the cloak of a Christian clergy. He either does not have the Holy Spirit within him; or he is telling the Holy Spirit to take a walk when he should be convicted of his sinful lifestyle. Either way, his sin is not forgiven, for he will not repent and ask forgiveness. He only snubs his nose at God -- and, that, my Friend, ain't too cool.

To summarize, the only curse mankind is wearing is the sin nature brought upon us by Adam's disobedience of God. And, we can overcome that by sincerely accepting, by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net

Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!

http://www.glumbert.com/media/christiangene

DF

quote:

Originally posted by DeepFat:
http://www.glumbert.com/media/christiangene

DF

I am amazed at the facile thinking by our wordy Brother Bill.

quote:

Originally posted by SpaghEvangelist:
Brother Bill.

Your long post requires visual aids for fundamentalists. The Rev. Brendan Powell Smith has been kind enough to create these Biblical interpretations for the needy.

Click the arrows at the top right of the first frame in the link to progress through Brother Bill's story.

quote:

So, to recap our Biblical story of the creation of man: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). Jump forward a few days; and we have God deciding, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to our likeness. . ." (Genesis 1:26). Now all was well until a wee bit later, as Adam and his God created wife, Eve, were living in the paradise called Eden -- with all the animals living in peaceful coexistence, with all the fresh fruits and veggies they needed for good nutrition -- life was heavenly.

Then, the fallen angel, Satan, slithered into the garden in the form of a snake -- and began a conversation with Eve. Should Eve have been surprised at a talking snake? Why? Their whole existence was a miracle; why not a talking snake? So, old Satan tricked Eve with his fast talking and lies (shades of Darwinism?) and caused her and Adam to be disobedient to God. Man was then in a lot of hot water and was evicted from his garden home -- and had to start working for a living.

GENESIS

quote:

Now we fast forward about a thousand years to Noah and his infamous flood; where we are left with only Noah, his three sons, and their wives -- a new beginning.

NOAH

quote:

Once again, we fast forward about three generations and we find an interesting fellow, Nimrod, a descendant of Ham. All the folks gathered together in the land of Shinar and Nimrod, their leader, decided to build a tower that will reach into heaven; not literally, but that was his thinking -- to build a very high tower, the Tower of Babel.

But, God always has a perfect plan -- and in His patient omniscience, knowing that the people needed motivation, He decided, "Let Us go down and there confuse their language; that they might not understand one another's speech" (Genesis 11:7). And, as a result, folks started to gather with those they could understand; and avoiding those whose language was different. Eventually, each group decided, "This neighborhood has gone to pot. We cannot understand what those foreign immigrants are saying. They refuse to speak our language; so, let's find a more upscale neighborhood where we will not have to tolerate those immigrants with their foreign languages." So, each group set out looking for their ideal neighborhood with no foreign speaking immigrants.

Consequently, Japheth's descendants migrated north into the European nations, where the cooler climates caused them to lose skin melanin and become white and pasty looking. Shem's descendants moved east into the tropical climates and maintained their normal skin melanin to stay with soft brown and yellow skin tones. And, Ham's descendants moved west into the hotter climates of the African nations, where they adapted by gaining more skin melanin, making them dark skinned.

TOWER OF BABEL


In the name of the Pasta, the Sauce, and the Meatballs. May He touch you with his Noodly Appendages.

R'Amen.

Hi Fish,

It is always a pleasure seeing you attempt to reflect upon the Bible. On the other hand, I am happy to see you talking about the Bible, even if it requires Lego blocks. Keep up the good work and one day you will graduate to your own real adult Bible.

Oh, by the way, please remember to tell our Forum Friends that this Rev. Brendan Powell Smith you so highly recommend -- is not a pastor, nor a minister, nor any kind of clergy. And, we are not even sure of his motivation for doing these Lego Bible stories. However, they do provide an interesting way to convey Bible stories to young children. So, whatever his motivation -- just as in all situations, God can make something good from it.

Thank you for making us all aware of this web site. Possibly some who are involved in Children's Sunday School teaching can make good use of this free material.

And, regardless of your motivation -- this can be even more helpful in teaching Creation to our children than even those dedicated Tour Guides in the Colorado museum. God will bless you for helping guide our children to Him.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

quote:

Originally posted by Bill Gray:

quote:

Originally posted by SpaghEvangelist:

In the name of the Pasta, the Sauce, and the Meatballs. May He touch you with his Noodly Appendages.

Hi Fish, It is always a pleasure seeing you attempt to reflect upon the Bible.

Yo, Bill, I take that as a compliment. "SpaghEvangelist" is obviously a fellow complex-carbohydrate fan but the resemblance ends there. I have no need to post under a pseudo name when making fin of you under my original works fine.

quote:

Originally posted by SpaghEvangelist:
Brother Bill.

I am not GoFish. Are you? I am insulted that you call me GoFish. He is an atheist. I am not. I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. He ridicules FSM. He can go to hell for all I care.

Spag, Bill is also not I. In fact, there are many fellow people on the forums who are not me.

According to the apostle Bobby Henderson, it is perfectly acceptable to be both an atheist and a Pastafarian! My Monster is not a jealous one.

Bill Gray said:

quote:

We are not rejecting evolution in the form of adaptation; for we know that over time people, animals, and plants do adapt to environmental changes.

If you can accept that such environmental factors affect phenotypical characteristics, they why can you not accept speciation as a result of this?

quote:

What we, and the Bible, reject is the Darwinian form of evolution which states that some quadrillion years ago, there existed in a dark primordial swamp,

Quadrillion? Hardly. More like 4 billion, which all of the scientific data suggests. And it isn't just biology -- there are reasons to accept that date based on physics and cosmology as well.

quote:

somewhere in a dark jungle -- one simple little non-life cell; just a simple little fellow floating around, containing no life whatsoever.

A cell by definition is life (both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells contain DNA), but let us not be concerned with such semantic technicalities. It interferes with a good story.

quote:

Then, suddenly the miracle occurred: viola!

Aren't miracles exactly what you theologists rely upon for an explanation?

Just because the exact mechanism isn't known or understood doesn't make it "miraculous." Scientists have never said the introduction of life on this planet was miraculous. You are making that up.

quote:

life appears from non-life! Of course, science tells us this cannot happen;

Not really. In physics, the Law of the Conservation Of Energy says, for instance, that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed. But we know that this was likely not always the case since the laws of the universe as they are observed now were likely different than what they were "prior" to the Big Bang.

In evolution, just because life cannot be created from scratch in a test tube doesn't mean there won't be a future explanation for how it did begin from the primordial soup. All organisms on this planet evolved from a single parent organism (even you admit that species change and adapt based on environments -- and if you follow this to its logical conclusion, you get speciation). Humans evolved from apes, and prior to that, fish. Before that, amoebas, and before that -- prokaryotic cells.

quote:

that you cannot have life come from non-life; that you cannot have matter appear from non-matter.

But Special Relativity states that you can have matter created from energy and vice versa ( E=mc^2). Einstein proved that. Matter and energy, to simplify it a bit, are different ways of looking at the same thing. Now how does this apply to the discussion?

Quantum mechanics states that there are microscopic "fluctuations" in the quantum vacuum that are more or less unpredictable. This is according to the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" which has been tested experimentally. Since these fluctuations are essentially energy, it is hard to say that energy truly is conserved under extreme conditions like with the quantum vacuum.

Further, the law of the Conservation of Energy only makes sense if Time is involved. Since time cannot be defined in a singularity, the truth is one cannot use macroscopic laws when talking about the Big Bang. Space and Time were "created" with the Big Bang. The Big Bang did not occur independent of empty space/time. So, in a sense, to ask what happened "before" the Big Bang is like asking what is north of the north pole.

On the metaphysical side of the argument: it makes no sense to say that something came from nothing since nothing cannot be defined. So for those theologians who say "something can't come from nothing." I ask them to define nothing. They can't.

quote:

Now, to the next step. After life suddenly appeared in that lifeless simple cell -- then, it evolved into a lemur.

That's not what they say. See above.

quote:

Don't ask me why the lemur and not the toad frog. I have no idea. Actually, I would have thought the toad frog would have been the logical first live animal; since it loves the water and the swamps. It could have survived in the primordial swamp -- instead of having to live in trees like the lemur.

No one ever said Lemurs were the first step in human evolution. You are simply misunderstanding what the theory does say.

quote:

Have you ever wondered where that swamp and the trees came from -- if there was no Biblical creation?

Yeah, they came from prokayrotic cells just like all other life.

quote:

And, eventually, one of those monkeys or apes decided, "I want to be a man.

That statement deserves nothing but a big, fat LOL.

quote:

I am sorry; I guess I am just not smart enough or educated enough to have that much faith. Like the flow of a river; my faith takes the path of least resistance -- and I believe in the Genesis story of creation. It takes a lot less faith than the Darwinian theory -- and promises a much better eternal future.

How does Genesis take less faith? Genesis explains the mechanism behind nothing.

Least resistance, least understanding, least education, least knowledge, least intelligence.

Least truthful.


DF

Bill, why do you have to bog us down with your Calvinistic judgements every day? You obviously detest the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion, and Gene Robinson.

As a proud Anglican churchman, I reject your Calvinism and assert the orthodoxy of the apostolic episcopate, the effacy of the sacraments and Arminian theology.

Do you actually literally believe all that claptrap you preach, such as what I so quaintly term "Six Days, or burn creationism," that Adam eating a piece of fruit led to a "depraved" human condition that was passed on by his offspring, that praying a little prayer makes you good to go for eternity, etc.?

It must be fantastic being assured of "salvation" and your own "election." All the "creationist" "institutes" and websites in the world are worthy of about as much consideration as is the contemplation of the price of rat pies in China. They are a bunch of snake oil salesmen, bloated off the teats of the gullible frightened seekers, and about as deep as is the Calvinist hardshell crap you ramble on and on about ad nauseum.

These hucksters feed no one spiritually or physically (well, I'm sure that the masters of creationism aren't going hungry themselves!). They are exercises in vanity and superflous in extremis.

How is the mechanism of the creation of the world even remotely important or its eventual demise in a theological sense? Why live in the past and anticipate the future Tribulapture? Why not practice the Gospel message Our Lord gave us in the Sermon on the Mount and in His own good example today?

Christianity is a religion of the present, not the future nor of the past!

Our task is to set up God's kingdom here on earth, not to wait for some hideously convoluted binding of serpents, loosing of seals and Cristus ex machina to do it for us!

Since you like to preach to us all, I thought I might turn the table a bit. I like my sermons.


They are short. Calvinists' versions are long, leading to being boring and dull.

Hi Neal,

You say, "Bill, why do you have to bog us down with your Calvinistic judgments every day? You obviously detest the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion, and Gene Robinson. As a proud Anglican churchman, I reject your Calvinism and assert the orthodoxy of the apostolic episcopate, the effacy of the sacraments and Arminian theology."

First, I am far from being a Calvinist. I do not believe in Predestination. I do not believe that God, who sent His Son to die on the cross so that you, I, and everyone in the world might have an opportunity to, by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, receive His free gift of salvation -- would also condemn billions of people to hell without giving them the opportunity to receive this free gift of salvation which Jesus has already bought with His blood.

We are told in John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." That WHOEVER means WHO EVER; that means that Neal, Bill, and WHO EVER will receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior -- will have eternal life. Does this sound like a God who would, before creation, decide who will and who will not be saved? Does this sound like a God who would condemn, before creation, billions of people to eternal hell? No, it does not. That is not the God of the Bible.

We are told in Revelation 3:20, "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." That ANYONE means ANY ONE; it means Neal, Bill, and ALL who will open the door to their hearts and invite Jesus in to be their Lord and Savior -- will have a personal relationship with Jesus, i.e., will be saved. In the Jewish culture of that day, to dine with a person was considered very intimate; therefore Jesus is waiting to be our very intimate Friend. All we have to do is to open the door of our heart and invite Him in. Yes, that is done with a simple, sincere prayer.

Those Scripture verses do not describe the Predestination which Calvinist teach. I do believe the Arminian theology which teaches that God is sovereign, but He has given man free will. But, on the other hand, I do disagree with the Arminian teaching that it is possible for those who are Christians to fall from grace, i.e, that man can lose his salvation. I do not believe that one can, once they have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, once they have been saved -- I do not believe that person can lose his salvation as the Arminian theology teaches. If that were possible; then Jesus Christ lied to us when He told us in John 6:47, ". . .he who believes has eternal life" -- and that is impossible.

I believe that once we open out heart to Jesus Christ, invite Him to come in and be the Master of our life, our personal Lord and Savior; once we have begun our spiritual walk with Him -- we will stumble often, we will fail often, we will sin often -- but, we will repent, ask forgiveness, and continue our walk with Him into eternal salvation. When Jesus tells us in John 6:47, "Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life" -- He means it. Jesus Christ does not lie; nor does He change. He said it, and you can take it to the bank.

And, notice He did not say, "He who does rituals, he who has traditions, he who does the sacraments, he who does the Eucharist, he who follows the pope or the archbishop, he who has many indulgences, he who works hard -- has salvation." No, He says, "He who believes has eternal life" -- PERIOD!

Then, Neal, you declare, "It must be fantastic being assured of 'salvation' and your own 'election.' All the 'creationist' 'institutes' and web sites in the world are worthy of about as much consideration as is the contemplation of the price of rat pies in China. They are a bunch of snake oil salesmen, bloated off the teats of the gullible frightened seekers, and about as deep as is the Calvinist hard-shell crap you ramble on and on about ad nauseum."

Well, Neal, I am sorry to see that you totally discard the Bible, God's Written Word, and replace it with Tradition. So you want to call God a liar; that is your prerogative. I choose to take His Word as the Gospel; I choose to believe Him; I choose to follow Him.

And, you ask, "How is the mechanism of the creation of the world even remotely important or its eventual demise in a theological sense? Why live in the past and anticipate the future Tribulapture? Why not practice the Gospel message Our Lord gave us in the Sermon on the Mount and in His own good example today?"

Glad you asked. There are two Scripture verses which are foundation stones upon which the entire Bible, and Christianity, sit. First is Genesis 1:1 which tells us, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Then, for mortar, God continues to describe in Genesis 1 and 2 how He created the entire universe, including man and all life form, in six literal days. If you discard Genesis 1:1 and the subsequent verses -- you might as well just toss out the Bible, the Written Word of God -- for, if Genesis 1 is wrong, then the Bible has no foundation in truth -- and we have no hope.

The second foundation stone Scripture verse is John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." If this is not true; then we have no Christianity; we have no hope. But, praise God, it is TRUE!

And John 1:3 reassures us that He is God and that He created all the universe, "All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.'

So, Neal, when you discard the Bible and replace it with Tradition -- you also discard these Biblical foundations -- and you discard all Christianity. You discard Jesus Christ. You discard your only Way (John 14:6) to salvation.

You declare, "Christianity is a religion of the present, not the future nor of the past! Our task is to set up God's kingdom here on earth, not to wait for some hideously convoluted binding of serpents, loosing of seals and Cristus ex machina to do it for us!"

No, my Friend, you are wrong. Jesus in Matthew 28:18-20 instructs us, ". . ."All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

And, in Acts 1:8, He instructs us, ". . .you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth."

So, we are to be His witnesses; we are to Go, Make disciples, Baptize them, Teach them -- all in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

He does not tell us to set up or build a kingdom, God's or otherwise, here on earth. Today, Satan is ruler of this world. Jesus verified this in John 12:31 that Satan has power over this present evil world. In John 16:11, Jesus tells us, "And concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world (Satan) has been judged." And, in 2 Corinthians 4:3-5, the apostle Paul teaches us, "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus' sake."

When Jesus Christ returns in glory (Revelation 19) as King of Kings and Lord of Lords; He will bind Satan and cast him into the abyss for one thousand years (Rev 20); and we, the Raptured church along with Old Testament saints and the martyred Tribulation saints, will be with Him as He reigns for one thousand years -- the Millennial Kingdom on earth. We are not here to set up God's kingdom here on earth -- but to be His witnesses and to make disciples until He returns to rapture His church.

Neal, you say, "You obviously detest the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Anglican Communion, and Gene Robinson."

No, I do not detest them. I see where the archbishop is wrong and is misleading many people. He is pushing world ecumenism, where all religions will come together and each worship his own deity -- which is wrong. We gather to worship God, the God of the Bible. We do not gather in joint worship with folks worshipping deities of this world. The archbishop is also encouraging England to incorporate Islamic Sharia Law into the laws of England. If so, how long before an Imam rules England?

The Anglican Communion: I do not detest this. It is not right for me; but, I have no doubt that there are many good Christians in the Anglican church. Just as with any denomination; there will be good and bad -- and we have to recognize the bad and join with the good. In Matthew 13:36-43, Jesus teaches us of the wheat and the tares; the good and the bad -- and teaches the He will send forth His angels to separate them at the proper time.

And, the Anglican/Episcopalian bishop, Gene Robinson: do I detest him? No, I feel sorry for him; for he is living a lie. He is declaring himself to be clergy, a teacher of the Bible; yet, he is denying the teaching of the Bible. He professes to be a Christian; yet, his actively homosexual lifestyle denies that profession.

Finally, you say, "Why not practice the Gospel message Our Lord gave us in the Sermon on the Mount. . .?"

I agree with you. We can start with Matthew 5:17, "Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." I believe this would also cover not attacking, nor attempting to negate, the work of other Christian believers who are trying to share the Gospel.

Especially those believers who are trying to tell folks of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 7:13-14, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

And, even more so when we attempt to warn folks of His teaching in Matthew 7:21-23, "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; Depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'"

These are all teachings from His Sermon on the Mount -- and I believe we should live them and I believe we should share them with the world. Don't you agree?

So, Neal, I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that you are not a Christian believer. However, I am saying that you have a very skewed view of what the Bible teaches. I might suggest that you quit letting your archbishop tell you what the Bible teaches -- and search the Scriptures for yourself, become a Berean (Acts 17:11) and seek your own knowledge of God's Word, the Bible.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill Gray
billdory@pacbell.net

Alabama bred,
California fed,
Blessed by God to be a Christian American!

quote:

How is the mechanism of the creation of the world even remotely important or its eventual demise in a theological sense?

It's not. Unless, of course, you entire faith rests upon the notion that the earth is 6,000 years old. For that person, science is vewwwy scawwey.

GF,

Is Mr. Bill taking his medicine?

DF

Hi Deep,

You ask, "GF, Is Mr. Bill taking his medicine? DF"

Sure am; it is heavenly medicine. Just take a spoonful of Bible study, throw in a good dose of prayer, season it with lots of Christian fellowship and you have a great elixir. Of course, this makes it much too sweet -- so, I have to mix in a pinch of atheistic rhetoric to bring a bit of tartness to it. And then it is perfect.

Thank you for your concern.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill