Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Otter
So.. just where do you think this is going? I'm not 'going' anywhere in particular with this, just enjoying a
philsophical discussion on the status of humans and other animals. You're starting to sound paranoid.
|
But of course
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Otter
Well, what do you think? You want to hear others ideas- how about some of your own?
|
It's very simple. We ARE "fundamentally different" than animals.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Otter
Ah.. not everything, but I was an evolutionary biologist before vet school.
|
Then you know the real, full title of our hero Charlie D.s BOOK then yes ? Or would that be NO ?
You were an evolutionary biologist were you ? Maybe it's just ME, but I'm having trouble beleiving that from what you've said in this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Otter
Nice.. the below (in red) is from the American Conservative Union Foundation:American Conservative Union Foundation (not a scientific source, by the way). If you are going to quote, you really ought to cite. You give the impression that this is from 'The Scientist (which you do cite below).
|
I wasn't quoting from that internet writing actually. Now, let us argue and discuss who we're quoting and citing and what we can "dismiss"
Thats always a good way to ignore shortcomings of your own argument. Find a way, ANY way to dismiss items that expose the weaknesses of your argument.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Otter
The only 'academics' debating the validity of evolution are the self-styled creation 'scientists' that shout from the fringes of biology.
|
Ah. They're shouting from the fringes of "biology" are they ?
Here's the truth.
That is your opinion. It's not fact. There is not, and never WILL be a consensus about evolutionary theory among academics.
There's not even a consensus among academics about the meaning of the TERM "evolution".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Otter
Uh.. yeah. Do you realise that this article does not support creationism? That evolution does not even adress
the origin of life, only what happens once it is present.
|
I'm not sure what your point is in pointing this out. That you seem focussed on getting rid of any ideas of "creationism" I find interesting. In a perverse way :-) What is your fascination with making sure nobody beleives in "creationism" ?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Otter
Does what?
|
You said:
The way I see it, all life on this planet is related- we are all kin. If you belong to a large family, does that mean you are nothing more than a family member? Of course not- you are also an individual, with abilities, ideals and aspirations that may be very different from your kin.
To which, I said:
The ability to discriminate the difference between humans and animals and the difference between individuals OF a related human family doesn't somehow tie humans as the kin to animals.
The THEORY of evolution (which is continually evolving ITSELF) does that. Not so well either. That is a rather big argument among academics actually. One I'll let THEM bandy about for eternity.
The theory of evolution does that. Does WHAT ? Tries to show how humans are "kin" to animals.
I said:
Not so well either.
Because it doesn't.
And yes, whether you like it, beleive it or accept it or not, academics ARE still debating this concept.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Otter
Name one flaw that can't be overcome scientifically. We can discuss it- it will be fun.
|
There are too many to name. Obviously your religious faith in science and the theory of evolution will blind you to any honesty in discussing them. My interest in this is waning.
What might be FUN is exposing your hero Charlie boy for what he really WAS.
Here are some facts you probably don't know because of academically suppressed history:
Suppressed History
Obliterating Politically Correct Orthodoxies pgs. 113-116
The full title of Darwins most famous book IS:
On the Origin of Species by means of natural Selection or the presevation of Favoured Races in the struggle for life
Darwin was a racist. It's been shown in his writings:
In,
The Descent of Man he wrote:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world."
He doesn't say the races of animals. He says the races of MAN.
On July 3, 1881 he wrote a letter to W. Graham (life and letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 1, 316, cited in Gertrude Himmelfarb, Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, 1959, p.343). He wrote the following:
"The more civilized so-called caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
Darwins friend Ernst Haeckel served Adolf Hitler. Hitler loved Darwins writings. He borrowed his title Mein Kampf (my struggle) from Darwins subtitle
the presevation of Favoured Races in the struggle for life.
Stalin, who murdered millions loved Darwins writings. The book
Landmarks in the life of Stalin by Emelian Yaroslavsky, documents a conversation between Stalin and one of his ecclesiastical school classmates, wherein Stalin says, "I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense."
His classmate said:
"What book is that ?"
Stalin replied:
Darwin. You must read it."
Like Stalin and Hitler, you'll dismiss anything with any connotation of religion. But, you'll accept a theory spawned by an early racist.
Fascinating.