Holding their feet to the fire ...

[Jorge]

Jorge, evolution isn't a justification in the United States for fetal abortion. It won't be.

Now I suspect, and I should wish I was wrong, it will be for getting rid of children with serious birth defects in Australia. They may have already done it. Granted it would be pointless because birth defects are not passed into the gene pool. And lack of intelligence is not passed into the gene pool either.

I think you should do the or apologize on this one.

You're asking me to apologize because you are totally ignorant on this topic?

You wanna run that one by me again, OS?

Go get educated, pay the lady a buck and try again.

Jorge

[Omniskeptical]

You're asking me to apologize because you are totally ignorant on this topic?

You wanna run that one by me again, OS?

Go get educated, pay the lady a buck and try again.

Jorge

I am sorry, but I couldn't help notice you seem to work the Australian side of creationism more. I think you only have the courage to be a

[rogue06]

You sure do have hutzpah, Roy - calling me out when YOU haven't even addressed my very first post (OP) in this thread - did you actually think that I was going to forget?

Here's part of it - let's see your rational rebuttal:

In the image below, for example, we see how they wish to deceive utilizing propaganda and psychology that would have made Joseph Goebbels proud. Specifically, knowing that most people recoil at the word "eugenics" they changed the name of this "scientific" journal in 1969 from "Eugenics Quarterly" (oops - their agenda is out in the open) to "Social Biology" (much better - a deceptively harmless name and agenda) so that people aren't repulsed.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]2014[/ATTACH]




Could it be any more obvious?

You don't want to openly admit the patently obvious? Fine - you have a right to be dishonest if that is your choice. I too have a right - to expose that dishonesty for all to see.

Just a few of the telling articles in that "scientific" journal:

Article: Attitudes of parents of retarded children toward voluntary sterilization, M.S. Bass, Eugenics quarterly 04/1967; 14(1):45-53.

Article: Jews, genetics and disease, R.H. Post, Eugenics quarterly 10/1965; 12(3):162-4.

Article: Additional comments on schizophrenia and evolution, R.E. Kuttner & A.B. Lorincz, Eugenics quarterly 07/1967; 14(2):160-1.


That's just a very small sample. It is enlightening to read their early articles (1950's) to see the role that Evolution plays in all of this. As years went by they began to "soften" their speech and better-conceal their motives. Once again, satanically-deceptive tactics.



We all be a'waitin', RRRRRoy.

Jorge

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post94244

[Method]

You're a witless child, Beagle Boy - not even a challenge for me.

I have a challenge. Find an evolutionist who tries to justify abortion by referencing evolution.

[Omniskeptical]

Hitler, perhaps. He wasn't a Darwinist though.

[klaus54]

Hitler, perhaps. He wasn't a Darwinist though.

This is incorrect, irrelevant, and confusing.

[Cerebrum123]

This is incorrect, irrelevant, and confusing.

So you think Hitler was a Darwinist? Just asking for clarification, I don't want to get into a debate right now.

[klaus54]

So you think Hitler was a Darwinist? Just asking for clarification, I don't want to get into a debate right now.

It's incorrect that Hitler was an "evolutionist".

That's been refuted over and over -- a few times by Rogue IIRC.

And the question posed was about demonstrating the existence of an abortion advocate who used evolution (not "Darwinism" you YECs use as an ignorant irrelevant pejorative) as a favorable argument.

And the little fella "OmniWhatsHisMajorMalfunction" is ALWAYS confusing.

So my statement stands on all points.

K54

[Cerebrum123]

It's incorrect that Hitler was an "evolutionist".

That's been refuted over and over -- a few times by Rogue IIRC.

And the question posed was about demonstrating the existence of an abortion advocate who used evolution (not "Darwinism" you YECs use as an ignorant irrelevant pejorative) as a favorable argument.

And the little fella "OmniWhatsHisMajorMalfunction" is ALWAYS confusing.

So my statement stands on all points.

K54

I'm taking this as proof that you aren't even carefully reading responses to you. I'm going to be asking for official permission to place you on ignore(different rules for moderators on this). I thought I would tell you before it happened though.

[klaus54]

I'm taking this as proof that you aren't even carefully reading responses to you. I'm going to be asking for official permission to place you on ignore(different rules for moderators on this). I thought I would tell you before it happened though.

You are even more confusing than OS.

My post was clear.

Ignore away.

Considering the source, it is an honor.

K54

[phank]

I have a challenge. Find an evolutionist who tries to justify abortion by referencing evolution.

Not just an evolutionist (whatever that might be), but really anybody who cites evolution as a reason for either opposing or supporting abortion. That battle is being fought on grounds that have nothing to do with biology, and basically pit religious zeal ("thou shalt not kill") against political ideals (individual freedom and liberty).

[rogue06]

Oh, and Charles Darwin's "Descent of Man" most certainly did promote eugenics ideas, although he was rather two faced about it. The "overwhelming evil" quote that rogue06 throws out is nullified by Darwin's excessive scientific arguments in favor of such activities in the preceding paragraphs.

This brings to mind a famous quote from the theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli that a notion is "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" ("It is not only not right, it is not even wrong!").

Writers often present the various points supporting a view they disagree with before they go on to explain why they disagree with it. This method is one way of demonstrating that you understand and have considered the arguments presented by the other side. You can even concede that they have a point. It also demonstrates that you aren't merely arguing against a straw man characterization of them.

IIRC, Stephen Jay Gould would spend an entire chapter presenting the views he disagreed with before spending the rest of the book explaining why he disagreed. Darwin didn't go that far. He boiled it succinctly to one point that he thought overrode all other considerations -- that such a course of action was morally unacceptable. It was an "overwhelming evil."

[Jorge]

.
.
.
He boiled it succinctly to one point that he thought overrode all other considerations -- that such a course of action was morally unacceptable. It was an "overwhelming evil."

"... morally unacceptable ... overwhelming evil"

According to whose morality and definition of evil?

Once upon a time it was evil / morally unacceptable to kill an unborn child. Today, modern "science" -- in which Evolutionism is a major player -- defines a fetus as a "potential human being ... not yet human" and so it is perfectly legitimate to "kill" the unborn. Thus, we work to earn wages to pay taxes to support this ideology of murder which modern "science" (including Evolutionism) supports.

One day - likely not today - you are finally going to connect the dots and the ol' light bulb will begin to flicker with life. Then you'll say, "Ohhhhhhhh, so that's what Jorge and the other biblical Creationists were trying to tell me!"

That will be a great day.

Jorge

[Roy]

Once upon a time it was evil / morally unacceptable to kill an unborn child. Today, modern "science" -- in which Evolutionism is a major player -- defines a fetus as a "potential human being ... not yet human" and so it is perfectly legitimate to "kill" the unborn. Thus, we work to earn wages to pay taxes to support this ideology of murder which modern "science" (including Evolutionism) supports.

You still haven't bothered to support this claim from earlier in the thread, despite repeated requests: "The point is that those Atheists that ARE pro-death will use Evolution as "scientific" justification for their position."

The above rant is just more unsupported and unsupportable twaddle in the same vein. Invented garbage that does not merit a response.

Roy

[Jesse]

I just have a question Jorge. Not wanting to debate any points because I am not really up on large parts of the Evolution/Creation debate. I just wanted to know, what in your belief makes it impossible for God and Evolution to go hand in hand? I don't want to be off topic, but from this thread it seems you are saying most evils can be attributed to Evolution. I am not sure how that squares.