| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Terry Cross" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2005 03:51:32 PM |
| Object: |
Darwin's Body Snatchers |
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism.1
There is documented evidence that the remains of perhaps 10,000
of Australia's Aboriginal people were shipped to British museums
in a frenzied attempt to prove the widespread belief that they
were the 'missing link.'2 A major item in a leading Australian
weekly, The Bulletin, revealed other shocking new facts. Some of
the points covered in the article, written by Australian
journalist David Monaghan, make up much of this chapter.
Evolutionists in the United States were also strongly involved in
this flourishing 'industry' of gathering specimens of
subhumans. The Smithsonian Institution in Washington holds the
remains of 15,000 individuals of various races.
Along with museum curators from around the world, Monaghan says,
some of the top names in British science were involved in this
large-scale grave-robbing trade. These included anatomist Sir
Richard Owen, anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith and Charles Darwin
himself. Darwin wrote asking for Tasmanian skulls when only four
of the island's Aborigines were left alive, provided his request
would not 'upset' their feelings. Museums were not only
interested in bones, but in fresh skins as well. These would
provide interesting evolutionary displays when stuffed.3
(See New York Tribune Article dated Feb 10, 1924 at
http://www.artbulla.com/zion/evolution.html).
Pickled Aboriginal brains were also in demand to try to prove
that they were inferior to those of whites. It was Darwin, after
all, who wrote that the civilized races would inevitably wipe out
such lesser-evolved 'savage' ones.
Good prices were being offered for such specimens. There is no
doubt from written evidence that many of the 'fresh' specimens
were obtained by simply going out and killing the Aboriginal
people. The way in which the requests for specimens were
announced was often a poorly disguised invitation to do just
that. A deathbed memoir from Korah Wills, who became mayor of
Bowen, Queensland, in 1866,4 graphically describes how he killed
and dismembered a local tribesman in 1865 to provide a scientific
specimen.5
Edward Ramsay, curator of the Australian Museum in Sydney for 20
years starting in 1874, was particularly heavily involved. He
published a museum booklet, which appeared to include Aborigines
under the designation of 'Australian animals.' It also gave
instructions not only on how to rob graves, but also on how to
plug up bullet wounds in freshly killed 'specimens.' Many
freelance collectors worked under his guidance. Four weeks after
he had requested skulls of Bungee (Russell River) blacks, a keen
young science student sent him two, announcing that they, the
last of their tribe, had just been shot.6 In the 1880s, Ramsay
complained that laws recently passed in Queensland to stop
Aborigines being slaughtered were affecting his supply.
Angel of Black Death
A German evolutionist, Amalie Dietrich (nicknamed the 'Angel of
Black Death') came to Australia asking station ('ranch') owners
for Aborigines to be shot for specimens, particularly skin for
stuffing and mounting for her museum employers.7 Although evicted
from at least one property, she shortly returned home with her
specimens.
A New South Wales missionary was a horrified witness to the
slaughter by mounted police of a group of dozens of Aboriginal
men, women and children.8 Forty-five heads were then boiled down
and the 10 best skulls were packed off for overseas.
Darwinist views about the racial inferiority of Aborigines
(backed up by biased distortions of the evidence since shown to
be false) drastically influenced their treatment. In 1908 an
inspector from the Department of Aborigines in the West Kimberley
region wrote that he was glad to have received an order to
transport all half-castes away from their tribe to the
mission. He said it was 'the duty of the State' to give these
children (who, by evolutionary reasoning, were going to be
intellectually superior) a 'chance to lead a better life than
their mothers.' He wrote, 'I would not hesitate for one moment to
separate a half-caste from an Aboriginal mother, no matter how
frantic her momentary grief.'9
Such separation policies continued until the 1960s.
The demand has not entirely abated. Aboriginal bones have still
been sought by major institutions in quite modern times.
Men of one blood
And where was the Church in all this? It was much more
influential back then, but it had already begun to be influenced
itself by the 'new thinking' about origins and was not prepared
to take a stand on creation issues. However, the apostle Paul's
ringing declaration, backed up by the facts of human history
revealed in Genesis, was that God had 'made all men of one blood'
(Acts 17:26). This is now reinforced by modern biology as well.
The issue of these pilfered remains is becoming politically
sensitive in Australia. There is now much pressure from
Aboriginal leaders and others for the remains to be returned.
Aboriginal rage at this desecration of their ancestors would also
be appropriately directed at the anti-biblical thought patterns
of evolution responsible for this outrage.
This phenomenon of mild-mannered museum officials, respected
scientists and mayors, for example, casually going about their
daily respectable lives while they were involved in monstrous
acts justified by a scientific doctrine, was unparalleled in
history to that point.
A similar horror reappeared in the 1930s, when the blatantly
evolutionary doctrines of Nazism allowed the consciences of
hundreds of doctors, scientists, psychiatrists and other
officials to be seared as they set up the machinery to help
nature eliminate the unfit. First, it was the genetically
'inferior'-the mentally and physically disabled. Next, gypsies,
Jews and others. The rest of the story is well known.
Today, evolutionary thinking enables ordinary, respectable
professionals, otherwise dedicated to the saving of life, to
justify their involvement in the slaughter of millions of unborn
human beings, who, like the Aborigines of earlier Darwinian
thinking, are also deemed 'not yet fully human.'
References and notes
1. Originally published in Creation 14(2):16-18, March-May 1992.
2. Darwin's Body Snatchers, Creation 12(3):21, June-August 1990.
3. David Monaghan, The Body-Snatchers, The Bulletin, 12
November 1991, p. 30-38. (The article states that journalist
Monaghan spent 18 months researching this subject in London,
culminating in a television documentary called Darwin's
Body-Ssnatchers, which was aired in Britain on 8 October 1990.)
4. According to the records of the Bowen Shire Council.
5. Monaghan, The Body-Snatchers, p. 33. In this article,
Monaghan quotes two long paragraphs from Korah Will's five-page
manuscript.
6. Ibid., p. 34. Monaghan identifies the student as W.S. Day.
7. Ibid., p. 33. Monaghan is here quoting Dr Rae Sumner, a
lecturer at the Queensland Institute of Technology's School of
Language and Literacy Education.
8. Ibid., p. 34. Monaghan identifies the missionary as Lancelot
Threlkeld.
TCross
.
|
|
| User: "randy" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
26 Jul 2005 11:15:56 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such monstrous ways,
as suggested in this post. I think American treatment of the Negro had a lot
of support in evolutionary theory. The Negroes were apparently considered
"inferior," at least the moment it was understood that they could be set
apart as a unique class giving free labor. Evolution can serve as a
justification for underestimating what people can do and what their
liberties should be. Enough reason for pause when giving this theory such a
high position among scientific theories.
randy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 12:28:56 AM |
|
|
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such monstrous
ways, as suggested in this post. I think American treatment of the
Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of evolution
existed. The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Klazmon.
<SNIP>.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 11:14:28 AM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such monstrous
ways, as suggested in this post. I think American treatment of the
Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of evolution
existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 12:38:42 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:14:28 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> let us all know that:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such monstrous
ways, as suggested in this post. I think American treatment of the
Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of evolution
existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
No it didn't.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
Read what people wrote about it.
Don
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 05:10:25 PM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 16:14:28 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> let us all know that:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such monstrous
ways, as suggested in this post. I think American treatment of the
Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of evolution
existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
No it didn't.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
Read what people wrote about it.
Non answer.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 05:33:42 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such
monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think American
treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of
evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that Darwin
published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying that caused slavery to
be abolished but it clearly demonstrates that your thesis is false.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian slave owners.
If you can show they were wrong, then good for you.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 05:52:32 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such
monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think American
treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of
evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that Darwin
published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying that caused slavery to
be abolished but it clearly demonstrates that your thesis is false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify atrocities
after the fact.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian slave owners.
If you can show they were wrong, then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its veracity
by referring to the exact source in scripture where bible believers
get the justification for believing what you claim they believe.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 07:56:03 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such
monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think American
treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary
theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of
evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that Darwin
published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying that caused slavery
to be abolished but it clearly demonstrates that your thesis is
false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify atrocities
after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to justify christian
atrocities.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian slave
owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its veracity
by referring to the exact source in scripture where bible believers
get the justification for believing what you claim they believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners thought it
was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public record, not an
accusation. They gave the bible as justification themselves. If you want
to know why they thought that, you would have to read what the slave
owning christians themselves wrote about it.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 08:03:46 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such
monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think American
treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary
theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of
evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that Darwin
published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying that caused slavery
to be abolished but it clearly demonstrates that your thesis is
false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify atrocities
after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to justify christian
atrocities.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian slave
owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its veracity
by referring to the exact source in scripture where bible believers
get the justification for believing what you claim they believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners thought it
was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public record, not an
accusation. They gave the bible as justification themselves. If you want
to know why they thought that, you would have to read what the slave
owning christians themselves wrote about it.
All Abrahamic religious people were justified by Mosaic Law in owning
slaves. That includes Jews and Muslims, too. Muslims did not come to
America in any numbers, but Jews did.
Please include Jews in your accusations - just to be fair and
historical.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 08:22:20 PM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1122512625.993452.296250@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
<SNIP>
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian slave
owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its veracity
by referring to the exact source in scripture where bible
believers get the justification for believing what you claim they
believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners thought
it was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public record, not an
accusation. They gave the bible as justification themselves. If you
want to know why they thought that, you would have to read what the
slave owning christians themselves wrote about it.
All Abrahamic religious people were justified by Mosaic Law in owning
slaves. That includes Jews and Muslims, too. Muslims did not come to
America in any numbers, but Jews did.
Please include Jews in your accusations - just to be fair and
historical.
I didn't make an accusation. I was merely pointing out a matter of
public record. However, I agree with you that Jews and Muslims were also
slave owners but I am not familiar with their arguments for justifying
this. Your statement about Mosaic Law does seem to be valid, so it is
quite possible they used the same justification as used by Christian
slave owners. I may look into this further some time.
Klazmon.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 11:37:04 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1122512625.993452.296250@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
<SNIP>
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian slave
owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its veracity
by referring to the exact source in scripture where bible
believers get the justification for believing what you claim they
believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners thought
it was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public record, not an
accusation. They gave the bible as justification themselves. If you
want to know why they thought that, you would have to read what the
slave owning christians themselves wrote about it.
All Abrahamic religious people were justified by Mosaic Law in owning
slaves. That includes Jews and Muslims, too. Muslims did not come to
America in any numbers, but Jews did.
Please include Jews in your accusations - just to be fair and
historical.
I didn't make an accusation. I was merely pointing out a matter of
public record. However, I agree with you that Jews and Muslims were also
slave owners but I am not familiar with their arguments for justifying
this. Your statement about Mosaic Law does seem to be valid, so it is
quite possible they used the same justification as used by Christian
slave owners. I may look into this further some time.
Jews were Biblically commanded to treat slaves well as opposed to
the cruel treatment they got universally at the hands of gentiles.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 11:33:37 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such
monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think American
treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary
theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of
evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that Darwin
published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying that caused slavery
to be abolished but it clearly demonstrates that your thesis is
false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify atrocities
after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to justify christian
atrocities.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian slave
owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its veracity
by referring to the exact source in scripture where bible believers
get the justification for believing what you claim they believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners thought it
was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public record, not an
accusation. They gave the bible as justification themselves. If you want
to know why they thought that, you would have to read what the slave
owning christians themselves wrote about it.
All Abrahamic religious people were justified by Mosaic Law in owning
slaves. That includes Jews and Muslims, too. Muslims did not come to
America in any numbers, but Jews did.
Please include Jews in your accusations - just to be fair and
historical.
Jews were Biblically commanded to treat slaves benignly as
opposed to the cruel treatment they got universally at the
hands of gentiles. But you know this, don't you, Jew hater.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 11:28:07 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such
monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think American
treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary
theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of
evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that Darwin
published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying that caused slavery
to be abolished but it clearly demonstrates that your thesis is
false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify atrocities
after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to justify christian
atrocities.
They want to justify their own atrocities just like everyone else.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian slave
owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its veracity
by referring to the exact source in scripture where bible believers
get the justification for believing what you claim they believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners thought it
was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public record, not an
accusation. They gave the bible as justification themselves. If you want
to know why they thought that, you would have to read what the slave
owning christians themselves wrote about it.
If you've read it why your resistence to citing it?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
28 Jul 2005 06:18:39 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E85F33.7CF49976@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with
early evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off'
with the advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such
monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think American
treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary
theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of
evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that Darwin
published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying that caused
slavery to be abolished but it clearly demonstrates that your
thesis is false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify atrocities
after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to justify
christian atrocities.
They want to justify their own atrocities just like everyone else.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian slave
owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its veracity
by referring to the exact source in scripture where bible
believers get the justification for believing what you claim they
believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners thought
it was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public record, not an
accusation. They gave the bible as justification themselves. If you
want to know why they thought that, you would have to read what the
slave owning christians themselves wrote about it.
If you've read it why your resistence to citing it?
http://www.racematters.org/noahscurseslaverysrationale.htm
Klazmon.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
28 Jul 2005 08:52:19 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E85F33.7CF49976@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with
early evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off'
with the advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such
monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think American
treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary
theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory of
evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that Darwin
published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying that caused
slavery to be abolished but it clearly demonstrates that your
thesis is false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify atrocities
after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to justify
christian atrocities.
They want to justify their own atrocities just like everyone else.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from the
bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis -
Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian slave
owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its veracity
by referring to the exact source in scripture where bible
believers get the justification for believing what you claim they
believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners thought
it was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public record, not an
accusation. They gave the bible as justification themselves. If you
want to know why they thought that, you would have to read what the
slave owning christians themselves wrote about it.
If you've read it why your resistence to citing it?
http://www.racematters.org/noahscurseslaverysrationale.htm
The article presents the musing of scholars, not the actual words of slave
owners.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
28 Jul 2005 09:22:16 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E98C30.1EAC79AB@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E85F33.7CF49976@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with
early evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took
off' with the advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in
such monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think
American treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in
evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory
of evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that
Darwin published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying that
caused slavery to be abolished but it clearly demonstrates that
your thesis is false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify atrocities
after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to justify
christian atrocities.
They want to justify their own atrocities just like everyone else.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from
the bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham
etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis
- Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian
slave owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for
you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its veracity
by referring to the exact source in scripture where bible
believers get the justification for believing what you claim
they believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners
thought it was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public
record, not an accusation. They gave the bible as justification
themselves. If you want to know why they thought that, you would
have to read what the slave owning christians themselves wrote
about it.
If you've read it why your resistence to citing it?
http://www.racematters.org/noahscurseslaverysrationale.htm
The article presents the musing of scholars, not the actual words of
slave owners.
They were musing about the slave owners words.
Klazmon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
29 Jul 2005 03:53:55 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E98C30.1EAC79AB@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E85F33.7CF49976@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with
early evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took
off' with the advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in
such monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think
American treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in
evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the theory
of evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that
Darwin published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying that
caused slavery to be abolished but it clearly demonstrates that
your thesis is false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify atrocities
after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to justify
christian atrocities.
They want to justify their own atrocities just like everyone else.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves from
the bible - claiming that africans were the children of ham
etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses (Genesis
- Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian
slave owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for
you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its veracity
by referring to the exact source in scripture where bible
believers get the justification for believing what you claim
they believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners
thought it was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public
record, not an accusation. They gave the bible as justification
themselves. If you want to know why they thought that, you would
have to read what the slave owning christians themselves wrote
about it.
If you've read it why your resistence to citing it?
http://www.racematters.org/noahscurseslaverysrationale.htm
The article presents the musing of scholars, not the actual words of
slave owners.
They were musing about the slave owners words.
Which words actually spoken by slave owners did
they muse over?... maybe I missed something?.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
31 Jul 2005 05:40:58 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EA97BF.B2E87C24@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E98C30.1EAC79AB@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E85F33.7CF49976@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began
with early evolutionary ideas. But this trade really
'took off' with the advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in
such monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think
American treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in
evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the
theory of evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that
Darwin published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying
that caused slavery to be abolished but it clearly
demonstrates that your thesis is false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify
atrocities after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to justify
christian atrocities.
They want to justify their own atrocities just like everyone
else.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves
from the bible - claiming that africans were the children
of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian
slave owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for
you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its
veracity by referring to the exact source in scripture where
bible believers get the justification for believing what you
claim they believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners
thought it was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public
record, not an accusation. They gave the bible as justification
themselves. If you want to know why they thought that, you
would have to read what the slave owning christians themselves
wrote about it.
If you've read it why your resistence to citing it?
http://www.racematters.org/noahscurseslaverysrationale.htm
The article presents the musing of scholars, not the actual words
of slave owners.
They were musing about the slave owners words.
Which words actually spoken by slave owners did
they muse over?... maybe I missed something?.
--
You miss a lot.
Klazmon.
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
31 Jul 2005 05:58:52 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EA97BF.B2E87C24@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E98C30.1EAC79AB@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E85F33.7CF49976@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began
with early evolutionary ideas. But this trade really
'took off' with the advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in
such monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I think
American treatment of the Negro had a lot of support in
evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the
theory of evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time that
Darwin published his theory of evolution. I'm not saying
that caused slavery to be abolished but it clearly
demonstrates that your thesis is false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify
atrocities after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to justify
christian atrocities.
They want to justify their own atrocities just like everyone
else.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves
from the bible - claiming that africans were the children
of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the christian
slave owners. If you can show they were wrong, then good for
you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its
veracity by referring to the exact source in scripture where
bible believers get the justification for believing what you
claim they believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners
thought it was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public
record, not an accusation. They gave the bible as justification
themselves. If you want to know why they thought that, you
would have to read what the slave owning christians themselves
wrote about it.
If you've read it why your resistence to citing it?
http://www.racematters.org/noahscurseslaverysrationale.htm
The article presents the musing of scholars, not the actual words
of slave owners.
They were musing about the slave owners words.
Which words actually spoken by slave owners did
they muse over?... maybe I missed something?.
--
You miss a lot.
Did you actually read the article?... I did.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
31 Jul 2005 06:17:51 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42ED580B.E0778B4E@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EA97BF.B2E87C24@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E98C30.1EAC79AB@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E85F33.7CF49976@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began
with early evolutionary ideas. But this trade
really 'took off' with the advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people
in such monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I
think American treatment of the Negro had a lot of
support in evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the
theory of evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time
that Darwin published his theory of evolution. I'm not
saying that caused slavery to be abolished but it clearly
demonstrates that your thesis is false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify
atrocities after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to
justify christian atrocities.
They want to justify their own atrocities just like everyone
else.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves
from the bible - claiming that africans were the
children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were
African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the
christian slave owners. If you can show they were wrong,
then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its
veracity by referring to the exact source in scripture
where bible believers get the justification for believing
what you claim they believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners
thought it was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public
record, not an accusation. They gave the bible as
justification themselves. If you want to know why they
thought that, you would have to read what the slave owning
christians themselves wrote about it.
If you've read it why your resistence to citing it?
http://www.racematters.org/noahscurseslaverysrationale.htm
The article presents the musing of scholars, not the actual
words of slave owners.
They were musing about the slave owners words.
Which words actually spoken by slave owners did
they muse over?... maybe I missed something?.
--
You miss a lot.
Did you actually read the article?... I did.
--
Good for you. Next time, try and understand what you are reading.
Klazmon.
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
31 Jul 2005 11:27:08 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42ED580B.E0778B4E@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EA97BF.B2E87C24@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E98C30.1EAC79AB@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E85F33.7CF49976@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began
with early evolutionary ideas. But this trade
really 'took off' with the advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people
in such monstrous ways, as suggested in this post. I
think American treatment of the Negro had a lot of
support in evolutionary theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before the
theory of evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time
that Darwin published his theory of evolution. I'm not
saying that caused slavery to be abolished but it clearly
demonstrates that your thesis is false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify
atrocities after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to
justify christian atrocities.
They want to justify their own atrocities just like everyone
else.
The people who treated them badly justified themselves
from the bible - claiming that africans were the
children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were
African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the
christian slave owners. If you can show they were wrong,
then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its
veracity by referring to the exact source in scripture
where bible believers get the justification for believing
what you claim they believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave owners
thought it was ok to own slaves. That is a matter of public
record, not an accusation. They gave the bible as
justification themselves. If you want to know why they
thought that, you would have to read what the slave owning
christians themselves wrote about it.
If you've read it why your resistence to citing it?
http://www.racematters.org/noahscurseslaverysrationale.htm
The article presents the musing of scholars, not the actual
words of slave owners.
They were musing about the slave owners words.
Which words actually spoken by slave owners did
they muse over?... maybe I missed something?.
--
You miss a lot.
Did you actually read the article?... I did.
--
Good for you. Next time, try and understand what you are reading.
So, you suggested I read an article you hadn't read... pathetic.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
31 Jul 2005 11:53:08 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EDA4FB.89AAD679@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42ED580B.E0778B4E@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EA97BF.B2E87C24@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E98C30.1EAC79AB@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E85F33.7CF49976@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E8108C.2BC7133B@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42E7B33F.D7D5D25@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
"randy" <rkluth@wavecable.com> wrote in
news:c6SdnWbYoP8dl3rfRVn-jg@wavecable.com:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens
began with early evolutionary ideas. But this
trade really 'took off' with the advent of
Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected
people in such monstrous ways, as suggested in
this post. I think American treatment of the
Negro had a lot of support in evolutionary
theory.
Don't be stupid. They were kept as slaves before
the theory of evolution existed.
Evolution theory justified the practice.
Nope. The practice of slavery ceased close to the time
that Darwin published his theory of evolution. I'm not
saying that caused slavery to be abolished but it
clearly demonstrates that your thesis is false.
Irrelevant. There are always new theories to justify
atrocities after the fact.
Of course it is relevant. Why would scientists want to
justify christian atrocities.
They want to justify their own atrocities just like
everyone else.
The people who treated them badly justified
themselves from the bible - claiming that africans
were the children of ham etc.
Can you point to anything in the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy)
stating or implying that the children of Ham were
African?
It's not my argument. It was the argument of the
christian slave owners. If you can show they were
wrong, then good for you.
You made an accusation. You should be able to show its
veracity by referring to the exact source in scripture
where bible believers get the justification for
believing what you claim they believe.
Nope. I told you why bible believing christian slave
owners thought it was ok to own slaves. That is a matter
of public record, not an accusation. They gave the bible
as justification themselves. If you want to know why they
thought that, you would have to read what the slave
owning christians themselves wrote about it.
If you've read it why your resistence to citing it?
http://www.racematters.org/noahscurseslaverysrationale.htm
The article presents the musing of scholars, not the actual
words of slave owners.
They were musing about the slave owners words.
Which words actually spoken by slave owners did
they muse over?... maybe I missed something?.
--
You miss a lot.
Did you actually read the article?... I did.
--
Good for you. Next time, try and understand what you are reading.
So, you suggested I read an article you hadn't read... pathetic.
--
I'll repeat what I said to you in another post.
I wouldn't necessarily say you are pathetic, just stoooopid.
Unfortunately there is no cure for that.
Klazmon.
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
01 Aug 2005 02:50:40 PM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EDA4FB.89AAD679@worldnet.att.net:
So, you suggested I read an article you hadn't read... pathetic.
--
I'll repeat what I said to you in another post.
I wouldn't necessarily say you are pathetic, just stoooopid.
Unfortunately there is no cure for that.
Projection is good.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Llanzlan Klazmon" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
01 Aug 2005 07:04:03 PM |
|
|
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EE7D70.B9F04684@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EDA4FB.89AAD679@worldnet.att.net:
So, you suggested I read an article you hadn't read... pathetic.
--
I'll repeat what I said to you in another post.
I wouldn't necessarily say you are pathetic, just stoooopid.
Unfortunately there is no cure for that.
Projection is good.
That explains your problem.
klazmon.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Masked Avenger" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
02 Aug 2005 08:05:31 AM |
|
|
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EE7D70.B9F04684@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EDA4FB.89AAD679@worldnet.att.net:
So, you suggested I read an article you hadn't read... pathetic.
--
I'll repeat what I said to you in another post.
I wouldn't necessarily say you are pathetic, just stoooopid.
Unfortunately there is no cure for that.
Projection is good.
That explains your problem.
klazmon.
yes ...... reading for comprehension is not Roy's strong point .......
but he does a great parrot impersonation ......
--
Masked Avenger
aa#2224
EAC Chief Technician in charge of remotely rigging Fundie 'Spell
Checkers' so they all look like hick home schooled yokels
Does Schroedinger's cat have 18 half lives ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
05 Aug 2005 08:42:09 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 23:05:31 +1000, Masked Avenger
<cootey_59@yahoo.com> wrote:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EE7D70.B9F04684@worldnet.att.net:
Llanzlan Klazmon wrote:
Roy Jose Lorr <mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> wrote in
news:42EDA4FB.89AAD679@worldnet.att.net:
So, you suggested I read an article you hadn't read... pathetic.
I'll repeat what I said to you in another post.
I wouldn't necessarily say you are pathetic, just stoooopid.
Unfortunately there is no cure for that.
Projection is good.
That explains your problem.
klazmon.
yes ...... reading for comprehension is not Roy's strong point .......
but he does a great parrot impersonation ......
No. He fucks that up, too.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers |
27 Jul 2005 08:09:51 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 21:15:56 -0700, "randy"
<rkluth@wavecable.com> let us all know that:
"Terry Cross"
Darwin's body snatchers
by Ken Ham, Carl Wieland and Don Batten
First published in One Blood
Chapter 9
A gruesome trade in 'missing link' specimens began with early
evolutionary ideas. But this trade really 'took off' with the
advent of Darwinism...
No question evolutionary theory has affected people in such monstrous ways,
as suggested in this post.
Liar.
I think American treatment of the Negro had a lot
of support in evolutionary theory.
False.
The Negroes were apparently considered
"inferior," at least the moment it was understood that they could be set
apart as a unique class giving free labor. Evolution can serve as a
justification for underestimating what people can do and what their
liberties should be. Enough reason for pause when giving this theory such a
high position among scientific theories.
False.
Don
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Strom" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwin's Body Snatchers< | | | |
