norslyman: It's not MY theory. I think evolution is a crock. You associate intelligent design whith the clan!! That's more twisted than what I jokingly wrote!!
Is nobody going to defend their precious little religion? I don't think you can.
What religion?????
I hardly call genocide being compared with evolution religion....
Wow, nobody is getting this. The point is that evolution=social Darwinism=eugenics. It is a tool of the elite, an excuse for them to rule over life itself. Genocide actually becomes a good thing. If they can get you to go along with Evolution, they can get you to accept their eugenics programs with little resistance.
Christianity stands opposed to them. The bible (our constition)declares all men equal. It accuses them as the criminals they are. That is why they don't like it and attack the faith. Accepting evolution strengthens their position. That is why they brainwash the children with it. There will be less future oppostion.
norslyman: Wow, nobody is getting this. The point is that evolution=social Darwinism=eugenics. It is a tool of the elite, an excuse for them to rule over life itself. Genocide actually becomes a good thing. If they can get you to go along with Evolution, they can get you to accept their eugenics programs with little resistance.
Christianity stands opposed to them. The bible (our constition)declares all men equal. It accuses them as the criminals they are. That is why they don't like it and attack the faith. Accepting evolution strengthens their position. That is why they brainwash the children with it. There will be less future oppostion.
Actually, I think everyone gets it. They just think your stuff is pure nonsense.
Mar 12, 2009 12:55 PM CST Evolution Says Indians Deserved Death
emannigolJossakin Pirkanmaalla, Southern Finland Finland356 Posts
emannigolJossakin Pirkanmaalla, Southern Finland Finland356 posts
norslyman: Christianity stands opposed to them. The bible (our constition)declares all men equal. It accuses them as the criminals they are. That is why they don't like it and attack the faith. Accepting evolution strengthens their position. That is why they brainwash the children with it. There will be less future oppostion.
norslyman: In as much as the "theory" of evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, wouldn't it follow that the North and South American Indians were standing in the way of the progress of mankind, and therefore deserved to be wiped out. Even their immune systems were not able to fight a simple disease as smallpox. They were not genetically advanced enough to handle white mans alcohol - how backwards can you get! Their simplistic ideas like "respecting mother earth" would never have fueled the Indutrial Revolution.
This is an obvious case of Evolution in action is it not? The religion of Evolution has no moral codes, so why should anybody care what happens to a backwards culture standing in the way of progress? You can't believe in evolution AND have morals. The two are mutually exclusive.
Could somebody please shoot this stupid bear and make me a rug!
Morals are a human invention and nature is well beyond human beings. Same way, that any genocide could have been justified with the word of God or any other human thing, Evolution -with the Darwin brand- was also used for that, not only by the Britsh Empire but in many other genocide exercises.
In human terms, there is nothing stronger than "having the truth" and being backed to plunder and destroy other human groups (either materially or spiritually) on the name of that truth. Human beings love acting that way and probably that is part of our nature.
It would be then good to learn from all that and keep in mind that we are part of nature and we do not need to make use of our impressions (called natural laws, those we believe are reflections of the universe) just to play with our destructive drive while feeling we are backed by the universe.
We do not simply need that. We only need to act following our nature and stop making noises with our "wisdom" of natural laws, science and truth.
Mar 12, 2009 3:27 PM CST Evolution Says Indians Deserved Death
emannigolJossakin Pirkanmaalla, Southern Finland Finland356 Posts
emannigolJossakin Pirkanmaalla, Southern Finland Finland356 posts
norslyman: OK, criticism taken. I should have just done a post on eugneics.
I think we're making some progress here.
As I've shown previously; theory of evolution hasn't anything to do with eugenics or morality - as little as other sciences like astronomy do - and it could be interpretated so only by people who do not understand the basics of science, philosphy, logics or argumentation.
Antjo39: Why don´t you start a school to reform mankind according to your views and insights of a well-tipped-by-US-rich servant you used to be in the Bahamas? Why? I think you can take this piece of advice because it is so boring (and makes you so disgusting) to see your face spewing insults to anything you do not like in the forums.Simply you.
BOBANBOBANPozarevac City, Central Serbia Serbia3,464 posts
norslyman: In as much as the "theory" of evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, wouldn't it follow that the North and South American Indians were standing in the way of the progress of mankind, and therefore deserved to be wiped out. Even their immune systems were not able to fight a simple disease as smallpox. They were not genetically advanced enough to handle white mans alcohol - how backwards can you get! Their simplistic ideas like "respecting mother earth" would never have fueled the Indutrial Revolution.
This is an obvious case of Evolution in action is it not? The religion of Evolution has no moral codes, so why should anybody care what happens to a backwards culture standing in the way of progress? You can't believe in evolution AND have morals. The two are mutually exclusive.
Could somebody please shoot this stupid bear and make me a rug!
norslyman: In as much as the "theory" of evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, wouldn't it follow that the North and South American Indians were standing in the way of the progress of mankind, and therefore deserved to be wiped out. Even their immune systems were not able to fight a simple disease as smallpox. They were not genetically advanced enough to handle white mans alcohol - how backwards can you get! Their simplistic ideas like "respecting mother earth" would never have fueled the Indutrial Revolution.
This is an obvious case of Evolution in action is it not? The religion of Evolution has no moral codes, so why should anybody care what happens to a backwards culture standing in the way of progress? You can't believe in evolution AND have morals. The two are mutually exclusive.
Could somebody please shoot this stupid bear and make me a rug!
norslyman: In as much as the "theory" of evolution teaches the survival of the fittest, wouldn't it follow that the North and South American Indians were standing in the way of the progress of mankind, and therefore deserved to be wiped out. Even their immune systems were not able to fight a simple disease as smallpox. They were not genetically advanced enough to handle white mans alcohol - how backwards can you get! Their simplistic ideas like "respecting mother earth" would never have fueled the Indutrial Revolution.
This is an obvious case of Evolution in action is it not? The religion of Evolution has no moral codes, so why should anybody care what happens to a backwards culture standing in the way of progress? You can't believe in evolution AND have morals. The two are mutually exclusive.
Could somebody please shoot this stupid bear and make me a rug!
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Is it ignorance that's making you so proud?
Apparently you still haven't realized that your post was just a naturalistic fallacy, and Hume's guillotine provides a swift death to such reasoning.
Your post is also a kind of an appeal to consequences, so it's a double fallacy at least.