Thanks go to RHT for this great find…
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
Paul Harvey definitely had the gift of prophecy.
In my opinion the evil deed committed in South Carolina was done by someone raised to believe blacks are inferior because whites have evolved to a higher human species. Teaching evolution where whites are superior to blacks in all ways because whites progressed during the evolution process, but blacks are inferior because they didn’t.
Evolving from apes to dark skin and finally reaching the anointed position of a self-appointed superior race with overseer authority that demands its due honors is what created this evil. It opened the door for individuals to commit acts of “The Devil” as Paul Harvey identified.
If schools had been allowed to teach creationism along with evolution students would have been taught we all come from one blood traceable back to the first humans, Adam and Eve. The color of our skin would make no difference since we were all created in His image and we share the same ancestors no matter what our skin color is.
To see the monster, we as a society created just read the Devil’s worker’s manifesto below. It should motivate everyone to believe changes need to be made and make those changes now.
Dylann Storm Roof’s Manifesto Reveals the Real Motives Behind the Mass Shooting in Charleston:
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/349064-dylann-storm-roofs-manifesto-reveals-the-real-motives-behind-the-mass-shooting-in-charleston/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Crime
Amazing here comes the spin….
Quote: “I came to was the Council of Conservative Citizens. There were pages upon pages of these brutal black on White murders. I was in disbelief. At this moment I realized that something was very wrong. How could the news be blowing up the Trayvon Martin case while hundreds of these black on White murders got ignored?”
It was “Conservative” “White Supremacist” Websites that got this young man all caught up in this moment.
http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2015/06/charleston-mass-murderer-researched.html?m=1
It was the hate Propaganda from the Council Of Conservative Citizens.
The time has come to take down the battle Flag of Treason against the United States Of America the bars and Stars of the confederacy.
Time to raise their last battle Flag the White one and heal the hate that is killing innocent people.
Creationism?
I do not want my child taught creationism which can not be backed up by simple everyday FACTS.
The new Pope addresses this. He is refreshing and correct.
http://www.christiantoday.com/article/pope.francis.backs.science.against.creationism.in.vatican.speech/42268.htm
http://time.com/3545844/pope-francis-evolution-creationism/
Follow the Media and you become Sheeple
The only war n Christians is the Fake Fox News one that has been outrageously deplorable on the subject of the Charleston Murders.
It is a clear cut, no question case. Yet the “Conservative fair and balanced” Network is spinning. So disrespectful to Nine American Citizens who lost their lives in A historical Church During Bible Study. That includes a state senator.
A white Supremacist Killed them. He is somehow still alive when many blacks accused of minor crimes lay dead in the street from abuse by badge.
Please do not spin this. If you are a white supremacist say so, but stop the propaganda of hate that allows young people to be swooned into this false war of hate.
The only civil war we are going to have will be at the Ballot Box. And it just ay surprise you.
Dewey, how can you expect the ballot box to do anything when money controls legislation? Special interest legislation is tied to campaign donations, ever watch Pay 2 Play?
We also need to understand that a country divided will always be at war within, at home, and just for ideological goals Obama is willing to divide America.
These days America doesn’t even seem to display the capacity of unity to even have an positive effect in the world. Without a doubt our place in the world has been weakened by that division.
To a lot of people world wide we lack the leadership of unity in America, and because of that we have become vulnerable here at home, with less effect in the process of working together to the same end.
Dewey: “The time has come to take down the battle Flag of Treason against the United States Of America the bars and Stars of the confederacy.”
So, Dewey must be in favor of Arkansas and all other states who have flags that offend him and others be removed and replaced. This reasoning would apply to all states, even Calif. if someone found it offensive.
State flags are and should remain state issues. It’s not the business of the federal gov’t or individuals of other states what a state’s flag is.
Killary has remained silent on the SC flag issues and we now know why.
Flashback: As Governor, Bill Clinton Honored Confederacy On Arkansas Flag:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/20/flashback-as-governor-bill-clinton-honored-confederacy-on-arkansas-flag/#ixzz3djCtBrzO
Peggy: “In my opinion the evil deed committed in South Carolina was done by someone raised to believe blacks are inferior because whites have evolved to a higher human species. Teaching evolution where whites are superior to blacks in all ways because whites progressed during the evolution process, but blacks are inferior because they didn’t.
Evolving from apes to dark skin and finally reaching the anointed position of a self-appointed superior race with overseer authority that demands its due honors is what created this evil. It opened the door for individuals to commit acts of “The Devil” as Paul Harvey identified.
If schools had been allowed to teach creationism along with evolution students would have been taught we all come from one blood traceable back to the first humans, Adam and Eve. The color of our skin would make no difference since we were all created in His image and we share the same ancestors no matter what our skin color is.”
…
*takes a deep breath*
…
I’m sorry, but what the ever-loving FRAK are you talking about?
Roof’s manifesto said absolutely nothing about evolution. Nothing.
Making this an issue of evolution vs. creationism is insane. INSANE. Nearly all credible scientists accept the theory of evolution. Absolutely none accept the idea that evolution means “whites are superior to blacks in all ways because whites progressed during the evolution process.” You literally just made that up. And it honestly makes me want to vomit.
The idea that schools should teach that we are all descended from Adam and Eve–a religious belief that has absolutely NOTHING to do with any kind of scientific fact–is absurd. Your idea that this would prevent incidences like this–as if religion and racism don’t have any overlapping histories whatsoever–is delusional.
Are you aware that the Quran features an Adam and Eve story that is virtually identical to the account in Genesis? Has that stopped Islamic radicals from creating strict hierarchies and treating people unequally?
Are you completely ignorant of the religious excuses used to justify slavery?
I have no words. Your argument is beyond the pale of reason.
Peggy: “So, Dewey must be in favor of Arkansas and all other states who have flags that offend him and others be removed and replaced. This reasoning would apply to all states, even Calif. if someone found it offensive.”
Except the issue is not that the Confederate flag is “offensive.” The issue is that it is a symbol of treason, slavery, white supremacy, and a complete rejection of America and its values.
The Confederacy was literally founded on the belief that whites are superior to blacks and that the natural condition of the Negro is slavery. These aren’t my words–these are the words of Alexander Stevens, who said that this belief was the “cornerstone” of the new government. Most southern states included similar language in their declarations of secession. It wasn’t about tariffs, as some historical revisionists claim. The traitors were very clear about why they betrayed this country. It was becaus they didn’t want to give up slavery.
That you would defend the Confederate flag–right after blaming the theory of evolution, of all things for racism–is absurd.
“State flags are and should remain state issues. It’s not the business of the federal gov’t or individuals of other states what a state’s flag is.”
When a state flag is literally a symbol of treason and secession, of course it is the business of the federal government.
Calm down Chris. I guess I hit on something new, at least to you. The concept began in the 1800s. Before getting your nickers in a tighter knot read the below info. and see if it calms you down.
Racism And Social Darwinism:
“Anti-semitism is actually a type of racism. Therefore, while we search for the roots of – and remedy for – anti-semitism, we have to refer to the concept of racism.
Racism is the most important component of fascist ideology, which was responsible for the greatest genocides, massacres and wars of the 20th century. When we look at Nazi ideology, in particular, we see that racism is the main constituent of fascism. The Nazis set out with the dream of making the German race, which they regarded as the superior race, dominant all over the world, and tried to eradicate other races, and particularly the Jews, to that end. As Wilhelm Reich put it, “The race theory is German fascism’s theoretical axis.” [1]
The root of this theoretical axis is based on Darwin’s theory of evolution.”
http://www.islamdenouncesantisemitism.com/thesocial.htm
Social Darwinism:
“Social Darwinism is a modern name given to various theories of society that emerged in the United Kingdom, North America, and Western Europe in the 1870s, and which are claimed to have applied biological concepts of natural selection and survival of the fittest to sociology and politics.[1][2] Social Darwinists generally argue that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Different social Darwinists have different views about which groups of people are the strong and the weak, and they also hold different opinions about the precise mechanism that should be used to promote strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism, while others motivated ideas of eugenics, racism, imperialism,[3] fascism, Nazism, and struggle between national or racial groups.[4][5]
The term social Darwinism gained widespread currency when used after 1944 by opponents of these earlier concepts. The majority of those who have been categorised as social Darwinists, did not identify themselves by such a label.[6]
Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to make the weak perish—is a logical consequence of “Darwinism” (the theory of natural selection in biology). Biologists and historians have stated that this is a fallacy of appeal to nature, since the theory of natural selection is merely intended as a description of a biological phenomenon and should not be taken to imply that this phenomenon is good or that it ought to be used as a moral guide in human society. While most scholars recognize some historical links between the popularisation of Darwin’s theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution.[7]
Scholars debate the extent to which the various social Darwinist ideologies reflect Charles Darwin’s own views on human social and economic issues. His writings have passages that can be interpreted as opposing aggressive individualism, while other passages appear to promote it.[8] Some scholars argue that Darwin’s view gradually changed and came to incorporate views from the leading social interpreters of his theory such as Spencer,[9] but Spencer’s Lamarckian evolutionary ideas about society were published before Darwin first published his theory, and both promoted their own conceptions of moral values. Spencer supported laissez-faire capitalism on the basis of his Lamarckian belief that struggle for survival spurred self-improvement which could be inherited.[10]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism
Social Darwinism:
“Social Darwinism characterizes a variety of past and present social policies and theories, from attempts to reduce the power of government to theories exploring the biological causes of human behavior. Many people believe that the concept of social Darwinism explains the philosophical rationalization behind racism, imperialism, and capitalism. The term has negative implications for most people because they consider it a rejection of compassion and social responsibility.
III. Hereditarianism
Studies of heredity contributed another variety of social Darwinism in the late 19th century. In Hereditary Genius (1869), Sir Francis Galton, a British scientist and Darwin’s cousin, argued that biological inheritance is far more important than environment in determining character and intelligence. This theory, known as hereditarianism, met considerable resistance, especially in the United States. Sociologists and biologists who criticized hereditarianism believed that changes in the environment could produce physical changes in the individual that would be passed on to future generations, a theory proposed by French biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck in the early 19th century. After 1890, hereditarianism gained increasing support, due in part to the work of German biologist August Weismann. Weismann reemphasized the role of natural selection by arguing that a person’s characteristics are determined genetically at conception.”
http://autocww.colorado.edu/~flc/E64ContentFiles/SociologyAndReform/SocialDarwinism.html
http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/past-exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/social-darwinism
There are several more links, but I’ll let you explore further on your own. At least you will see where I got my “argument” from and you can draw your own conclusion or at least the possibility of the outcome and end results of the Darwin Theory.
More Chris from the first link above.
“Racism and Darwinism
The greatest influence in the sudden development of racism in the 19th century Europe was the replacement of the Christian belief that “God created all people equal” by “Darwinism”. By suggesting that man had evolved from more primitive creatures, and that some races had evolved further than others, it provided racism with a scientific mask.
In short, Darwin is the father of racism. His theory was taken up and commented on by such ‘official’ founders of racism as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and the racist ideology which emerged was then put into practice by the Nazis and other fascists. James Joll, who spent long years as a professor of history at universities such as Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, explained the relationship between Darwinism and racism in his book Europe Since 1870, which is still taught as a textbook in universities:
Charles Darwin, the English naturalist whose books On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, and The Descent of Man, which followed in 1871, launched controversies which affected many branches of European thought… The ideas of Darwin, and of some of his contemporaries such as the English philosopher Herbert Spencer, …were rapidly applied to questions far removed from the immediate scientific ones… The element of Darwinism which appeared most applicable to the development of society was the belief that the excess of population over the means of support necessitated a constant struggle for survival in which it was the strongest or the ‘fittest’ who won. From this it was easy for some social thinkers to give a moral content to the notion of the fittest, so that the species or races which did survive were those morally entitled to do so.
The doctrine of natural selection could, therefore, very easily become associated with another train of thought developed by the French writer, Count Joseph-Arthur Gobineau, who published an Essay on the Inequality of Human Races in 1853. Gobineau insisted that the most important factor in development was race; and that those races which remained superior were those which kept their racial purity intact. Of these, according to Gobineau, it was the Aryan race which had survived best… It was.. Houston Stewart Chamberlain who contributed to carrying some of these ideas a stage further… Hitler himself admired the author (Chamberlain) sufficiently to visit him on his deathbed in 1927. [2]
The evolutionist German biologist Ernst Haeckel is one of the most important of Nazism’s spiritual fathers. Haeckel brought Darwin’s theory to Germany, and prepared it as a program ready for the Nazis. From racists such as Arthur Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain Hitler took over a politically-centred racism, and a biological one from Haeckel. Careful inspection will reveal that the inspiration behind all these racists came from Darwinism.”
Peggy, I know what social Darwinism is. The Charleston shooter said nothing about social Darwinism, so for you to attribute to him such a motivation is wrong.
Haven’t you condemned others in the past for trying to force a political agenda onto a tragedy? That’s exactly what you are doing here by pretending that this shooting is somehow a natural result of teaching evolution over creationism.
From your link:
“Creationists have often maintained that social Darwinism—leading to policies designed to make the weak perish—is a logical consequence of “Darwinism” (the theory of natural selection in biology).”
Creationists have maintained this because crationists are stupid. I’m sorry if that’s impolite or politically incorrect. It’s true.
“In short, Darwin is the father of racism.”
Absurd. As if racism was not a significant force in American life prior to Darwin? As if slavery wasn’t already a thing?
Can anyone seriously argue–with a straight face–that we were a less racist country before evolution was taught in our schools? Can anyone argue that the states which most vigorously opposed the teaching of evolution–most of them Southern–were less racist than the states which were more accepting of this theory? Of course not. To merely describe the argument is to rebut it.
Yes, many appealed to evolutionary science to justify racist ideology in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Just as many appealed to the Bible to justify racism. The Confederacy mostly did the latter. “Scientific racism” was more for the elites–to sell racism to the common man, the Bible was used much more frequently.
It would be just as accurate to say that “Jesus is the father of racism” as it is to say “Darwin is the father of racism.” Both arguments are nonsensical fallacies.
Chris: “Creationists have maintained this because crationists are stupid. I’m sorry if that’s impolite or politically incorrect. It’s true.”
This statement and the rest of what you wrote would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. You actually believe you are smarter than ALL of the experts who have addresses this issue. Amazing that someone so young and inexperienced can think so much of himself.
It’s sad no one can have a civil discussion with you without being called every name imaginable when we present something you disagree with.
I listened to the BEST interview this morning between a liberal, Don Lemon and a conservative, Glenn Beck. Both were respectful and complementary to each other and have even agreed to work together in the future.
I know you won’t listen to it because you believe you already know everything and because of your hatred for Beck. For others who do this is the future I’m hoping for where people who don’t agree on everything can come together to work towards a common cause and solution without hateful name calling and mud slinging.
Don Lemon talks to Glenn on radio.:
http://www.video.theblaze.com/video/v189119683/don-lemon
In my opinion racism today could in part be the result of teaching Darwinism where evolution resulted in many who believe a superior light-skinned race evolved from a dark-skinned race. I personally do not believe the white race is superior, but just like Hitler and many Germans the horrible fact is there are those who do.
Chris: “It would be just as accurate to say that “Jesus is the father of racism” as it is to say “Darwin is the father of racism.” Both arguments are nonsensical fallacies.”
To answer this absurd statement I give you another expert.
Richard Weikart Makes the Definitive Case for the Nazi/Darwinism Connection:
“Richard Weikart, author of From Darwin to Hitler and Hitler’s Ethic, has a new article in the prestigious journal German Studies Review titled “The Role of Darwinism in Nazi Racial Thought.” Though some historians have been reluctant to connect evolutionary views with Nazi ideology, Weikart’s cogent argument demonstrates precisely how, in fact, Darwinism was “well entrenched” in the biology curriculum of Germany, how anthropologists’ Darwinian views on race were actively promoted by the Nazi regime, how the evolutionary theme suffused Nazi periodicals, how it made up an important part of Nazi propaganda, and how Hitler himself “regularly invoked Darwinian concepts” in his writing and speeches. “The historical evidence is overwhelming that human evolution was an integral part of Nazi racial ideology,” Weikart concludes.
With care and precision, Weikart deals with those like Robert J. Richards who would distance the Nazis from Darwinian views. (Richards’s forthcoming book Was Hitler a Darwinian? is out this month from the University of Chicago Press.) Richards insists that lists of banned books including those promoting “a primitive Darwinism and monism” settles his case that the Nazis were not Darwinians. Weikart counters with the observation that the Nazis did, after all, disagree among themselves on some things, and more importantly, the opposition in this case was not to Darwinism per se but to a particular brand of Darwinism. Nazi opposition to Haeckel’s monism was not directed against Darwinian evolution but rather against the leftist political leanings of the Monist League. Indeed the same periodical actually recommended books promoting Darwinism.”
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/11/richard_weikart_1078651.html
Richard Weikart:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Weikart
Have a good day Chris. Unless you reply with civility and respect this discussion is over.
Peggy: “This statement and the rest of what you wrote would be laughable if it wasn’t so sad. You actually believe you are smarter than ALL of the experts who have addresses this issue.”
This is a very silly argument.
You are insinuating that I am arrogant for accepting the beliefs of 99.9% of scientists, and that by not being respectful of the very tiny percentage of scientists who reject evolution in favor of creationism, I think I am “smarter” than “ALL of the experts.”
This makes no sense even as an appeal to authority. The vast, VAST majority of the experts disagree with both you and the so-called “experts” who endorse creationism. So how am I the arrogant one? Couldn’t I say the same of you? Wouldn’t it actually make more sense to say that you believe you are smarter than 99.9% of scientists, who have studied evolution in-depth and come to the conclusion that it is an extemely well-supported theory, and that creationism is bunk?
That is not to say there aren’t experts who believe in the existence of God, and that a deity had a hand in guiding evolution. Many scientists believe that, and there is no contradiction between acknowledging the existence of evolution.
But creationism isn’t just the belief in a god. The way you described it in your first comment, it’s the belief that God created two people originally, that they were created as fully-formed humans just as we are today, and that all humans trace their lineage back to those two original humans.
There is no scientific evidence to support this theory. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. It is not a scientific belief. It is a religious belief. There is a very clear difference.
“It’s sad no one can have a civil discussion with you without being called every name imaginable when we present something you disagree with.”
This simply isn’t true. I have not called you “every name imaginable.” If you would like to experience being called every name in the book, try publicly disagreeing with Pie Guevara some time. From what I understand he isn’t very religious–why not have this argument with him and see how civil and respectful and open to hearing your side he is.
I did call creationists stupid, and if that category includes you, then, well…I mean, that’s a choice you have made. You have chosen to believe something ridiculous, and that doesn’t make any sense by any objective measure.
Had you simply stopped there, I would not have used the word “stupid.” But you didn’t just say you disagreed with evolution and agreed with creationism. You actually implied that the theory of evolution was responsible for the Charleston shooting, and racism in general. That was far more derogatory and insulting than simply calling you “stupid.” Your opening argument here was a slap in the face to nearly every scientist in the world. You are trying to tar the foundation of nearly all modern science with guilt by association and Hitler comparisons, for Christ’s sake. You Godwinned this thread and now you want to act like I’m the one being unreasonable and uncivil? I mean, that’s typical and unsurprising, since people always want to deflect from their own attacks in order to make others the bully, but do you really think I’m not going to call that behavior out every time you do it?
I respect many things about you, Peggy. I cannot respect this argument of yours, and it doesn’t speak well of your intelligence or your commitment to the truth.
Your entire argument is uncivil. It merits a far harsher response than I have written.
That was legitimately fascinating, Marco. Though you might wanna space out your writing into separate paragraphs–“wall of text” is a bit hard on the eyes. I like your attempt to reconcile the Bible with evolution, though as an agnostic I don’t necessarily agree with it. Good stuff.