Stanek Sunday quote: “How is it that you don’t now how to interpret this present time?”
He said to the crowd: “When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, ‘It’s going to rain,’ and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, ‘It’s going to be hot,’ and it is. Hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don’t know how to interpret this present time?”
~ Luke 12:54-56, New International Version
[JLS note: This passage reminded me of promoters of man-made global warming. Think they they are so smart. They try to decode climate patterns while failing to recognize that the world’s spiritual climate is descending into darkness at a faster and faster pace, and the evil one who is behind it. And they go so far as to make graphics such as above without recognizing the irony of it, the Maker of climate.]

I don’t think it’s “ironic” at all. Do you expect climate scientists to stop studying scientific evidence for religious reasons or what? I don’t get the argument here. Science can be tested, religion can’t be. They are completely different spheres.
(Motor boat lip show of frustration.)
Jack,
“Climate change” is every bit as speculative as any religion. They can measure all they want and they can’t keep up with the constant change. The warming trend ended 15 years ago, exactly when the hysteria began in full force. The northeast has had a very cool Spring, and here it is mid-June with only one or two 90-degree days so far.
The Signs of the Times are just as clear as day-to-day weather changes. Four great pebbles in the pond of moral confusion, war, famine, and disease that have been spreading in ever-expanding concentric circles throughout history.
I.e., the wheels are coming off.
” “Climate change” is every bit as speculative as any religion. They can measure all they want and they can’t keep up with the constant change. The warming trend ended 15 years ago, exactly when the hysteria began in full force. The northeast has had a very cool Spring, and here it is mid-June with only one or two 90-degree days so far.”
It’s global climate change, not “region X change”. There’s no real debate in the scientific community that global temperatures are changing on average, the scientific consensus is over 95%. There’s more dissent over whether it’s anthropogenic or not, but that’s a separate issue.
There’s actually less death due to warfare (which is mostly due to types of weaponry and fighting that doesn’t have quite as much collateral damage as types in the past), and disease (as a percentage, much less people die of disease than in previous centuries). I guess I simply don’t get the doom and gloom We’re not worse off than previous generations when it comes to that kind of stuff.
All of that is besides the point to my issue here. I don’t see what one has to do with the other. People who study climate science are being ironic how? Are they supposed to not do the jobs that they are trained for because of what? Just don’t get it.
The gist of it is that while they push pencils around about a questionable theory…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/
…the moral climate is worsening.
Common threads to be found amongst climate change deniers –
personal greed- they don’t care
or
end of days draws near – so it doesn’t matter
or
god’ll fix it
Common threads to be found amongst we-CAN-and-MUST-do-something-about-climate believers:
personal greed- university professors live off it
or
end of days draws near – and only we can avert it
or
Big Government and carbon credits will fix it
“The gist of it is that while they push pencils around about a questionable theory
…the moral climate is worsening.”
But that’s my issue. They are scientists (or people making policies based on science). They aren’t theologians or philosophers or religious leaders or community service professionals. It’s not even related, it’s the weirdest comparison ever. It’s like telling the physicists at the LHC that how DARE they study theoretical physics when there’s moral decay in the world! It’s just… weird.
“university professors live off it” – Loonie “Lord” Monckton doesn’t seem to be doing too badly out of it. Nor anyone funded by the Koch brothers and certain corporations.
“and only we can avert it” – end of planet hasn’t been cited, just how humanity will be impacted. Nice big influx of climate refugees anyone?
“Big Government and carbon credits will fix it” – sure, waiting for industry to deal wiith it would be so much more fruitful wouldn’t it.
Jack, maybe it’s simply the case that the ability to deny the science of evolution goes hand in glove with the ability to deny the science of climate change?
Just keep repeating that word science, Reality.
Evolution and climate change theory are both science, yes.
Creationism (not that it’s wrong to think the universe had/has a creator, but it’s not a scientific theory and really can’t be) and denialism are not science.
Hans I got the chance to read your Reuters link, did you read it? It doesn’t deny that climate change is happening, at all, it’s showing that current models overshot how fast it was going to happen and they are trying to figure out why.
The beauty of science is that it’s evidence based. If new evidence occurs that puts past models into doubt, then new theories are developed or the current models are tweaked. That’s what happened when Newton’s Laws (which are fine for normal events but break down when things are very very small or going very very fast) were amended when General and Special Relativity were postulated. And now people are taking a hard look at relativity while they study quantam physics. It’s progress, it’s good.
I suppose some people think we should ignore the climate and not try to find out what is going on, throw out our current model instead of adding new information?
You might get bored with that Jon. How about you just click on this a few times each day
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
You’re welcome :-)
Environmental problems and moral decay go hand in hand. When God created the earth, He set it with a certain natural order. God intended humans to be good stewards over His creation including ourselves. When we violate that natural harmony, natural and manmade disasters follow e.g. dust bowls, floods, Silent Spring. The same goes with the Natural Law.
This is funny. “Reality” is a scientific expert on life, but won’t give any answer regarding when life begins – other than the Velveteen Rabbit answer – “when someone loves it, it becomes real.”
Now we discover that he or she is an expert on spotting climate disaster in the future by a handful of prognostic indicators known only to aq special few today. That is impressive.
Also, an expert on the “observable” “science” of evolution. How many species have we observed pop into existence? I missed that lecture in college.
What’s upsetting the scientists is the cooling trend while the evil natural element of carbon has only increased. Everyone knows climate changes. They are fueling the ant-population growth movement, and we know what one of their favorite tools is for that.
I’ll listen to evolutionary scientists with a little less scepticism when they are as sure of when life begins as they seem to be on how all of Life began.
This is really funny. That’s a beautiful amalgam of distortions and misquotes TLD!
“but won’t give any answer regarding when life begins – other than the Velveteen Rabbit answer – “when someone loves it, it becomes real.” – show me where I said that. I have also given answers to when life begins. What I have argued, and what is pertinent, is when ‘personhood’ begins. You are conflating two concepts.
“Now we discover that he or she is an expert on spotting climate disaster in the future by a handful of prognostic indicators known only to aq special few today.” – show me where I indicated I was an expert on spotting climate disaster. ‘special few’? Haven’t looked into this much have you.
“Also, an expert on the “observable” “science” of evolution. How many species have we observed pop into existence?” – more conflated comedy.
Oh, and by the way, species don’t ‘pop into existence’.
“I missed that lecture in college.” – yeah, go on, now ask me ‘if we are descended from apes why are there still apes?’ and ‘where are the transitional fossils?’
Got some ‘observable’ ‘science’ for a ‘creator’ have you?
The proof for a Creator is the lack of proof for no need for one. The odds are astronomically against chemicals forming the simplest lifeforms. The odds are also astronomically against a simple lifeform becoming a more complex lifeform when the odds are also against their very survival in the first place.
There are two great Faiths. Belief in God and belief everything in the Universe holds the greatest winning lottery tickets (not) possible.
“The proof for a Creator is the lack of proof for no need for one.” – how convenient that is when placed against the evidence for evolution.
“The odds are astronomically against chemicals forming the simplest lifeforms. The odds are also astronomically against a simple lifeform becoming a more complex lifeform when the odds are also against their very survival in the first place.” – over the course of six thousand years, sure. Not over billions of years. The odds of winning the lottery once let alone twice are astronomical too. But it happens.
“There are two great Faiths. Belief in God and belief everything in the Universe hold the greatest winning lottery tickets (not) possible.(?)” – and then there’s science.
“The proof for a Creator is the lack of proof for no need for one.”
1. there is not a lack of proof for no need for one.
2. ‘god of the gaps’ is not a modern phenomenon. But the gaps are getting smaller and smaller and smaller.
“The proof for a Creator is the lack of proof for no need for one. The odds are astronomically against chemicals forming the simplest lifeforms. The odds are also astronomically against a simple lifeform becoming a more complex lifeform when the odds are also against their very survival in the first place.”
That’s not how science works though. Science follows the evidence. What this statement is doing is filling in an inherently untestable answer for something when we don’t know the exact mechanism (which is fine for theology, not so for science), which is the opposite of scientific.
Science needs to be testable. Evolution isn’t even on the theoretical level. It’s a postulation that you, Jack and Reality, have faith in being true.
You two are greater men of faith than I am!
I accept the overwhelming evidence that evolution is the most likely mechanism of the way life on earth is. If evidence that contradicts the theory as it stands now, it will be reevaluated and amended as it needs to be and I’ll accept that explanation. It’s not about faith.
“Evolution isn’t even on the theoretical level.” – that is so completely and utterly untrue. I would be interested to know how you make such a claim. Do you realise how much science currently in daily use proves you wrong?
“It’s a postulation that you, Jack and Reality, have faith in being true.” – anyone with the slightest knowledge of science, or even just what is happening in science, knows that that also is completely and utterly untrue.
“You two are greater men of faith than I am!” – well. speaking for myself, I have great faith that eventually even the most stubborn deniers of facts will realise that science is the proven answer.
How can you have overwhelming evidence of what has happened in the last few billion years? Any more than there is overwhelming evidence of global warming with only a few decades’ worth of measurements? To extrapolate over eons is wishful thinking, not 2+2 provable science.
There has been yet another fossil discovery of a lemur that is gushingly called our ancestor. In a few months, as always, page 32 will say, “Never mind. It was just another lemur.”
I just… radiometric dating? The entire field of paleontology? Transition fossils (which we have many of, it’s not all mistakes and hoaxes, those are a tiny percentage comparatively)? Anatomy and histology? Endogenous retroviruses? Genetic research?
I don’t understand how people can deny this stuff, even my dad who belonged to a cult that believed the earth was only 6000 years old admitted to me once he secretly agreed with the scientific consensus on evolution.
“How can you have overwhelming evidence of what has happened in the last few billion years” – because the evidence exists. It is there. Some is pure hard, physical evidence and some is testable and repeatable by scientific principles.
“There has been yet another fossil discovery of a lemur that is gushingly called our ancestor. In a few months, as always, page 32 will say, “Never mind. It was just another lemur.” – ‘our ancestor’ or another branch on the bilogical evolutionary tree Hans?
As Jack pointed out, it is quite common in all fields of science that scientists prove something wrong by proving what is right. New answers emerge, but those new answers are never ‘god’.
Radioactive half-lifes show a beginning, else all would be lead now. Unless you believe in constantly expanding and collapsing universes.
Transition species? Where? Archeopteryx is no more a transition species than a bat is.
No red-blooded American boy loved dinosaurs and astronomy any more than me. I just grew out of accepting it all happened by chance. I have a great imagination (I never needed an ultrasound to prove humans were in utero) but not that great.
“Transition species? Where? Archeopteryx is no more a transition species than a bat is.”
– and your qualifications in this field are??
– that’s one transitional fossil, care to critique some more?? And you will provide your evidence for disagreeing with all the eminent scientists in the field won’t you.
“I just grew out of accepting it all happened by chance.” – sounds more like you grew into not bothering to peruse the evidence.
On the contrary, Reality, you don’t have proof, but we both have evidence for our respective positions. And that’s because both creationism and evolutionism are based on presuppositions which we choose to accept. They’re faith-driven. And because I believe in the transcendent God, I find your goo-to-you mechanism ludicrous. How and why would it ever accomplish such complexities as sexuality? Does chance ever produce order?
Reality sez: “I have also given answers to when life begins.”
I have missed this in my sporadic reading. I would like to hear your view of when life begins. More interesting would be a clear statement on two things: one when life begins and two at what point in gestation do you believe an abortion could no longer be carried out because it would simply be a killing of a not-yet-born human.
I am not holding my breath, though. This game gets carried on by dodging such questions. The “personhood” distractor, for example.
I’m not a “creationist” as far as believing the universe is 6,000 years old. I’m more in the Intelligent Design camp. But to cap off closer to home, “global warming” is merely a secular doomsday prophecy that acts like weather cycles are something new.
“but we both have evidence for our respective positions” – the evidence for evolution is physical and scientific. That for creationism/ID isn’t.
I have astronomy, you have astrology is what it amounts to.
LDT – life began many millions of years ago.
A new life of the human species begins at conception/fertilization/whatever term of minutia anti-choicers declare it today.
When the woman carrying the fetus decides to give birth.
“The “personhood” distractor, for example” – it’s not a distractor. It’s fundamental.
Your camp isn’t split into creationism and intelligent design Hans. It’s split into creationism/ID and young earth creationists.
One of the leading lights of the first camp is Micahel Behe. There are many more. One of the leading lights of the second camp is Ken (saddle up that dinosaur for jesus) Ham.
“global warming” is merely a secular doomsday prophecy that acts like weather cycles are something new.” – disingenuously simplistic and false. It is the extent and outcomes of the changes in weather cycles and the underlying influences that constitute global warming.
Reality wrote, “The evidence for evolution is physical and scientific. That for creationism/ID isn’t.”
That’s nonsense. Since we’re talking about science, the evidence we’re talking about is scientific. You’re spouting mindless drivel. Intelligence is allowed in our discussion.
“That’s nonsense.” – not at all.
“Since we’re talking about science, the evidence we’re talking about is scientific.” – yes, and the sciences have a plethora of evidence for evolution. Hard, physical evidence and observable, testable evidence.
Creationism/ID doesn’t. It spouts mindless drivel.
Glad to hear you give Michael Behe some grudging respect, Reality. He at least looks at the cell in wonder, without jaded, solely scientific eyes.
I’m merely following the ID dictum, which is very close to that of Sherlock Holmes. If I eliminate the impossibilities of evolution, I’m left with the thought – no matter how improbable – that there was an Intelligent Designer.
“Glad to hear you give Michael Behe some grudging respect” – then you have seriously misinterpreted me. All I said was that he is a leading light of that movement. He is either a massive fool or a massive fraud. Maybe not as bad as Ken Ham though :-)
“He at least looks at the cell in wonder, without jaded, solely scientific eyes.” – scientists look at the cell in wonder too, they are constantly amazed. Then they go looking for proof and evidence for why things are so. I totally disagree that they are ‘jaded’. And yes, Behe doesn’t look at things with ‘solely scientific eyes’, that’s his dilemma.
“If I eliminate the impossibilities of evolution” – hey, that’s what serious scientists do too. Pity you don’t seem to have availed yourself of the possibilities of evolution. Or any of the stuff for which there is demonstrable evidence.
“I’m left with the thought – no matter how improbable – that there was an Intelligent Designer” – that’d be that ‘god of the gaps’ thing again.
There are more gaps in evolutinary theory. Look up transitional species and you get varieties within species. They’r looking at Rorschach test with their green glasses to see speciation. I wonder what they would do with the skelotons of a Chihuhua and an English bulldog.
“There are more gaps in evolutinary theory.” – well I guess that stacked up against ‘god is real ‘cos the bible says so and the bible is true ‘cos it’s god’s word” it would seem that way.
“Look up transitional species and you get varieties within species.” – what is it about ‘transitional’ and ‘varieties within species’ that you see as contradictory? It’s the timelines and movements through transition which demonstrate the act of evolving. It’s not just ad hoc or ransom one-offs which are used and identified as transitional.
“I wonder what they would do with the skeletons of a Chihuhua and an English bulldog.” – they would identify them as chihuhua and english bulldog. If there were some other skeletons as well then they may show evidence of a transition from one to the other. Or they may show random mutations. The scientists love proving each other wrong so the evidence would need to be strong. As it is before transitional fossils are demonstrated.
Give em enough rope, we used to say when I was involved with the “democrats”/communists, and some conservative speaker would appear on campus, drawing heckles from some of us superior-intellect liberals. It often worked well. Let some conservative keep talking and they would eventually say something about how black ppl are inferior, or how only property owners should be allowed to vote. I observed, and learned.
“Reality” is a cult member in a cult that, as all the rest of the cults do, has a set of beliefs that are not concordant with reality, but are heartily and haughtily are sure they are correct, and have a spoon-fed thought-complex with which to respond when the illogic of their sacred views are threatened. Forthe cultists, conservatives are dumb, racist, white, and misogynistic. That knowledge assures me that any time I get into an argument with a marxist, I will eventually come out on top, as long as the marxist hangs in their in a civil, educated mannner. Because the erroneous belief, upon which the cult depends, will eventually have to come up. Evolution may or may not be true. But the anti-Christian marxists need it to be true as a matter of cultish belief.
A sacred view of marxists is evolution. Darwin allowed the resent-filled elitist intellectuals point to “science” as a refutation of the prevailing answer to the question of where did all of the species come from. Darwin titled his influential tome “The origin of species.” The marxists need this to frame the ‘cultural hegemony’ of Christianity, the nukelar family, and commerce as evil. Once everyone realizes the ‘oppression,’ there will be revolution to usher in the “imagine” world Marx perceived, under Hegel’s heady influence.
“I wonder what they would do with the skeletons of a Chihuhua and an English bulldog.” – they would identify them as chihuhua and english bulldog. If there were some other skeletons as well then they may show evidence of a transition from one to the other. Or they may show random mutations.”
And the rest. Here, it is clearly shown that Reality believes that a Chihuahua and an English Bulldog are two different species.
They are not.
When the ‘evolutionists’ go to show you obvious, observable ‘evidence’ for evolution, they come up with something as laugable as this.
when you attempt to point out how they are beyond ludicrous, they change the topic. To the evolutionary line of the horse, or a hypothetical accouint of how the eyeball may have evolved.
Folks, I thought that way for decades, but I am here to tell ya: it all STARTS with true belief and an unquestioning acceptance of the way of the world, alawys traceable back to some handful of marxists.
The sad thing is many of us “liberals” and “democrat” do not realize how we have been taken advantage-of, taken over. most of us who are well-meaning in supporting abortion simply have not thought it through – because pre-fabricated bumper stickers have been stuck on our minds.
This is the reason for the vehemence in politics- the marxists are using the best intentions of ordinary citizens, surrupticiously, and are playing for keeps.
It is so obvious that my wife is amazed at how regularly I can set another liberal off into a spasm of vitriol. I know their rhetoric.
Far more testable and verifable than evolution.
This thread is kind of hilarious. The abortion advocate can’t wrap his brain around Intelligent Design or creationism (which I can understand how secularists struggle to understand those concepts). The hilarity? The same abortion advocate thinks a person isn’t a person until his mommy says the magic words over him. Yup. Veeery scientific.
Goodness me TLD, that does come across as a bit of an angry rant.
“democrats”/communists, superior-intellect liberals cults heartily and haughtily spoon-fed thought-complex misogynistic marxist”
“Evolution may or may not be true. But the anti-Christian marxists need it to be true as a matter of cultish belief.” – what about the non-marxists? What about the christians who acknowledge evolution?
“Reality” is a cult member in a cult that, as all the rest of the cults do, has a set of beliefs that are not concordant with reality” – easy assertion. Baseless in claim.
Comparing Darwin’s observations and discoveries with modern evolutionary science is like comparing a horse and cart with a formula one racing car. Both are valid and viable means of transport but light years apart in knowledge.
“it is clearly shown that Reality believes that a Chihuahua and an English Bulldog are two different species.” – your claim is untrue. There are vastly more varieties of dog now than there were in the past. Selective breeding and mutations are part of how this took place. Examining the skeletal remains over time assists in understanding how this divergence occured, they may show evidence of a transition from one to the other. Or they may show random mutations.
“it all STARTS with true belief and an unquestioning acceptance of the way of the world, alawys traceable back to some handful of marxists.” – well that’s a good theory! And here I was thinking you supported creationism. Evolutionary science is a marxist plot.
“It is so obvious that my wife is amazed at how regularly I can set another liberal off into a spasm of vitriol.” – I’m left with the impression that you have this slightly contorted.
From what you say about horses and eyeballs, I think the problem you have is that while evolutionary science continues to advance, creationism/ID is stuck in the past.
“The womens freedom advocate can’t wrap his brain around Intelligent Design or creationism” – to ‘wrap’ our brains around something it needs to contain at least a modicum of intelligence and/or sense.
“The same womens freedom advocate thinks a person isn’t a person until his mommy says the magic words over him.” – that’s the real life aspect, the way it is, then there’s the science.
So, if the abortion advocate’s mommy had a medical crisis and went into a coma while he was gestating, and though her body was able to support him until birth, she wasn’t able to speak the magic words over him. So, at what point does the ‘non-person’ become a ‘person’? If mommy stayed in a coma for a year, would that mean he couldn’t be a person for months after his birth? According to our resident troll, even our resident troll would not be a person yet. If mommy passed away instead of recovered, then he’d never be a person. I admit, I’m having trouble believing he’s a person now. LOL!
Reality sez: “Evolutionary science is a marxist plot.” This is not accurate. The theory of evolution would have eventually been described by someone. And it is a good theory. It simply has not been observed-and-tested. The marxist plot is the co-option of various ideas in science that serve to bolster the marxist view of the world.
Like Darwin, Marx was fortunate to be from a family of means, burdened with noblesse oblige, and able to avoid the drudgery of the work-a-day world and instead pursuing intellectual interests. Also, both were preacher wanna-be’s, so there is something of the personality make-up of wanting to morally direct others. But, (like Al Gore as well), neither continued on as a man of the cloth.
For those who are interested, you can google terms such as ‘evolution’ and ‘marxism.’ Evolutionists, from Darwin on, are not necessarily marxists. But the many varieties of marxism are usually very fond of evolution. An appeal of Marxism is that it is scientific-y: Marx believed he was figuring out the mechanics behind human history. His followers continue that belief.
A reason for accepting Marxism is that it is supposedly scientific: Marx knew that civilization would eventually evolve to a stage where all workers were co-managers of the means of production. This is an evolutionary stage following the current stage, where the owners of the means of production ‘oppress’ us in various ways.
Many of us liberals simply do not know this, but these intellectual traditions are well-tied together.
Darwin was in an intellectual circle with Galton, who was happy to hear of Darwin’s theory of where species, including humans, came from.
Both of these men realized that, if evolution is true, that mankind could be made ‘better.” Galton, like others in his society of means, were very concerned with the challenging issue of what to do with ne’er-do-well’s. Seemingly able-bodied vagrants and beggars who cause the rest of us to have to devote portions of our means to charity.
Investigating the history of the English “Poor Laws” is an easy way to get into this thorny topic. The intellectuals of Darwin’s day were sure they could answer the problem of the bothersome vagabonds, and so solve the problem of having to continually provide relief for these people who for some reason or another simply would not pull their own weight, and were a burden on society.
Darwin, Galton, and colleagues had all of this on their minds, as did Margaret Sanger later.
Making mankind better through the designs of elitist intellectuals who know better and never mis-step, is the heart of being a progressive.
Galton was the guy who coined the term “eugenics.”
There is a very strong intellectual line, and overlapping membership, between eugenicists, abortion advocates, and promoters of birth-control-for-all-including-in-the-water.
We progressives need a scienc-y sounding justification for why we should be the intellectuals in charge of deciding who gets to live and breed, and who does not.
Reading the history of eugenics pretty much illuminates this. We educated liberals are perplexed by the problem of these poor who always seem to be amongst us, despite what we do to provide ‘relief,’ or ‘reform’ them, or educate them about why they should not have so many babies (so they don’t burden us even more).
Hitler got all of his eugenics ideas from us educated liberals here in the U.S. We never talk about that: we need “Hitler” to be an icon of conservatism, not the socialist /idealist/ progressive he was. We cannot have people studying on their own and discovering this.
After Hitler, we figured out we had to give up on the term ‘eugenics.’
Despite that unfortunate quirk of history, we have carried on in the Hitlerian tradition of killing off the mentally retarded. right now, the best we can do is to kill those with MR who we can identifiy prenatally: those with Down Syndrome. There you have your crowning achievement of genetics. And recently, advances are moving us from the mistake of aborting five intellectually-normal kids for every 95 Down Syndrome kids to just aborting one intellectually-normal kid for every 99 Down Syndrome kids. That, my friends, is the progress you get when you turn the world over to us progressives.
Hitler’s love of eugenics forced us to change our rhetoric. We instead moved to “unwanted” children, “poverty traps,” ‘oppression’ of child-bearing, and the myth of ‘over-population.’ but do not despair: we still want to be able to kill off those with Down Syndrome (who, by the way, love life as much or more as the rest of us despite our admonitions that they live lives of ‘misery’), kill off those with Cystic Fibrosis (despite the fact that they also love life and that predicted life span advances nearly one year each year), and killing off females when detected in utero.
I was born after WWII, and certainly was not old enough to witness all of this intellectual development first-hand. So, all of this eugenics history has been quite revalatory to me. They never mentioned this in school!
But there is plenty of history to read on the web. All of our progessive anti-God ideals, pro-abortion ideals, and adoration for Darwin and evolution can be understood once you investigate these lines of intellectual history. Ideas can have impact, as they always taught me. Faced with gendercide in the United States of America, we grasp for the idea of ‘bodily autonomy,’ and other rhetoric, so we can avoid realizing that, in our own country, legal killing of females for being female happens every day. Well, every weekday.
So, ‘evolution’ is one idea that we belief securely places us liberals in authority to decide who gets what. We have no idea that this idea has been supplied to us, wrapped up with a bow, by Marxists.
But you have to have an open mind to be brave enough to put “E. O. Wilson” and “marxism” or Stephen Jay Gould” and “marxism” into google – at the same time. Or “evolution” and “marxism” at the same time.
Why is it that we do not recognize the subtitle of Darwin’s most famous book? “The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection—or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ” what is that about favored races? Are we liberal Darwinians being racist?
Aren’t we anti-racist?
Well, how better to sell racism on a grand scale then to pass liberla ideals and agenda as non-racist. More abortions in the Black community than white? Oh, that’s not racism; we are freeing “them” to be able to go experience economic progress. (The same economic progress we want to twart to save the planet from envirinmental collapse). We have traveled to all corners of the globe with our birth control pills and abortion technology so that those foreign darkies will not reproduce so much, and we believe we are the saviours over there in India, Korea, Vietnam, China, Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and all over the African continent.
Why won’t thy just take those pills like we instruct them? Darn those vagabonds and thieves – always taxing our charity and thwarting our attempts to ‘reform’ them!
And it takes boldness, bravery, and a willingness to have your strong beliefs questioned.
Until we liberals explore any of this, you can usually ignore us because we are usually simply spouting off a bunch of rhetoric that has been fed to us so we can stave of threats to our belief system.
Never mind that there are no decent transitional-fossil records. We have been assured there are, and we have been given the Chihuahua/Bulldog example as a handy retort.
“Evolutionary science is a marxist plot.” This is not accurate” – well that’s good to hear. It’s just what I surmised from the 101 conspiracy labels you included in your earlier piece.
It still sounds very much like you’re trying to throw the wet cloth of marxism on evolution.
“Hitler got all of his eugenics ideas from us educated liberals here in the U.S.” – you do have evidence for this don’t you?
“We never talk about that: we need “Hitler” to be an icon of conservatism,” – wow.
“not the socialist /idealist/ progressive he was.” – wow.
“We cannot have people studying on their own and discovering this.” – what does this even mean?
“we have carried on in the Hitlerian tradition of killing off the mentally retarded” – Germany did so under the directives and policy of the state. Abortions due to identified genetic defects don’t.
Remind me, which are the groups who want to carry on the tradition of killing homosexuals?
“All of our progessive anti-God ideals, pro-abortion ideals, and adoration for Darwin and evolution can be understood once you investigate these lines of intellectual history.” – yes, it’s called growth of knowledge and learning. I regularly hear the complaint that the ‘educated elite’ see the world differently to those who don’t like what they hear from the educated folk. Does it not register that being well educated endows people with the increased knowledge which underpins their thinking?
“or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. ” what is that about favored races? Are we liberal Darwinians being racist?” – no. It means favored by nature in the process of natural selection.
“Well, how better to sell racism on a grand scale then to pass liberla ideals and agenda as non-racist. More abortions……….. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and all over the African continent.” – what an ill-informed and ill-formed assessment.
“Never mind that there are no decent transitional-fossil records.” – if you think that is the case then obviously you haven’t looked properly.
“we have been given the Chihuahua/Bulldog example as a handy retort” – I clarified that for you. Did you not understand?
Remind me, which are the groups who want to carry on the tradition of killing homosexuals?
http://www.goproud.org/site/c.evKXIaONIlJcH/b.8476981/k.BE33/Home.htm#
How many children killed by abortion might have grown up to have a same-sex relationship? Isn’t abortion robbing people of love? On many levels?
Since abortion advocates won’t protect girls from being killed for being girls, what hope do homosexuals have that abortion advocates would protect THEM from abortion if a ‘gay gene’ were found? Exactly none. Abortion advocates will throw those babies in the trash along with everyone else.
I perused the site you provided a link for xalisae but I can’t find anything which would even indicate that they support the idea of killing homosexuals. Did you?
Google however, turned up these
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/curtis-knapp-kansas-pastor-death-of-gays-defense-cnn_n_1559293.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/04/world/africa/04uganda.html?_r=1&
So I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
See that dot about 50 feet to your right? That’s the point you missed.
Reality, Xalisae was trying to point out that not all LGBT people lean left or belong to the Democratic party or agree with your assessments. Some of them are conservatives and are carving out a space for themselves, attempting to make a space for gay conservatives in the GOP. I think that’s good, LGBT people are still citizens, they shouldn’t feel like they are forced to belong to one party or the other just because of their sexuality. I actually get pretty annoyed at the judgement and condemnation of gay conservatives, it’s like how African-American conservatives get judged harshly.
Plus, you’re conflating some extremist fundamentalist Evangelical groups/pastors with conservatives/pro-lifers/whatever. That’s not a fair conflation, no more than conflating all vegetarians with animal liberation terrorists. I don’t agree with most social conservatives stance of homosexuality at all, but I don’t think most of them want gay people to die or be imprisoned. There’s a worrying minority that want a return to anti-sodomy laws and approve of violence, but they are a minority.
Jack, TLD was trying to draw a link between hitlers’ genocide of jews, the mentally retarded and other groups – which included homosexuals – and abortion as it is currently.
I was simply pointing out that it is not those who support choice who are likely to be the ones threatening homosexuals.
Let’s see, who is most likely to abort potential gay people if we identify a gay gene?
A) people who are pro-choice
b) people who are pro-life
Lol! I meant to write ‘potentially gay’ not to imply like the pro-aborts that people are less than people at any time. People are always people.