Charles Darwin vs. Abraham Lincoln

reply to post by imd12c4funn


Nice to read some intelligent thoughts...
Quite the break from some of the previous posts. And yea, Lincon was taller!

Oh looky...
a thread that was created so a Christian can pander their christion values, with absolutely no proof whatsover.

Please, if you want to preach, go to a church.

You do realize that Lincoln was the absolute least religious of all the presidents to date right?

You do realize that evolution has been observed in laboratory environments right?

You do realize that factual evidence supports the "looney, erroneous theories of Darwin" to a much greater extent than the "omnipotent being snapped his fingers" theory right?

In the end, this boils down to the same thing every other theological discussion does:

For those that believe, no proof is necessary. For those that don't, no proof is possible.

Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by burntheships

 

See nj2day and GW’s posts.

I read nj2day and GW's posts. This thread was about Lincon vs Darwin, and thier accomplishments. They were talking about TV and potato's.So nothing there to resond to.


But that is not the point, what I was asking is on what terms do you judge these two people’s achievements? Why are Lincoln’s greater than Darwin’s?


This thead was started as an opinion thread. Please go back and look at my first post. Of course it is my opinion that Lincoln's accomplishments were greater measured by the good he did for mankind. That is my opinion. I think that for varoius reasons, the main one being that Darwin's theory has been proven faulty. So in my mind, Darwin was a failure.


If it is how many they have converted to or turned away from God do you have the statistics to back up your conclusion?

Statistics change every day. In our county, it is no longer legal to own a slave as chattel. That is verifiable data.


Disregarding the significant number of people who believe in both God and evolution I can see how it could be argued that prima facie evolution must turn people away from God. But how on earth does Abraham Lincoln convert people into believers?


While I do not remember saying Lincoln converted anyone, I did say that he turned people towards God.

I read this recently. A nice summary of thoughts about Darwin's faulty theory of evolution by natural selection. Of course Darwin did not see the future, so he could only base his theory on what he knew and observed at the time he lived.

Proponents of the gay agenda like to say their lifestyle is genetically determined and they don't have a choice in the matter. Most homosexuals reject God so they can't claim they were "created" the way they are. From this we can conclude that most agree with the tenets of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

However, this position poses a logical contradiction. Just consider the basic scientific definition of Evolution, which is, according to the MedTerms Online Medical Dictionary: "the continuing process of change, especially in reference to natural selection."

Under Darwin's process of natural selection, all "beings" — as opposed to the outmoded religious idea of "creatures" — are continually adapting to their natural environment in order to have a better chance of surviving. The weakest and most poorly adapted die off, while the strongest and most improved survive long enough to mate. Their offspring inherit their genes, and thus the species improves from one generation to the next.

Darwin "noted that successful species produce more offspring in each generation than are needed to replace the adults who die . . . The species would thus have changed or evolved to favor traits that favor survival and reproduction," MedTerms explains.

This means that not only must these beings be able to reproduce sexually, they must actually do so, for evolution to work as posited. Under evolution, then, successful reproduction is the key. Homosexuals would cease to exist because their sexual practices are such that they do not produce natural offspring.

Therein lies the quandary, then, for the gay activist seeking to make his intellectual case for respectability based on science and genetics. These secular gods have abandoned him to oblivion. By their iron laws of Natural Selection, he cannot possibly exist, let alone be genetically preserved and determined.

This poses a huge dilemma for both the homosexuals and the evolutionists. Are the evolutionists willing to weaken their dogma by accepting the homosexuals as a genetically determined subspecies? If evolutionists accept homosexuals, the whole Darwinian argument falls apart. "

[edit on 16-2-2009 by burntheships]

Tylor Durdon too thought that lincoln would be a tough fight. Though i think that darvin was more compact, wich has its value in a fistfight ... hmmm bigger reach vs more power to the punch .... i put 20 on lincoln.

While Darwinians might feel threatened by religion the contest is of wisdom against fools.

Politics has no such angels on its side. Its arguments are rarely susceptible to evidence, other than history. Its conflicts are visceral and concern the interest of elites, groups, taxes, privileges and vengence.

Politics reflects the basest emotions, and resolving them is difficult beyond the imagining of science. When Auden opined that no poem had "saved one Jew from the gas chambers", he may have been speaking for science as much as for literature or art. Only politics has that power to hand.

www.theage.com.au...

Mod Edit:IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS.Please review this link


[edit on 17-2-2009 by GAOTU789]

Originally posted by burntheships
I read this recently. A nice summary of thoughts about Darwin's faulty theory of evolution by natural selection. Of course Darwin did not see the future, so he could only base his theory on what he knew and observed at the time he lived.

Erm... not really... you still haven't shown any evidence as to why Darwin's theory is faulty... you just spew fundamentalist nonsense...

Proponents of the gay agenda like to say their lifestyle is genetically determined and they don't have a choice in the matter. Most homosexuals reject God so they can't claim they were "created" the way they are. From this we can conclude that most agree with the tenets of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

1) Show me evidence that Most homosexuals reject god...

2) No one knows if homosexuality is genetically determined, or what the root causes are, but it has existed in all species for a very long time.

This means that not only must these beings be able to reproduce sexually, they must actually do so, for evolution to work as posited. Under evolution, then, successful reproduction is the key. Homosexuals would cease to exist because their sexual practices are such that they do not produce natural offspring.

This is where you start to fail... Not all beings reproduce sexually... this is known fact... sexual reproduction speeds up evolution, but is not dependent on it in the least... but you are correct in stating that reproduction is key...

If indeed homosexuality is genetically determined... it would have to be a recessive trait... one that does not favor the survival of the species... Recessive traits not favoring survival are alive and well in our society, as we've all but stopped natural selection on our species... we now determine our own evolution... (in a nutshell, its actually more complicated, but my expectations that you will actually listen/read this argument are close to nil, so I'll stop there)

Therein lies the quandary, then, for the gay activist seeking to make his intellectual case for respectability based on science and genetics. These secular gods have abandoned him to oblivion. By their iron laws of Natural Selection, he cannot possibly exist, let alone be genetically preserved and determined.

Mental retardation, downs syndrome and other genetic disorders that do not favor reproduction of the species still exist... however, they are genetically recessive traits...

Recessive genes are the reason that inbreeding brings about so many negative consequences... When a gene is recessive, and both individuals carry this recessive gene, the odds are greater that the recessive trait will get passed to the offspring.

This poses a huge dilemma for both the homosexuals and the evolutionists. Are the evolutionists willing to weaken their dogma by accepting the homosexuals as a genetically determined subspecies? If evolutionists accept homosexuals, the whole Darwinian argument falls apart. "

Evolution isn't a dogma, its an explaination of well documented scientific observations. but ignoring this fact... IF homosexuality is indeed genetic, and is a recessive gene, this argument holds no water...

Recessive genes mean that it takes 2 people, both carriers of the recessive trait (maybe displaying the recessive trait themselves... maybe not..) for an offspring to inherit these genes...

However, basing your entire premise off the assumption that homosexuality is genetically determined, when there isn't anything conclusively demonstrating this, weakens your entire argument.

Perhaps you should argue from the standpoint of factual integrity... however, that might negate your entire fundamentalist rhetoric completely null...





[edit on 16-2-2009 by nj2day]

Originally posted by burntheships
While Darwinians might feel threatened by religion the contest is of wisdom against fools.

Evolutionists do not feel threatened by religion... In fact, many religions have embraced evolution, and have determined that it is not mutually exclusive of their religious beliefs...

Politics reflects the basest emotions, and resolving them is difficult beyond the imagining of science. When Auden opined that no poem had "saved one Jew from the gas chambers", he may have been speaking for science as much as for literature or art. Only politics has that power to hand.

I don't understand why you are making this point? Politics and the "will of a society" are completely two different things... case in point: Our current economic bailouts... most americans didn't want them to pass... yet politicians passed them...

The calibre of politicians is a crucial determinant of human happiness. Theirs is not a profession but the consummation of social activity.

Politics don't have much to do with human happiness... You're basing your assumptions off a single point of view, in 1 world culture.

Before politics entered the social hierarcy, are you suggesting that everyone just moped about? Happiness is more about fulfillment of basic needs and instincts...

Your argument suggests that without politics, we'd all be miserable... When it is quite obvious that politics is the cause of a fair amount of unhappiness experienced in our country...

Darwin died in his bed and Lincoln took an assassin's bullet.

The measure of a man is by how he died? Natural causes makes one less noble? Are we suggesting that being assasinated means you've led a successfull life?

Seriously, Lincoln affected a small percentage of the world population... Darwin, has had much farther reaching influence than Lincoln ever did, or will...

Some very positive effects of Lincoln'f life:

In that short speech at Gettysburg, Lincoln reminded his audience of the democratic origin of the United States in an unvarnished, color-blind statement—“our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” This biblically based creed, that those of all “colors” are equal in God’s sight and should be treated equally by the law, became the basis for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which together uphold the rights of all U.S. citizens regardless of skin shade.

That achievement alone has obviously reshaped the United States extensively, though the painful effects of slavery (and segregation, which sadly continued long beyond the end of the Civil War) still manifest themselves at times in American culture.

Some very negative effects of Darwin's life:

Darwinism has stretched its tentacles outside the academic realm on more than one nasty occasion, but the nastiest is almost undoubtedly the Darwinism–Nazi connection

Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution

www.answersingenesis.org...

And another extremely interesting revealing article on the negative effects of Darwin here: Darwinism and the Nazi race Holocaust

www.answersingenesis.org...

In a similar macabre connection, examine what serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer’s words say about the influence of Darwin:

“If a person doesn’t think there is a God to be accountable to, then—then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we, when we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing.

Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, November 29, 1994.

reply to post by burntheships


Sorry mate, but the bible doesn't think all men are created equal...

The bible has very graphic descriptions of genocide... If you think a "people" are equal to you... you certainly don't set out to completely eradicate their entire culture...

Your rhetoric is getting pretty extremist... like WAY extremist... the sources you site are only from christian fundamentalist websites...

Honestly, this type of fundamentalist extremism is actually very dangerous, regardless if its muslim or christian...

Its quite obvious at this point, you don't actually care do engage in thoughtful discussion, instead you are seeking a soap box for your religious extremist views.

I would rethink your positions a little more... from the arguments you've presented... if its not christian, or a mainstream christian belief, it is an evil...

hence your aversion to the idea that Darwin might have been a good person...

This thread is not about the bible...while I have opined quite a bit of Christian World View this thread is about Lincoln vs Darwin. It was started as an opinion thread...not a debate thread.

And while I have posted from my point of view, which is a Christian World view, some have posted from the secular humanist view, some as athiests.

The secular humanists are obviously of the opinion we originated in the amoral eons of violence and competition for scarce resources, and only later evolved both consciousness and consciences. The basis for establishing moral codes or laws, is selfishness in their world.

Christian's recognize our Creator, and our purpose. Our recognition becomes the basis for the morality we seek in our own lives and in society. The geneologies in the Bible teach us how we are all descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah, and how we are all of one chromatic race. This, then, gives us the basis for hoping to eradicate so-called “racist” laws and attitudes. Including but not limited to the abhorrent practice of slavery.

Ultimately, this is the joint legacy of Darwin and Lincoln: over the past 150 years, they have shown us how crucial one’s starting points are in determining what one believes about the past and about the future, and therefore shaping what we do in the present.

Originally posted by burntheships
This thread is not about the bible...while I have opined quite a bit of Christian World View this thread is about Lincoln vs Darwin. It was started as an opinion thread...not a debate thread.

Than stop trying to pass your opinion off as fact... and stop trying to say "according to darwin" on ideas that are clearly NOT according to darwin...

And while I have posted from my point of view, which is a Christian World view, some have posted from the secular humanist view, some as athiests.

Correction: You have posted from a Fundamental Christian Extremist world view.

If you doubt that, I'm willing to wager decent money on the fact that the majority of christians... don't believe what you believe about Darwin's theory.

Christian's recognize our Creator, and our purpose. Our recognition becomes the basis for the morality we seek in our own lives and in society.

There we have it... Basis for morality we seek ... in society. Why is it your job to project your religious morality on the rest of society?

The geneologies in the Bible teach us how we are all descendants of Adam and Eve through Noah, and how we are all of one chromatic race.

Even though the geneologies are incorrect? and contradicts itself through bible passages? Or does this mean that incestious relationships are ok?

This, then, gives us the basis for hoping to eradicate so-called “racist” laws and attitudes. Including but not limited to the abhorrent practice of slavery.

Even though the bible itself condones owning slaves? Look it up... there are actually ALOT of passages about owning slaves...

The bible also has god commanding his people to commit genocide...

Or are we just going to cherry pick the "good bits" out of the bible... and say thats what it wants us to do?

Ultimately, this is the joint legacy of Darwin and Lincoln: over the past 150 years, they have shown us how crucial one’s starting points are in determining what one believes about the past and about the future, and therefore shaping what we do in the present.

How? This is a pretty sweeping statement to be making without actually providing explanation...

Sweeping generalities and decrees by fiat will never explain anything... instead, it shows argument from a lack of factual evidence.

Originally posted by burntheships
The secular humanists are obviously of the opinion we originated in the amoral eons of violence and competition for scarce resources, and only later evolved both consciousness and consciences. The basis for establishing moral codes or laws, is selfishness in their world.

I still do not understand any one who tries to pawn off selfishness as a viable way of life. Not unless you perhaps are...a marxist.

Marxism sought to be scientific, like Darwin. It's anchor was a social and economic theory that was believed to mirror the true history of life.
Central to that theory was the struggle between classes that owned the means of production and the working class that did not.

Karl Marx, the ‘spiritual father’ of the communist system was an avid adherent of Darwin. He combined his social and economic idea with evolutionary principles. Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ His disciple Lenin applied utter ruthlessness and terror in Russia. The term ‘rivers of blood’ has commonly been applied in describing his reign. Nice guy eh? Nah!

Hitler too shared a similar worldview, as outlined in his book Mein Kampf (literally ‘my struggle’). He believed that people, like animals and plants, were engaged in a constant struggle for survival. Selfishness could come into play here dont you think? The climax of history would be the survival of the fittest race, which he believed to be the ‘Aryan race’, as embodied in the German people. Of course we all want to be like Hitler? No!

We do not come from chaos...survival of the natural selection process. We did not arrive from ‘survival of the fittest’ to reach the selfishness of our own making.

We come from creation. Darwin sought to exclude God; just as Hitler, Stalin.








[edit on 17-2-2009 by burntheships]

Originally posted by burntheships
I still do not understand any one who tries to pawn off selfishness as a viable way of life. Not unless you perhaps are...a marxist.

Evolution has nothing to do with selfishness as a way of life... its about natural selection...

Marxism sought to be scientific, like Darwin. It's anchor was a social and economic theory that was believed to mirror the true history of life.
Central to that theory was the struggle between classes that owned the means of production and the working class that did not.

Now you're suggesting that believing in evolution makes you a marxist? Really reaching pretty far now aren't you?

Karl Marx, the ‘spiritual father’ of the communist system was an avid adherent of Darwin. He combined his social and economic idea with evolutionary principles. Marx wrote that Darwin’s book ‘contains the basis in natural history for our views.’ His disciple Lenin applied utter ruthlessness and terror in Russia. The term ‘rivers of blood’ has commonly been applied in describing his reign. Nice guy eh? Nah!

So you're trying the o'l argument ad hitlerum? you are pretty versed in using fallicious arguments aren't you?

All of these attempts to associate evolution with negative ideals is pretty lame... you should try actually answering the arguments put in front of you... you're just trying avoidance tactics now...

Hitler too shared a similar worldview, as outlined in his book Mein Kampf (literally ‘my struggle’). He believed that people, like animals and plants, were engaged in a constant struggle for survival. Selfishness could come into play here dont you think? The climax of history would be the survival of the fittest race, which he believed to be the ‘Aryan race’, as embodied in the German people. Of course we all want to be like Hitler? No!

didn't see that one coming.. or did i?

see reductio ad hitlerum.

We do not come from chaos...survival of the natural selection process. We did not arrive from ‘survival of the fittest’ to reach the selfishness of our own making.

Ok, you've made this statement many times... and each time, I ask you to provide evidence... and you still haven't... do you not have anything to back up your assertions?

We come from creation. Darwin sought to exclude God; just as Hitler, Stalin.

Negative once again... Darwin saught to explain his observations... once he had those observations they made him question religious dogma... He did not seek to exclude god...

I could of course, reverse these same arguments on you, and go through all the blood and carnage throughout history instigated by the christians... but, I'm deciding to wait for you to address the arguments at hand...

[edit on 17-2-2009 by burntheships]

reply to post by burntheships


Instead of spewing out false arguments, arrogant christian rhetoric, and severely incorrect conclusions you or your church may have drawn... how about we do what I've been asking for several posts, and answer the arguments you have been handed...

nailing you down to a specific argument is like nailing jello to a wall... State your argument... and the rebut... thats how these things work...

not one side spewing falsehoods, and failing to answer challenges to those falsehoods.

Just one more measure of achievment:

In the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations

Darwin has 5 quotes
1809-1882

Lincoln has 17 quotes
1809-1865

Just Saying...just saying