Charles Darwin vs. Abraham Lincoln

Be as it was...but you are taking a half mythical figure who was a criminal and are saying that he was Lincoln's equal?

Ah! I see you're finally starting to understand my objections at calling Darwin and Lincoln peers or equals... as you were trying to suggest earlier!

Finally, you understand my entire premise.

Oh my ever lovin flowers...what school do you teach in...I will make sure that they lose thier credentials!

Again, never said I was a teacher... but I'm sure glad you were able to make a completely baseless assumption, and turn it into what your mind would determine a "fact".

This is exactly the type of human behavior that prohibits one from objectively studying history. You must make no assumptions, and be willing to drop all preconcieved notions you might have....

You're opinions are not your own...

here's a thread I did months ago on propaganda and the school system... perhaps you can read enough to recognize you need to think things through a little better.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Happy reading!



[edit on 15-2-2009 by nj2day]

Originally posted by Mike_A

While you are correct in stating that Lincoln was key in slavery abolishment in America...I can not help but think that other nations eventually took notice.

Most (all?) major powers of the day abolished the slave trade and slavery well before the US so its influence on the matter was probably small.

To this very minute hour...many nations still have slaves! Africa, Sudan,
etc. do you really live in such a bubble that you think that the world is free from the abhorrent practice of slavery?

The Arab or Middle Eastern slave trade continued into the early 1900s,[122] and by some accounts continues to this day. Slavery in Morocco was outlawed in the 1930s.[123] As recently as the 1950s, Saudi Arabia had an estimated 450,000 slaves, 20% of the population.[124][125] It is estimated that as many as 200,000 black south Sudanese children and women (mostly from the Dinka tribe sold by the Sudanese Arabs of the north) have been taken into slavery in Sudan during the Second Sudanese Civil War.[126][127] In Mauritania it is estimated that up to 600,000 men, women and children, or 20% of the population, are currently enslaved, many of them used as bonded labor.[128] Slavery in Mauritania was criminalized in August 2007.

Look it up in Wikipedia, or any other reliable source.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by burntheships


He didn't say that it wasn't present in today's world.

He stated that Most of the world powers did it before the U.S. And, he is correct. The united states was well behind the power curve of what our forefathers would have called "civilized nations".

I'd hardly call Sudan a world power...

Seriously... you'd do much better here if you could get away from Ad-Hominem and Straw man tactics...





[edit on 16-2-2009 by nj2day]

To this very minute hour...many nations still have slaves!

You’ve turned on your own argument here, you said that Lincoln’s abolition of slavery brought good to the world and suggested that this influenced other nations (this feeding into your wider reasoning as to why Lincoln was so important). To which I pointed out that others got there quite a long time before him and that you may be exaggerating the impact the abolition of slavery in the US and Lincoln’s role in it had in a wider world context.

But now none of that matters because slavery still exists? Why then did you mention it?

reply to post by nj2day


Well if you are such a scholar...how about if you give me the name of a "book" you think I should read? Aside from the "On the Origin of Species" that is as I have already read that worthless compilation the theory!

Lincoln, no less than Mark Twain, forged what we think of today as the American style: forthright, rhythmic, muscular, beautiful but never pretty. As Douglas L. Wilson observes in "Lincoln's Sword," his brilliant analysis of the president's writing, Lincoln was political, not literary, but he was, every bit as much as Melville or Thoreau, "perfecting a prose that expressed a uniquely American way of apprehending and ordering experience." What Lincoln says and how he says it are one. You cannot imagine the Gettysburg Address or the Second Inaugural in words other than those in which they are conveyed.

Lincoln Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jack the Ripper was a pervert, and you know what we do with perverts here in my parts of the woods? PMS



[edit on 16-2-2009 by burntheships]

Originally posted by nj2day

Be as it was...but you are taking a half mythical figure who was a criminal and are saying that he was Lincoln's equal?

Ah! I see you're finally starting to understand my objections at calling Darwin and Lincoln peers or equals... as you were trying to suggest earlier!
Finally, you understand my entire premise.
You're opinions are not your own...
[edit on 15-2-2009 by nj2day]

Oh yes they are...this has nothing to do with America. This has to do with the idea or the belief (in my case it is a belief) that Lincoln was a God fearing Christian, while Darwin was a secualr humanist.

And Darwin's theory of evolution of natural selection is in itself anti human rights! If you believe in Darwin's theory...you believe slavery is alright man. It's just the natural selection process! So while you were thinking you tricked me into some false adoration of jack the rapist you were really falling into the trap of admitting that you do not think the practice of slavery is wrong!

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by nj2day

 

Well if you are such a scholar...how about if you give me the name of a "book" you think I should read? Aside from the "On the Origin of Species" that is as I have already read that worthless compilation the theory!

Even though you fail to provide any reasoning behind why its a worthless theory... but besides that...

Erm... depends on what you are looking at learning? there is probably not a single book I could mention for any moment in history... As I've said, source documents are invaluable... but before you can properly understand the source documents, you have to read enough to understand the exact moral zeitgeist for that moment in history... (i.e. you can learn as much from a book written by Lincoln, as you can a book written in the same time period, that has nothing to do with the man himself.)

Lincoln Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ah, ok, nevermind on books than... fanatacism is not open mindedness... you won't truly learn anything, you'll mentally sift and learn only what supports your current opinions.

Jack the Ripper was a pervert,

Actually, he most likely wasn't. None of his victims had any signs of intercourse, forced or otherwise... Its probably more likely he was suffering from a fear of intimacy, or perhaps even unable to have intercourse for whatever reason... If you want pervert... you need to look at evangelical ministers... they seem to be the most perverted lot out there.

and you know what we do with perverts here in my parts of the woods? PMS

erm... get them ordained into the priesthood? Either Catholic or Evangelical?

Would it be ok if we kept replies in one post, otherwise things may get a little lost and the thread will get mighty big.

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by nj2day

 

Well if you are such a scholar...how about if you give me the name of a "book" you think I should read? Aside from the "On the Origin of Species" that is as I have already read that worthless compilation the theory!

Lincoln Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jack the Ripper was a pervert,

and you know what we do with perverts here in my parts of the woods? PMS

erm... get them ordained into the priesthood? Either Catholic or Evangelical?

That would be Catholic first...then Anglican. Evangelical are at least allowed to marry.

And that stands for Pass my Airsoft. I know the letters of PMS and PMA dont match up...but you will have to figure that our for yourself!


[edit on 16-2-2009 by burntheships]

Oh yes they are...this has nothing to do with America. This has to do with the idea or the belief (in my case it is a belief) that Lincoln was a God fearing Christian, while Darwin was a secualr humanist.

even though Darwin was indeed Christian? And actually didn't release his book for almost a decade because he couldn't rationalize how "god" could fit into his theory?

You seem to forget... in the culture that Darwin was raised in... there was no question as to the existence of god... You can actually read his biography, and understand how torn apart he was that "god" didn't fit into the observations he made in nature...

However, in a great demonstration of the non-biased nature of science... he released his book. Even though, at the time, he wasn't even convinced himself that the theory was correct...

And Darwin's theory of evolution of natural selection is in itself anti human rights!

No its not... it has nothing to do with human rights... at all... whatsoever.

If you believe in Darwin's theory...you believe slavery is alright man. It's just the natural selection process!

Wow, lets toss out some more neochristian rhetoric, and state it as fact with no supporting argument...

actually... I've already told you that social darwinism has nothing to do whatsoever with the scientific theory... Instead, Social Darwanism was thought up by the ruling elite, so they could explain to themselves why they were so fortunate... and the undesireables were unfortunate... But, you'll ignore this argument... just like you did the first time I presented it...

So while you were thinking you tricked me into some false adoration of jack the rapist

Ok, seriously... you suck at arguing... (you'll surely forgive me this one ad-homenim, vs the many many you have slung at me in this thread). If you really are as ignorant as you are making yourself out to be, I am truly sorry for your plight...

Instead, I was using that example to show how comparing Darwin to Lincoln was asinine, by drawing a similarly inappropriate comparison.

you were really falling into the trap of admitting that you do not think the practice of slavery is wrong!

Not really, I'm simply watching you demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of any of the concepts I am conveying to you... Either this is completely intentional, because you have no retort for the arguments I present, or, as I've mentioned, you really are out of your league when it comes to abstract conceptualization.

And just when you might have thought you diverted my attention...

TextLincoln, in contrast, is sui generis. Take him out of the picture, and there is no telling what might have happened to the country. True, his election to the presidency did provoke secession and, in turn, the war itself, but that war seems inevitable—not a question of if but when. Once in office, he becomes the indispensable man. As James McPherson demonstrates so well in the forthcoming "Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief," Lincoln's prosecution of the war was crucial to the North's success—before Grant came to the rescue, Lincoln was his own best general. Certainly we know what happened once he was assassinated: Reconstruction was administered punitively and then abandoned, leaving the issue of racial equality to dangle for another century. But here again, what Lincoln said and wrote matters as much as what he did. He framed the conflict in language that united the North—and inspires us still. If anything, with the passage of time, he only looms larger—more impressive, and also more mysterious. Other presidents, even the great ones, submit to analysis. Lincoln forever remains just beyond our grasp—though not for want of trying: it has been estimated that more books have been written about him than any other human being except Jesus.

Lincoln prosecuted a war—and became its ultimate casualty—to ensure that no man should have dominion over another.

reply to post by nj2day


Darwin was not a Christian. While it is true that many people are under the impression that Charles Darwin died a Christian and renounced his theory it is simply not the factual account. This is mainly due to rumors surrounding his death, and the fact that he studied at seminary as a young man and is buried in Westminster Abbey. His thinking and writing on the subject of evolution and natural selection caused him to reject the evidence for God in nature and ultimately to renounce the Bible, God, and the Christian faith! He was baptized an Anglican and was taugt in his mother's Unitarianism faith!

Despite all of the above religious influences in his life, the decline of Darwin's faith began when he first started to doubt the truth of the first chapters of Genesis. This unwillingness to accept the Bible as meaning what it said probably started with and certainly was greatly influenced by his shipboard reading matter—the newly published first volume of Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology (the second volume, published after the Beagle left England, was sent on to Darwin in Montevideo). This was a revolutionary book for that time. It subtly ridiculed belief in recent creation in favor of an old earth, and denied that Noah's Flood was world-wide; this, of course, was also a denial of divine judgment.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by burntheships]

[edit on 16-2-2009 by burntheships]

What exactly is it that you're trying to say in this thread?

reply to post by burntheships


LOL complete christian rhetoric... I'm guessing thats from a religious site.. hehe...

Anglican is christian... and I highly suggest you research into what Unitarian is...

not that you'll listen anyway. you haven't yet.

reply to post by burntheships

I am really curious to know what others think about this topic. In my mind, I see these two men standing in opposition to one another.

Unless Lincoln published scientific work that conflicted with Darwin's then they did not oppose one another.

Since we all know that Darwin was wrong...

A strange foregone conclusion.

But consider this...great conspiracy that people were so desperate to grab onto Darwins observations and set them up on a pedastal to be turned into a faulty scientific theory used to bllind people from the truth!

I'm going to ignore the spelling and grammar and say that you are wrong. People rejected Darwin's theory for a long time, even Darwin himself rejected it for a while. Quod erat Demonstrandum.

Faulty scientific theory? Oxymoron.
Blind people from the truth? What, you think Darwin, himself a Christian, had an agenda to turn people away from God? That's a bit silly.
[sarcasm]"The Truth." Yes, your subjective perception of reality is the truth isn't it.[/sarcasm]


...Oh and on the issue of slavery.
Modern slavery thriving in the U.S.
Huh? I thought that was abolished, I must be mistaken.

[edit on 16/2/2009 by Good Wolf]

Originally posted by Mike_A
What exactly is it that you're trying to say in this thread?

I don't even think he knows what he's trying to say...

I think he's probably "point farming". His argument is pretty meandering and aimless... and he is ignoring counter arguments, in favor of setting up straw men, and ad hominem...

We can most likely just sit back and watch him dig himself deeper.

Hey GW!

good to see you! I'm finally back from my little sabbatical. Its been a good month or two I think... lol

now if I could just track down Noob... lol

Originally posted by Mike_A
What exactly is it that you're trying to say in this thread?

It is a measure of their accomplishments. Lincoln's was greater.
For mankind, and good!

reply to post by nj2day

now if I could just track down Noob... lol

Yeah I haven't seen him in a while either. Wonder what's going on.

Originally posted by burntheships
It is a measure of their accomplishments. Lincoln's was greater.
For mankind, and good!

can't compare the two... I think thats what everyone has been telling you all along...

Apples and oranges and all that...