The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching
that all of life arose by accident. If that is true, the human race
has no unifying meaning or purpose. And if we have no unified meaning,
then we have no inherent duty, obligations or responsibility. Worse,
we have no inherent value except that which is assigned by the
ever-changing opinions of a fickle society.

Does anyone know the name of this kind of fallacy? ... "It would be
unpleasant to learn that the proposition is true, therefore the
proposition is false."

"Jason Spaceman"
From the article:

--------------------------------
The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching
that all of life arose by accident. If that is true, the human race
has no unifying meaning or purpose. And if we have no unified meaning,
then we have no inherent duty, obligations or responsibility. Worse,
we have no inherent value except that which is assigned by the
ever-changing opinions of a fickle society.

[snip]

Does anyone know the name of this kind of fallacy? ... "It would be
unpleasant to learn that the proposition is true, therefore the
proposition is false."

"Jason Spaceman"
From the article:

--------------------------------
The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching
that all of life arose by accident. If that is true, the human race
has no unifying meaning or purpose. And if we have no unified meaning,
then we have no inherent duty, obligations or responsibility. Worse,
we have no inherent value except that which is assigned by the
ever-changing opinions of a fickle society.

[snip]

Does anyone know the name of this kind of fallacy? ... "It would be
unpleasant to learn that the proposition is true, therefore the
proposition is false."

"Jason Spaceman"
From the article:

--------------------------------
The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching
that all of life arose by accident. If that is true, the human race
has no unifying meaning or purpose. And if we have no unified meaning,
then we have no inherent duty, obligations or responsibility. Worse,
we have no inherent value except that which is assigned by the
ever-changing opinions of a fickle society.

[snip]

Does anyone know the name of this kind of fallacy? ... "It would be
unpleasant to learn that the proposition is true, therefore the
proposition is false."

"Jason Spaceman"
From the article:

--------------------------------
The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching
that all of life arose by accident. If that is true, the human race has
no unifying meaning or purpose. And if we have no unified meaning, then
we have no inherent duty, obligations or responsibility. Worse, we have
no inherent value except that which is assigned by the ever-changing
opinions of a fickle society.

[snip]

Does anyone know the name of this kind of fallacy? ... "It would be
unpleasant to learn that the proposition is true, therefore the
proposition is false."

How did the idea that right and wrong couldn't exist under Darwism
suddenly appear? I missed the part where that was established.

What I never understand is why it's logically necessary for the human race
to have a unifying meaning or purpose, or any particular universal
obligation, duty, or responsibility. Who's to say that things don't suck?
My bedroom isn't full of scantily clad harem girls, and it's a
disappointment I have to live with every day, but I don't go around saying
"Their MUST be harem girls there, otherwise it would suck. I know, they're
INVISIBILE!"

From: Maverick <insensitive_clod@hotmail.com>
Organization: A Customer of Tele2
Newsgroups: talk.origins,alt.atheism,sci.skeptic
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 12:36:16 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: WingNutDaily columnist: Distorting science for the secular
agenda

jspaceman@linuxquestions.net (Jason Spaceman) wrote in
news:b9401f8a.0404162307.18982114@posting.google.com:

From the article:
--------------------------------
The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching
that all of life arose by accident. If that is true, the human race
has no unifying meaning or purpose.

And if we have no unified meaning,
then we have no inherent duty, obligations or responsibility.

Worse,
we have no inherent value except that which is assigned by the
ever-changing opinions of a fickle society.

It's a bit sad that we need to invent a god before there can be meaning,
unity or purpose. Because that is exactly what they're saying... that they,
too, would act in the worst manner possible if it wasn't for their
fictional god. I wonder what that tells us about them.

Together then, the misapplied and false doctrines of relativity and
evolution have delivered a one-two punch to the American way of life,
giving birth to moral relativism and severing cultural ties to
traditional Judeo Christian principles.

But what if Darwin's theory is wrong? And what if Einstein's theory of
relativity were rightly understood apart from the concept of
relativism? Could we regain our moral hold on the value of life? Could
we assure ourselves and our children that right and wrong still exist?
The answer is yes, but how do we turn back the indoctrination of
nearly 100 years?

Despite the paucity of evidence in support of evolutionary theory,
secular advocacy has made it the mainstay of our academic
institutions. Its impact on the devaluation of human life can be seen
in a broad array of practices including shooting sprees, abortion,
human experimentation, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide,
embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning. The list goes
on.

Isn't it strange how they're always unable to show us why evolution is so
badly supported by evidence? Why is that?

jspaceman@linuxquestions.net (Jason Spaceman) wrote in message news:<b9401f8a.0404162307.18982114@posting.google.com>...

From the article:
--------------------------------
The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching
that all of life arose by accident. If that is true, the human race
has no unifying meaning or purpose. And if we have no unified meaning,
then we have no inherent duty, obligations or responsibility. Worse,
we have no inherent value except that which is assigned by the
ever-changing opinions of a fickle society.

Together then, the misapplied and false doctrines of relativity and
evolution have delivered a one-two punch to the American way of life,
giving birth to moral relativism and severing cultural ties to
traditional Judeo Christian principles.

But what if Darwin's theory is wrong? And what if Einstein's theory of
relativity were rightly understood apart from the concept of
relativism? Could we regain our moral hold on the value of life? Could
we assure ourselves and our children that right and wrong still exist?
The answer is yes, but how do we turn back the indoctrination of
nearly 100 years?

Despite the paucity of evidence in support of evolutionary theory,
secular advocacy has made it the mainstay of our academic
institutions. Its impact on the devaluation of human life can be seen
in a broad array of practices including shooting sprees, abortion,
human experimentation, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide,
embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning. The list goes
on.
---------------------------------

Read it at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081

What is more disgusting? This, or the write-up of a new book which
proves a middle-east (especially Iraq) connection with the Oklahoma
bombing? What is this crappy website? How much are they paid by the
Republican party?

From:

Subject: WingNutDaily columnist: Distorting science for the secular agenda
From:

The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching
that all of life arose by accident. If that is true, the human race
has no unifying meaning or purpose.

Who says life, human or otherwise has to have a purpose? Why are these
uber-theists so obsessed with having a purpose to their lives handed to them?

Seriously, if you can't find a meaning for your life on your own you are one
fucked up individual.

And if we have no unified meaning,
then we have no inherent duty, >obligations or responsibility.

False.

Worse,
we have no inherent value except that which is assigned by the
ever-changing opinions of a fickle society.

False.

Together then, the misapplied and false doctrines of relativity

Relativity isn't a doctrine you wingnuts its science. So is evolution.

and
evolution have delivered a one-two punch to the American way of life,

Really? I'm quite happily enjoying my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Prehaps these wingnuts have very little inherent capacity for happiness? Just
a
passing thought.

giving birth to moral relativism and severing cultural ties to
traditional Judeo Christian principles.

But what if Darwin's theory is wrong?

Got any evidence to suggest it is?

And what if Einstein's theory of
relativity were rightly understood apart from the concept of
relativism?

Theory of Relativity without relativity? Uh... yeah...right... "Bartender,
I'll have what the fundy is drinking."

Could we regain our moral hold on the value of life? Could
we assure ourselves and our children that right and wrong still exist?

I'd love the fundy proof that right and wrong don't exist.

The answer is yes, but how do we turn back the indoctrination of
nearly 100 years?

It's science you dickheads! Its neither political nor religious
indoctrination.

Despite the paucity of evidence in support of evolutionary theory,

"Paucity of evidence?" Haven't you all been paying attention?!?!?!?!?!? Geez
set down your King James and pick up a science text book once in a freakin'
while>

secular advocacy has made it the mainstay of our academic
institutions.

No, it's being correct did that.

Its impact on the devaluation of human life can be seen
in a broad array of practices including shooting sprees, abortion,
human experimentation, euthanasia, physician assisted suicide,
embryonic stem-cell research and therapeutic cloning. The list goes
on.

Yeah like murder, slavery, drug use, abortion, genecide, euthanasia, et al
didn't exist before 1859?

---------------------------------

Read it at http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38081




J. Spaceman

Subject: WingNutDaily columnist: Distorting science for the secular agenda
From:

The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching
that all of life arose by accident. If that is true, the human race
has no unifying meaning or purpose.

Who says life, human or otherwise has to have a purpose? Why are these
uber-theists so obsessed with having a purpose to their lives handed to them?

Jason Spaceman wrote:

From the article:
--------------------------------
The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching
that all of life arose by accident.

No, he explained a mechanism for the observed fact of evolution.

If that is true, the human race
has no unifying meaning or purpose.

Explain how you think it would be different without evolution?

And if we have no unified meaning,
then we have no inherent duty, obligations or responsibility. Worse,
we have no inherent value except that which is assigned by the
ever-changing opinions of a fickle society.

Camus stated that the great absurdity was the idea that life and/or the world
had a built-in "purpose" to it. He proposed that the meaning of life is
whatever we make it.

Together then, the misapplied and false doctrines of relativity and
evolution have delivered a one-two punch to the American way of life,
giving birth to moral relativism and severing cultural ties to
traditional Judeo Christian principles.

Please explain how you think the theories are false? You have overwhelming
evidence for this? Do you also have alternative hypotheses on-hand to
explain what they now explain?

Also please explain how these theories sever cultural ties to Judeo Christian
principles? I'm a Chirstian and I have no problem with my cultural ties.

<snip remaining ranting>

Jason Spaceman wrote:

From the article:
--------------------------------
The other half is provided by Darwin, who left us with the teaching
that all of life arose by accident.

No, he explained a mechanism for the observed fact of evolution.

If that is true, the human race
has no unifying meaning or purpose.

Explain how you think it would be different without evolution?

And if we have no unified meaning,
then we have no inherent duty, obligations or responsibility. Worse,
we have no inherent value except that which is assigned by the
ever-changing opinions of a fickle society.

Camus stated that the great absurdity was the idea that life and/or the

had a built-in "purpose" to it. He proposed that the meaning of life is
whatever we make it.

Together then, the misapplied and false doctrines of relativity and
evolution have delivered a one-two punch to the American way of life,
giving birth to moral relativism and severing cultural ties to
traditional Judeo Christian principles.

Please explain how you think the theories are false? You have

evidence for this? Do you also have alternative hypotheses on-hand to
explain what they now explain?

Also please explain how these theories sever cultural ties to Judeo

principles? I'm a Chirstian and I have no problem with my cultural ties.

<snip remaining ranting>