Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Human Intelligence
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 193 (86377)
02-15-2004 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by crashfrog
02-12-2004 6:31 PM


You think time is maybe slower in Africa or something?
You're asking what I think? I think man has changed over time (variations), but not that he evolved from a frog or a primate. I think Darwin was clearly a racist, and his scientific views weren't "culture" driven. It's the hatred that Satan manages to put into our hearts (after we wander into enemy territory). He leads us to hatred, fights, brutality, wars, etc. Satan hates God, and he hates us because we remind him of God every time he sees us. His OoS was a rebellion against God. Hey, you asked me what I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2004 6:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 3:30 AM Skeptick has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 137 of 193 (86385)
02-15-2004 3:30 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Skeptick
02-15-2004 2:41 AM


Hey, you asked me what I think.
Actually, what my question clearly asked you was how you managed to interpret what I said in the exactly opposite way that I intended it.
How did you manage to conclude that Europeans are more evolved than Africans from a statement that said that Europeans and Africans share a common ancestor, and as such are equally evolved?
Your thoughts on God, Satan, etc. are noted but off-topic. (And I notice that you never joined the thread that I directed you to after you specifically asked me to. Changed your mind?) Instead of talking about what we think, why don't we talk about what is?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 2:41 AM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 4:39 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 141 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 5:07 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 193 (86391)
02-15-2004 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 3:30 AM


How did you manage to conclude that Europeans are more evolved than Africans from a statement that said that Europeans and Africans share a common ancestor, and as such are equally evolved?
Because that's what Darwin led his readers to believe. Do you remember your history book that referenced the headlines "...science proves negroes not human..." that white supremacists loved in those days? (and not just THOSE days). Oh, yes, that's what people were led to believe, and the thanks goes to Darwin himself.

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 3:30 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 4:47 AM Skeptick has replied
 Message 144 by Sylas, posted 02-15-2004 10:05 AM Skeptick has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 139 of 193 (86392)
02-15-2004 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Skeptick
02-15-2004 4:39 AM


Because that's what Darwin led his readers to believe.
We covered this.
Are we talking about Darwin's writings now, or the modern Theory of Evolution? You don't seem to be able to tell the difference.
Oh, yes, that's what people were led to believe, and the thanks goes to Darwin himself.
Good thing we don't teach evolution out of the Origin of Species anymore.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 4:39 AM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 5:05 AM crashfrog has replied
 Message 145 by Sylas, posted 02-15-2004 10:09 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 153 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 1:16 AM crashfrog has replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 193 (86394)
02-15-2004 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 4:47 AM


You asked me a question in post 137, and I answered it. Are you following along here?

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 4:47 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 5:13 AM Skeptick has not replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 193 (86395)
02-15-2004 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 3:30 AM


(And I notice that you never joined the thread that I directed you to after you specifically asked me to. Changed your mind?)
Which thread? I was probably laughing so hard at one of your responses that I may have missed your direction.

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 3:30 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 5:16 AM Skeptick has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 142 of 193 (86397)
02-15-2004 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Skeptick
02-15-2004 5:05 AM


Are you following along here?
Are you? First you asked me if Darwin was racist, and then you queried me about the modern evolutionary model of human evolution. When I answered you, you substituted my meaning for what you gleaned from Darwin's book.
So what are we talking about, here? Darwin's writings, or the modern theory of evolution? For the second or third time, do you understand the difference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 5:05 AM Skeptick has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 143 of 193 (86398)
02-15-2004 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Skeptick
02-15-2004 5:07 AM


Which thread?
This one:
EvC Forum: If god can do anything he wants...
Remember? You were going to set me straight about Satan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 5:07 AM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 1:41 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 144 of 193 (86408)
02-15-2004 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Skeptick
02-15-2004 4:39 AM


Skeptick writes:
Because that's what Darwin led his readers to believe. Do you remember your history book that referenced the headlines "...science proves negroes not human..." that white supremacists loved in those days? (and not just THOSE days). Oh, yes, that's what people were led to believe, and the thanks goes to Darwin himself.
This is past a joke, Skeptick. Darwin was diametrically the opposite of that scientifically and biologically ridiculous understanding of human races. Darwin was also the very opposite of a white supremist. He was passionately opposed to slavery, or to any subjugation of one race by another.
I discussed this in post 125 of this thread.
You are promulgating untruths which are deliberately put about by malicious charlatans who do not have the honesty or integrity to deal truthfully with what Darwin actually said.
The notions of racial superiority were established long before Darwin or evolution were every dreamed of. Racists have attempted to distort and misuse both religion and science to their own ends.
Creationists, with a similar disregard for truth or integrity, have distorted and misused this history to their own ends; unjustly maligning a man who was committed socially and scientifically to the equal humanity of all races. This is repulsive. In fact, I call it truly evil.
You have hinted that you have yourself read Darwin's major works "Origin of Species" and "Descent of Man".
If that is true, then you are telling deliberate lies about Darwin's views.
If that is not true, then you have chosen a very inaccurate handle; a true Skeptick would not simply take on trust such idiotic statements about Darwin's view; but would check what Darwin wrote for themselves.
Darwin worked for recognition of all races as equally human. It was part and parcel of his scientific work, and it was a major social concern of his as well.
Few things make me more angry that this malicious distortion. It reveals the moral bankruptcy of many in the creationist movement, that they are willing to endorse such plain untruths on such a serious matter simply to smeer their bogeyman. I am utterly revolted by it.
My hope is you are simply the naive victim of propaganda spread by others. I beg of you, for the sake of your own integrity, that you go and read Darwin's own words on the human races for yourself before you attempt to respond to this matter further.
Chapter 7 of the "Descent of Man" is about human races. Read it through, with the honest intent to see for yourself what Darwin's social and scientific views were in actuality. Read the rest of the book as well, and also a good biography of the man. Contrast his views with those of his creationist captain (Fitzroy) on the matter of slavery. It is one minor detail, but indicative of Darwin's approach.
Sylas
(Added in edit: The Descent of Man is available on-line. A quick scan on-line is not as good as sitting down with the book to read properly; but I confess that it is convenient for quickly finding the relevant sections in context. The same site also provides On the Origin of Species, The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals, and The Voyage of the Beagle.)
[This message has been edited by Sylas, 02-15-2004]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 4:39 AM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 12:51 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Sylas
Member (Idle past 5260 days)
Posts: 766
From: Newcastle, Australia
Joined: 11-17-2002


Message 145 of 193 (86411)
02-15-2004 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 4:47 AM


crashfrog writes:
Skeptick writes:
Oh, yes, that's what people were led to believe, and the thanks goes to Darwin himself.
Good thing we don't teach evolution out of the Origin of Species anymore.
Careful, crashfrog. Don't take anything Skeptick says on this at face value; it is too important.
Darwin's work, in Origin of Species and in Descent of Man and indeed in all his life and writings, says precisely the opposed of what Skeptick has claimed.
Darwin emphasized that the so-called human races were all equally human; repeatedly, at length, and backed up by extensive observation and argument.
Sylas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 4:47 AM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Skeptick, posted 02-16-2004 12:43 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 193 (86435)
02-15-2004 1:41 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 5:16 AM


You wrote:
[qs/](And I notice that you never joined the thread that I directed you to after you specifically asked me to. Changed your mind?)[/qs]
The thread you mention has nine posts on it from me. But in one post, you do mention another thread, but it seems as if there are good debates going there and I would only repeat much of what has already been said. Should I make a few posts in cheerleader style, supporting those people who actually make sense? Or do you have a specific question that hasn't already been answered there? And I don't know where you got the idea that I would "set you straight" on anything. That's YOUR method of dealing with your fellow man.
What I did say was:
Start the new thread and we'll hit the next topic.... You asked the question, you can start the thread. I don't claim to have the answers; some other folks may. Good discussion will probably ensue.
Now where in blazes did you get the idea that I was intent on setting you straight on Satan? YOU asked the question, while I didn't want to get accused of topic drift again, so I tossed the ball back to you since you asked it (and especially since Admin seems to (relatively) rarely jump on evolutionists for topic drift).
Your quote above just proves once again that all you seem to be interested only in is being able to stubbornly hold your ground in an argument no matter how hopeless your position is, or how ridiculous your arument may be. You twist, turn, weave, bob, accuse, play dirty pool, changes horses in mid-stream, etc, etc, rather than discuss in good faith. You have not demonstrated that you care about who may have made a good point, just who can win the argument (you seem to consider it a win if you get the last word, or depart from the topic by setting off every fallacy argument alarm in the book), even if it means twisting another man's words, or even fabricating something he never said. Luckily, there are only a couple of you like that on this forum. For the most part, this is a good forum with quite intelligent people offering well thought out opinions. The only reason I continue to respond to you is, well, I'll explain that later. You have indeed been an unexpected windfall for me. My time on this forum has almost expired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 5:16 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 2:56 PM Skeptick has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 147 of 193 (86445)
02-15-2004 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Skeptick
02-15-2004 1:41 PM


The thread you mention has nine posts on it from me.
*sigh*
No. Not the "If God can do anything he wants" thread. I'm talking about the "God and Good Parenting" thread, which you asked me to dig up, and then never joined.
But in one post, you do mention another thread, but it seems as if there are good debates going there and I would only repeat much of what has already been said.
At no point was the problem of the existence of Satan discussed there. I know because I was involved in all of the discussion (it's my thread.)
So, go there an answer the question - how could a morally good, all-powerful God allow the existence of Satan to persist?
Or, you know, don't. But if you're going to back out of an agreement to discuss something, it'd be nice of you to say so.
Now where in blazes did you get the idea that I was intent on setting you straight on Satan?
The part where you said this:
quote:
Start the new thread and we'll hit the next topic....
Did you or did you not write those words? Did you or did you not use the word "we"?
Who were you talking about when you said "we"? I opened the topic. You said that if I did so, "we" would hit it. Well, I'm waiting for your part of "we".
You have not demonstrated that you care about who may have made a good point, just who can win the argument (you seem to consider it a win if you get the last word, or depart from the topic by setting off every fallacy argument alarm in the book), even if it means twisting another man's words, or even fabricating something he never said.
Yeah, yeah. Not the first time I've heard this bullshit.
The problem is, I only ever hear it from people who are doing these exact things. Therefore I can only conclude that it's some kind of projection or something.
But, whatever. I'm comfortable with the fact that all of our exchanges are recorded, because the actual historical record makes it very clear who distorts statements, willfully misunderstands, and fails to rebut points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 1:41 PM Skeptick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Skeptick, posted 02-15-2004 11:31 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 193 (86540)
02-15-2004 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by crashfrog
02-15-2004 2:56 PM


Did you or did you not write those words? Did you or did you not use the word "we"?
Again, weaving, bobbing, twisting, turning, dodging, fabricating, etc., to serve your own purpose. Define "WE" please. While you're at it, let's play your game and define the word "did" and "or". It's ludicrous and you're proving all the points I've been making about how you argue. I did NOT make the statement in the context that you show above. I DID say:
Start the new thread and we'll hit the next topic.... You asked the question, you can start the thread. I don't claim to have the answers; some other folks may. Good discussion will probably ensue.
"WE" refers to the people on this forum, as you can see above (did you notice the word "folks"?). You're only interested in being argumentative. I didn't challenge you with the question, YOU were the one who asked it. If you're interested, start the topic (primarily because the question was off topic); I didn't claim to have the answers; some other folks may (I am repeating myself because you don't seem to get it the first time) as you see above. I already explained in a different post why the pain and suffering exists in this world, but you ridiculed that like anything else you don't like. Then you wanted to talk about Satan, and I responded with the above words, and you interpreted them like you did. You have proved my point once again that you are highly interested in pointless off topic arguing.
Yeah, yeah. Not the first time I've heard this BS
Yeah, funny that other people have told you the same thing, eh?
[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-15-2004]

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by crashfrog, posted 02-15-2004 2:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2004 1:09 AM Skeptick has replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 193 (86552)
02-16-2004 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Sylas
02-15-2004 10:09 AM


Darwin emphasized that the so-called human races were all equally human; repeatedly, at length, and backed up by extensive observation and argument.
Really? Ya know, if you evolutionists would at least get together ahead of time to decide what lie they're going to tell the rest of us, it wouldn't be so embarrassing for them.
Please explain what Darwin meant when he wrote:
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.
You also wrote:
Darwin's work, in Origin of Species and in Descent of Man and indeed in all his life and writings, says precisely the opposed of what Skeptick has claimed.
Well, then lets see how you can twist the words of Stephen J. Gould:
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."
Stephen J. Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 127
My claims are inaccurate? I'm using information from YOUR camp. Will you distance yourself from SJG?
[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-16-2004]

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Sylas, posted 02-15-2004 10:09 AM Sylas has not replied

  
Skeptick
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 193 (86553)
02-16-2004 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Sylas
02-15-2004 10:05 AM


This is past a joke, Skeptick. Darwin was diametrically the opposite of that scientifically and biologically ridiculous understanding of human races.
See post 149 of this thread.
You are promulgating untruths which are deliberately put about by malicious charlatans who do not have the honesty or integrity to deal truthfully with what Darwin actually said.
Hmmm. You don't mean Stephen J. Gould, do you? See post 149 too.
"Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory."
Stephen J. Gould, Ontogeny and Phylogeny (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1977), p. 127
[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-16-2004]

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Sylas, posted 02-15-2004 10:05 AM Sylas has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by crashfrog, posted 02-16-2004 1:15 AM Skeptick has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024