Spirituality
12 Feb 06
12 Feb 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerNo no.. its a BOO by all sense of the word.. in English..
Darwin? I doubt he would hear him. :'(
Edit: Or is that the the Arabic way of saying happy birthday?
boo1 (bū😉 pronunciation
n., pl. boos.
1. A sound uttered to show contempt, scorn, or disapproval.
2. Informal. Any sound or word: You never said boo to me about overtime.
...that one.. directed at the first word of the title.
Spell the beaaaaaans... spell the beaaaaaaaaaans....
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by PeachyWhy does Darwin deserve BOOing? For inventing a false 'truth' or for exposing a real truth which makes you uncomfortable?
No no.. its a BOO by all sense of the word.. in English..
boo1 (bū😉 pronunciation
n., pl. boos.
1. A sound uttered to show contempt, scorn, or disapproval.
2. Informal. Any sound or word: You never said boo to me about overtime.
...that one.. directed at the first word of the title.
Spell the beaaaaaans... spell the beaaaaaaaaaans....
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by telerionI've found TalkOrigins to be obfuscatory on more than one occasion. The site is hardly the beacon of unbiased discussion.
Here's the TalkOrigins explaination, and from googling around it also appears to be the common explaination that I'm getting from scholarly hits.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_2.html
Basically "race" means variety, not skin color. Given the liberty you guys take with the Bible to make words not say exactly what they seem to, it's kinda telling that you don't even bother to check out the context on this one.
Whatever Darwin's "race" intention was, it was certainly used/abused in many an ideology to excuse/explain their horrendous crimes.
Are you suggesting that the TOE has in no way impacted our view of morality?
P.S. you take great liberty in knowing what I do/don't do with my religious convictions.
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseSo by your logic Einstein should apologise to the Japanese for Hiroshima? No theory of relativity, no atomic bomb. In fact, I think you'll find that Mendel's work (around the same time) shows that eugenics doesn't work (because of recessive alleles). Thus anyone with an understanding of even 1861 genetics and evolutionary theory could tell you that eugenics doesn't work!!!
Intellectually stunted? I guess I qualify.
Indeed, let's celebrate the man who knowingly or unknowingly gave ideological permission for genocide, racism and eugenics.
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYou are forcing words into Darwin's mouth. Favoured races basically means the evolutionary 'fittest'. Anyhoo, you're judging someone from 150 years ago by todays standards. Why don't we judge American christians by the fact that Blacks were 2nd class citizens up until 50 years ago, or that US christains kept slaves?
Na-ah. Here's the full title of the innocent sounding "Origin of Species": On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. The emphasis is my own, but this doesn't need a long shot in deducting the gist. This particular scientific theory had ethical ramifications.
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseThe same abuse of the bible has been commited hundreds of times (crusades, holy wars and burning of witches). I'm sure you're not going to tell us that the bible in itself is a bad thing and that christ actually encourages us to commit such acts.
Whatever Darwin's "race" intention was, it was certainly used/abused in many an ideology to excuse/explain their horrendous crimes.
13 Feb 06
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseI guess you do, today. "Ideological permission". Pathetic.
Intellectually stunted? I guess I qualify.
Indeed, let's celebrate the man who knowingly or unknowingly gave ideological permission for genocide, racism and eugenics.
You don't normally trot out such trite, contemptible little sound bleats. Perhaps astrology is to blame for your intellectual nadir coinciding with Darwin's birthday.
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by WulebgrIndeed. Darwin was quite "non-racist" as far as that goes. My problem lies with the moral/ideological implications/perversions of his theory.
Darwin was thinking of the human race. It was Herbert W, Spencer that perverted his idea to define "favored race" as the English, as opposed to the Irish (for example), and the white races as opposed to the black (for example), and that gave rise to the work of Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton, and the rise of eugenics, and the Anglo and American perversio ...[text shortened]... Mismeasure of Man[/i] summarizes this checkered history better than any other single volume.
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageDid I strike the right chord? Judging from your reaction, my statement should have been in the "religious jokes" thread.
I guess you do, today. "Ideological permission". Pathetic.
You don't normally trot out such trite, contemptible little sound bleats. Perhaps astrology is to blame for your intellectual nadir coinciding with Darwin's birthday.
13 Feb 06
2 edits
Originally posted by HalitosePerversions of Darwin's notions of natural selection have enabled far fewer evils than perversions of the scriptures (or even plain sense readings of certain scriptures). The theory of evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence. As with any truth, people have sought to force it to conform to prejudices they carried before they knew of the theory. In the case of racism, for instance, these prejudices had a long history of biblical support (perverse bible reading IMHO) before Darwin came on the scene.
Indeed. Darwin was quite "non-racist" as far as that goes. My problem lies with the moral/ideological implications/perversions of his theory.
If you object to natural selection because H.W. Spencer and his disciples perverted it, what truths can you embrace? I submit that there are none.
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by HalitoseYour backpedaling . . .
I've found TalkOrigins to be obfuscatory on more than one occasion. The site is hardly the beacon of unbiased discussion.
Whatever Darwin's "race" intention was, it was certainly used/abused in many an ideology to excuse/explain their horrendous crimes.
Are you suggesting that the TOE has in no way impacted our view of morality?
P.S. you take great liberty in knowing what I do/don't do with my religious convictions.
TalkOrigins has one up though. While it is biased, it is biased and extremely well-educated on the issue. The education leads to the bias in this case, because in science their are not always two-sides to every story. If you don't understand what they're saying, that's your own fault. I figured given the Creationist propaganda you eagerly embrace, obfuscation would be a bonus in your book.
Anyway if it is your unbiased opinion that we should not celebrate Darwin's memory because some people have tried to use his big idea to justify their selfish motives, then by the same reasoning, you should be out passionately protesting Christmas.
Let's call a spade a spade. You don't like the implications of evolution, not because you've found serious holes in it or because some people have misapplied it, but rather because you haven't found a way to make it jive with your superstition. For that reason, no matter what science or logic you have to step upon, you will attack every semblance of evolution.
13 Feb 06
Originally posted by WulebgrPerversions of Darwin's notions of natural selection have enabled far fewer evils than perversions of the scriptures (or even plain sense readings of certain scriptures).
Perversions of Darwin's notions of natural selection have enabled far fewer evils than perversions of the scriptures (or even plain sense readings of certain scriptures). The theory of evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence. As with any truth, people have sought to force it to conform to prejudices they carried before they knew of the theory. In the ...[text shortened]... ncer and his disciples perverted it, what truths can you embrace? I submit that there are none.
I think that would only be the case because of the huge difference in the time these two compared entities have been around.
The theory of evolution is supported by overwhelming evidence.
If you mean microevolution, then you have my complete agreement.
As with any truth, people have sought to force it to conform to prejudices they carried before they knew of the theory. In the case of racism, for instance, these prejudices had a long history of biblical support (perverse bible reading IMHO) before Darwin came on the scene.
Yep.
If you object to natural selection because H.W. Spencer and his disciples perverted it, what truths can you embrace? I submit that there are none.
I don't object to anything (in this thread anyway). I was merely making a point.