Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Funny how science doesn't want to talk about Eugenics and their Darwinian philosophy.

Crushing read for Darwinists.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2015/08/na ... 98451.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This much was clear: the scientific and medical profession in the late 19th century and early 20th century was obsessed with race, and racial science consisted essentially in drawing biological distinctions between people of different races. It was also clear that the distinctions invariably favored European Caucasians, and denigrated Africans. For any given salutary trait, European Caucasians were on the high end, and Africans were on the low end. Some articles even compared Africans biologically with apes, to emphasize the purported differences between Caucasians and Africans.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discove ... _campaigns

In case anyone wants to read that website's agenda.

93henfan wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discove ... _campaigns

In case anyone wants to read that website's agenda.

Wikipedia. Good one.

And that changes the fact that Darwinism was a huge proponent of Eugenics how?

SeattleGriz wrote:

93henfan wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discove ... _campaigns

In case anyone wants to read that website's agenda.

Wikipedia. Good one.

And that changes the fact that Darwinism was a huge proponent of Eugenics how?

Well, I would have simply linked to the "About Us" page of your linked website, but they don't have one, which is the first sign of an agenda-driven website who doesn't want you to know who they are.

93henfan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
Wikipedia. Good one.

And that changes the fact that Darwinism was a huge proponent of Eugenics how?

Well, I would have simply linked to the "About Us" page of your linked website, but they don't have one, which is the first sign of an agenda-driven website who doesn't want you to know who they are.

...and that answers the question about Eugenics how? Funny how you didn't answer the question...only dodged it.

I can ask this question all day. Did you even read the article? Sounds like a no.

SeattleGriz wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Well, I would have simply linked to the "About Us" page of your linked website, but they don't have one, which is the first sign of an agenda-driven website who doesn't want you to know who they are.

...and that answers the question about Eugenics how?

I can ask this question all day. Did you even read the article? Sounds like a no.

https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... ics-again/

/thread

Goodnight.

93henfan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
...and that answers the question about Eugenics how?

I can ask this question all day. Did you even read the article? Sounds like a no.

https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... ics-again/

/thread

Goodnight.

Really. You are going to defend yourself with a 3 year old article about who knew who? Thank you, I needed that laugh. Can a 3 year old article really answer questions asked today?

I am talking about all of Darwinism and how it was used to advance Eugenics. Not how Charles Darwin himself felt about the issue.

Read the article and you will see how I am talking about how the consensus was wrong, especially since you quoted a defensive article that was two years in advance of the said article.

Wow, you really crashed and burned on this one. You okay?

Well Hitler liked Wagner, so anyone who likes Wagner is a Nazi. Did I get that right?

Grizalltheway wrote:Well Hitler liked Wagner, so anyone who likes Wagner is a Nazi. Did I get that right?

Only if Wagner admitted that Darwinism drove Eugenics.
Why are you racist?

I think SeaGriz is leading in the "edited posts in a single thread" category. It's funny watching a religious drunk scramble.

93henfan wrote:I think SeaGriz is leading in the "edited posts in a single thread" category. It's funny watching a religious drunk scramble.

Dammit, screw you! I didn't know my thread would be so scintillating. Only minor cosmetic changes...I SWEAR!

I mean, the bottom line here is that the Discovery Institute is trying to make time move backward to link Eugenics to Darwin. Darwin was not a proponent of Eugenics. Period. End of story.

Weetag's Hitler/Wagner analogy is not far off. You see similar analogies in the comments of the article I linked.

Using Discovery Institute logic, the Beatles are responsible for the Manson murders.

93henfan wrote:I mean, the bottom line here is that the Discovery Institute is trying to make time move backward to link Eugenics to Darwin. Darwin was not a proponent of Eugenics. Period. End of story.

Weetag's Hitler/Wagner analogy is not far off. You see similar analogies in the comments of the article I linked.

Using Discovery Institute logic, the Beatles are responsible for the Manson murders.

And that is what you keep missing. The article and myself are not saying Darwin was guilty, but Darwinists are guilty of using Eugenics.

Take a long slow breath and actually read something you don't want to. Fuck. It involves black people and racism, does that make it better for you?

SeattleGriz wrote:

93henfan wrote:I mean, the bottom line here is that the Discovery Institute is trying to make time move backward to link Eugenics to Darwin. Darwin was not a proponent of Eugenics. Period. End of story.

Weetag's Hitler/Wagner analogy is not far off. You see similar analogies in the comments of the article I linked.

Using Discovery Institute logic, the Beatles are responsible for the Manson murders.

And that is what you keep missing. The article and myself are not saying Darwin was guilty, but Darwinists are guilty of using Eugenics.

Take a long slow breath and actually read something you don't want to. Fuck.

I did read it. I read for a living and I'm a speedreader. So you say that there is a Darwinist or two who were Eugenics fans? OK, great. What does that have to do with anything? There are priests who rape children. There are priests who invite other priests to rape children together. There are priests who take girls they impregnated to get abortions. It's all in a DA report. Does that mean the stance of the Catholic Church is that child rape and abortion are good to go? Of course not. That's silly.

93henfan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
And that is what you keep missing. The article and myself are not saying Darwin was guilty, but Darwinists are guilty of using Eugenics.

Take a long slow breath and actually read something you don't want to. Fuck.

I did read it. I read for a living and I'm a speedreader. So you say that there is a Darwinist or two who were Eugenics fans? OK, great. What does that have to do with anything? There are priests who rape children. There are priests who invite other priests to rape children together. There are priests who take girls they impregnated to get abortions. It's all in a DA report. Does that mean the stance of the Catholic Church is that child rape and abortion are good to go? Of course not. That's silly.

You didn't read shit, and if you did, your speed reading comprehension is severely lacking. Your example is pathetic and laughable.

The importance is that a well accepted scientific theory is telling people that if you are anything other than white, your are substandard. Darwinism was construed to portray the Blacks as substandard.

See, you didn't read shit.

How fucking stupid do you think I am. Read the article, then reply.

SeattleGriz wrote:

93henfan wrote:
I did read it. I read for a living and I'm a speedreader. So you say that there is a Darwinist or two who were Eugenics fans? OK, great. What does that have to do with anything? There are priests who rape children. There are priests who invite other priests to rape children together. There are priests who take girls they impregnated to get abortions. It's all in a DA report. Does that mean the stance of the Catholic Church is that child rape and abortion are good to go? Of course not. That's silly.

You didn't read shit, and if you did, your speed reading comprehension is severely lacking. Your example is pathetic and laughable.

The importance is that a well accepted scientific theory is telling people that if you are anything other than white, your are substandard. Darwinism was construed to portray the Blacks as substandard.

See, you didn't read shit.

How fucking stupid do you think I am. Read the article, then reply.

There's your key word.

93henfan wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:
You didn't read shit, and if you did, your speed reading comprehension is severely lacking. Your example is pathetic and laughable.

The importance is that a well accepted scientific theory is telling people that if you are anything other than white, your are substandard. Darwinism was construed to portray the Blacks as substandard.

See, you didn't read shit.

How fucking stupid do you think I am. Read the article, then reply.

There's your key word.

Jesus H Christ.

You have proof to refute the attitude of the Era?

You sound like YoungTerrier and how he knew everything without actually providing any solid proof.

I'm going to go ahead and stop tearing at the second asshole I ripped for you.

Please go ahead and have the last word if it makes you feel better.

93henfan wrote:I'm going to go ahead and stop tearing at the second asshole I ripped for you.

Please go ahead and have the last word if it makes you feel better.

You go to sleep and keep holding to your laissez faire attitude of believing you accomplished any sort of meaningful debate.

SeattleGriz wrote:

93henfan wrote:
I did read it. I read for a living and I'm a speedreader. So you say that there is a Darwinist or two who were Eugenics fans? OK, great. What does that have to do with anything? There are priests who rape children. There are priests who invite other priests to rape children together. There are priests who take girls they impregnated to get abortions. It's all in a DA report. Does that mean the stance of the Catholic Church is that child rape and abortion are good to go? Of course not. That's silly.

The importance is that a well accepted scientific theory is telling people that if you are anything other than white, your are substandard.

How fucking stupid do you think I am.

Pretty fucking stupid apparently, since Darwinism didn't/doesn't do anything like that.

But hey, while we're having so much fun here, why don't we discuss how creationists used the Bible to justify slavery for hundreds and hundreds of years?

Grizalltheway wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:

The importance is that a well accepted scientific theory is telling people that if you are anything other than white, your are substandard.

How fucking stupid do you think I am.

Pretty fucking stupid apparently, since Darwinism didn't/doesn't do anything like that.

But hey, while we're having so much fun here, why don't we discuss how creationists used the Bible to justify slavery for hundreds and hundreds of years?

And you didn't read the article either.

I will summarize it for you. Scientists were very much into categorizing via metrics and experimentation the different races. Of course whites were on the top of the heap and blacks were considered "not as evolved" That consensus drove shit science, because the ones that believed it to be true were always interpreting data with that "fact" in mind.

The NCSE (who the article is about), who defends evolution and global warming, is trying to rewrite history. How is this done? By giving credit to the same individuals who thought blacks were less evolved, instead of those who were showing it wasn't true.

Do you see the similarity to the Global Warming crowd? It's settled science and anyone who opposes it is vilified. When we finally get to a point that there really is a true consensus on Global Warming, who do you think is going to get credit for changing that consensus? It certainly isn't going to be the heretics who opposed Global Warming - it will be the establishment that was wrong the whole time. Rewriting history to whitewash their Global Warming of the gaps methodology.

SeattleGriz,
If this is your attempt of a long overdue drunk drive-by, you better try again.

And give me a heads up. I don't want to miss it. It's been way too long.

Well, I would have simply linked to the "About Us" page of your linked website, but they don't have one, which is the first sign of an agenda-driven website who doesn't want you to know who they are.

I clicked the link to the article and I honestly don't think you need an "about us" to see what the group is about. I'm not seeing any attempt to hide what they're up to.


"

CAA Flagship wrote:SeattleGriz,
If this is your attempt of a long overdue drunk drive-by, you better try again.

And give me a heads up. I don't want to miss it. It's been way too long.

Only had wine. Whiskey would have been better.