UK condemns Trump’s racist tweets in unprecedented attack against US congresswomen - Page 10 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15019569
@Palmyrene

Is it really necessary for it to be two ancestral parents?



Yes, it is. Any other assumptions lend credence to the idea that one group came from superior genetic stock, while other groups did not fare as well and are less ''evolved'' than others.



Will that not result in inbreeding?


No, think of the genetic biodiversity of domesticated animals like dogs or cattle or horses, all of these came from ancestors original to those kinds.

What's far more likely is that a bunch of humans were born from our closest genetic relatives as per evolution. The egg came before the chicken


Evolution is a racist belief system created by 19th century British White Imperialist bigots, and I for one have nothing to do with it's ''magic plus time creates life and progress'' hocus pocus. I simply don't argue about it here because of it's near universal following among PoFo members.

The reason I mentioned it here is simply because there's no place for racism at all if we are all one large family with a common mother and father, as I firmly believe.
#15019570
@annatar1914

Considering we all evolved from Africa I don't see how that is. And racism is fundamentally about conflating difference with superiority or inferiority. Just because people may have a different skin color from you they're inferior or superior to you.

They did not come from two single parents. They came from the predecessors to dogs or cows or whatever.

I mean you're half right. But the actual evolution theory is pretty well backed even if Darwin got alot of things wrong. Furthermore Kropotkin wrote Mutual Aid which saw that species survived due to cooperation rather than just competition.

We are a part of a big family just not from a common mother and father.
#15019572
@Palmyrene



On evolution/evolution of humans from Africa;


You're making an assumption based on an argument from authority, with persons involved in the ''research'' with a bias towards certain conclusions.

On the simplistic notion that racists base their ideas on mere ''skin color'';



You should know as well as I do that the racists who believe in evolution use all manner of biological factors besides skin color to reach their pre-determined conclusions. Evolution is a Western belief fostered by White Supremacists and no good has ever come from it. It has hampered Science and Progress if anything.



About original parents of animal stock;

All throughout human history, we can find in every case the wild original male/female pairings that were wild versions of domesticated animals. Like the Auroch with cattle, etc...



Again concerning your comments on evolution as a ''fact'
'... a load of assumptions based on a theory that isn't actual scientific fact and can never be. Science is based on testable and repeatable experimentation under rigorous logical conditions, looking at observable data. Much of what passes for modern ''science'' is mental masturbation, flights of fancy with no grounding in reality.

And on real family;


We are a part of a big family just not from a common mother and father.


If that's the case we're not family. But we are, and everyone deep down knows it which is why genuine racism is so hateful and repulsive. And also, why for me the issue of evolution isn't up for discussion.
#15019577
I mean yeah I am. You're right. But I have reason to believe my biases are correct. It's a leap of faith I'm willing to make.

Well in the end it just boils down to "these particular people make me feel uncomfortable". Their justifications or attempts to obscufvate said feelings are superfluous. Before evolution came along people used religion to justify their bigotry. Many racist religious folk still do so. That doesn't mean religion should be discarded.

I'm not entirely sure about what you're saying but it goes far beyond that. Pigs or cows as we know them emerged from the selective breeding of their wild variants who in turn were born from the changes in environment or by random that their ancestors went through. This itself is evolution.

Evolution is pretty observable overall and has been tested. Simply because one is unaware of such peer reviewed studies does not necessitate their non-existence. You should know better than that.

Yes, science is merely just a philosophical framework but it is very useful so far and it's basic tenants shouldn't be discarded.

We are. We come from the same species, have the same ancestors, and share similar genetic makeup. We behave similarly, form societies, have emotions, and have a sense of community. Isn't that all we need to be one big family?
#15019579
Science is not philosophy. Philosophy is about asking unanswerable questions. Science and philosophy do not over-lap.

Evolution, whether you believe it or not, is scientifically observed and there is mountains of evidence for it.

We're a bit off-topic, however.

Trump's Tweets were racist. It is not simply someone "saying" they were racist. They were. Many people admit Trump is racist, but that doesn't bother them as long as he's making them feel better.
#15019582
Godstud wrote:Science is not philosophy. Philosophy is about asking unanswerable questions. Science and philosophy do not over-lap.


Actually historically you are wrong about that (science is natural philosophy after all). Sure people think science and philosophy are seperate nowadays.

There's a whole discussion on the foundations, methods, and implications of science. Scientists debate on what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth.

There is no consensus among scientists or philosophers about many of the central problems concerned with the philosophy of science, including whether science can reveal the truth about unobservable things and whether scientific reasoning can be justified at all. In addition to these general questions about science as a whole, philosophers consider problems that apply to particular sciences (such as biology or physics). Some philosophers also use contemporary results in science to reach conclusions about philosophy itself.

The only thing that was gained by philosophy with science is that you couldn't just make shit up anymore. You couldn't be like Aristotle and say that men was a hairless chicken or something. Your philosophical framework or conclusions has to be supported by something.
#15019589
redcarpet wrote:New Zealand example:

Oh, cry me a racism river. Some people are arseholes, and when they want to hurt you verbally they will use what they think is a weak spot, which might be your weight, appearance, or any other type of attribute.

As the piece mentioned, Australians often get the same treatment, and personally I've heard the "go back if you don't like it" phrase used in response to Brits complaining about or criticising NZ plenty of times. Often this was in jest but sometimes it was meant seriously.

The most outrageously funny incident I've experienced here in that context, which I think I have mentioned on this board before a while back, was a second generation Russian immigrant telling a Maori to "go back home". Since we were all standing on official Maori land at the time, he got a suitable response and we were all laughing our heads off at the ignorance. :lol:
#15019594
redcarpet wrote:Blackjack here a few months age denied in a debate with me, that the use of the n-word is racist towards blacks. YEAH!

Black people use the n-word all the time.

redcarpet wrote:I won't bother asking him if a non-white used the phrase 'whitey' or 'white boy' would he consider that anti-white bigotry. OF COURSE HE WOULD!

I've never found it troubling. I am very white. If that's all they ever see over some degree of time, I would probably find it bothersome. I dated a Mexican gal once who called me "white boy," and I thought it was funny.

redcarpet wrote:He and a few other closet Nazis want James Fields released for his conviction of murdering a protester at Charlottesville by running over them with his car!

I've never said any such thing. I've said I think James Fields is mentally ill, and I think people like him should not be running around free.

redcarpet wrote:Neo-Nazi material was found in his house and no, no sign of mental difficulties!

He had a history of mental problems. That he was found competent to stand trial is a legal question, not a medical one.

redcarpet wrote:It was cold blooded murder!

More like hot-blooded. It was a charged situation.

BigSteve wrote:It's a shame that you intentionally choose to be dishonest by not including the entire quote.

I already put all of his tweets up so that everyone can see the ruse.

noemon wrote:Intentional dishonesty is constantly accusing your interlocutor with ad-homs without offering a shred of an argument.

He just argued that you deliberately misquoted Trump, which you did. I already provided Trump's actual statement. You just rephrased Trump's words into what you wanted Trump to say.

noemon wrote:There is nothing in the rest of the text that alters the meaning of the text I quoted and if you believe there is explain how.

First, Trump specifically targeted "progressive" Congresswomen, which is a small subset of female Congresswomen. So it obviously wouldn't include Nancy Pelosi, or even some minority Congresswomen. For example, Trump is very obviously not talking about black Congresswomen like Tracey Plaskett, Donna Christian-Christensen, Lauren Underwood, Lucy McBath, Jahana Hayes, Brenda Jones, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Val Demings, Brenda Lawrence, Robin Kelly, Alma Adams, Bonnie Coleman, Joyce Beatty, Teri Sewell, Marcia Fudge, and so forth. He was being very specific. If he were just being anti-black for example, he wouldn't have specified so many qualifiers which you keep dropping. He also didn't just say leave the United States and never come back. That's what your misquote implies. Dropping qualifying context is dishonest. For example, Trump is not talking about Senator Mazie Hirono or Congresswoman Norma Judith Torres who are both immigrants. Everybody else seems to know this but you.

noemon wrote:I did not quote Trump's rant against their countries of origin because it is not relevant to my argument

If your argument is about what Trump said, what he said is relevant to your argument. You are just deliberately dropping context to make it appear that Trump said something he didn't say, so you can justify feeling outraged and hope that you can get other people to feel outraged as well.

BigSteve wrote:By not including the entire quote, it's taken out of context, which is exactly what you intended...

Affirmative.

Pants-of-dog wrote:For those who claim Trump’s words were not racist, can you explain how?

Race clearly wasn't the basis of his comments, or he would not have used "progressive" as a qualifier. He also would not have used "Congresswomen" as a qualifier.

Pants-of-dog wrote:Obviously, you cannot explain how these comments are not racist.

Does someone else want to try?

Ibid

Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, many of us have had to deal with racism, and this was one of the racist things that was said to me by an openly racist person.

Somebody told you to go back where you came from, fix the extant problems, then come back to Canada and show Canadians how it is done?

Pants-of-dog wrote:I have demonstrated how the comments are racist by providing a source that shows how that phrase has been used throughout US history as a racist attack against immigrants.

If it's asserting racism, it's a poorly researched and poorly written article. My grandparents were immigrants. My grandmother was from Ireland. A lot of Irish were not treated well. Nevertheless, they are white. They aren't a different race. Ethnic bigotry is a separate question from racial bigotry. As a little help for you, Brit Hume used the proper term that Trump's ruse contained elements of "nativism." That's the word you should be using. However, again, Trump did not include all immigrant members of Congress in his quip.

BigSteve wrote:Your argument fails because you, and other Trump haters, fail to put his comments into the proper context. If you fail to do that, there's no reason in the world to approach any conversation with you in a serious manner...

Trump trolled them good this time. Why would he suggest having Nancy Pelosi make the travel arrangements for what would be yet another pointless Congressional junket otherwise? He's a master at this sort of thing.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:What I'm saying is that Trump is exploiting a common sentiment.

It's especially prevalent in the blue collar working class voters who have been adversely affected by illegal immigration and outsourcing. This is the demographic that delivered Trump's otherwise improbable 2016 victory--a political inside straight if there ever was one, and the biggest electoral upset in American History, I believe.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Keeping the people who are more controversial (especially with swing voters) in the public eye is probably helpful.

It is. However, it also forces Democrats to replay the "deplorables" sentiment expressed by Hillary Clinton about blue collar working class people who ended up voting for Trump. It's a deep psychological game, as I noted earlier.

Kaiserschmarrn wrote:A marxist won't give you the "my truth, your truth" gobbledygook.

A traditional Marxist won't. The cultural Marxist perhaps deserves a different name, because that philosophy relies on post-modern philosophy rather than modernism or materialism.

annatar1914 wrote:Seems to me that the only proper safeguard against ''racism'' and even class inequality to start with in a discussion is beginning with the common sense truth throughout time of our monogenetic rather than polygenetic origins as human beings, that we human beings today came from one set of original ancestral human parents. Anything else is racist or lends cover for belief in racism and class inequality.

Then the debate will be over whether their names were really Adam and Eve.

Palmyrene wrote:What's far more likely is that a bunch of humans were born from our closest genetic relatives as per evolution. The egg came before the chicken.

The genetic record suggests those of us further North were getting it on with Neanderthals, and we have some residual Neanderthal DNA. There is some genetic difference, like it or not.

annatar1914 wrote:Evolution is a racist belief system created by 19th century British White Imperialist bigots, and I for one have nothing to do with it's ''magic plus time creates life and progress'' hocus pocus.

I for one like Intelligent Design, not because I think it's 100% right, but because Evolution is incomplete, obviously. What I find fascinating about adherents of Evolution is that they are adamant that it is correct, until we apply it to human beings.

Godstud wrote:Science is not philosophy.

It's the philosophy of nature and natural phenomena. It just strictly disregards metaphysics.

Palmyrene wrote:Actually historically you are wrong about that (science is natural philosophy after all).

Damn. Now I have to take you more seriously...
#15019595
At least one redkneck has discovered that not everyone can get away with being a racist xenophobe serving the public.

But this story is a perfect example of how Trump emboldens his base of deplorables. They are making the US a hateful place to even visit as a tourist.


In the midst of a national controversy about President Donald Trump’s inflammatory tweets towards minority congresswomen, a store clerk at an Illinois convenience store has been fired after he was caught on video telling customers to “go back to their country.”

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/buck...204210223.html

He's shameless. As Stephen Colbert pointed out with zing, Trump threw his own supporters under the bus... Colbert had a wonderful new nickname for the man who loves to give schoolyard nicknames to people he throws tantrums about.... Wussolini. Perfect description of a man who bromances dictators, huffs out his chest about how wonderful and great he is... then when he acts proudly like a demagogue clearly NOT speaking fast or clamping down on the crowd to stop, he egregiously lies and puts it all on them. See Trumpers, he'll sell you out at the drop of a hat and go all snowflake in protest that no, absolutely not his fault. They were the ones doing the chant.... yet it was clear he was leading them on, enjoying being the center of attention.

No, Trump... you DON'T get to be a demagogue and push bigotry and racist notions and then try to make yourself look like a responsible, decent person appalled by the crowd reaction. God dammit, it's the one you were pushing for and what you have been doubling down on the past couple of days.. racism and bigotry is the essential element in your re-election campaign because you know unless you have the deplorables riled up you don't chance a chance against ANY of the perspective leading Democratic nominees for President. And chances are even now those idiots will forgive you … because you have them pegged as the people who would see you shoot someone dead on Fifth Avenue and they would support you, so they'll forgive anything. Even throwing them under the bus... thank you sir, may I have another?!!
#15019599
Drlee wrote:Magnificent!

Hindsite did not understand a word of the quotes he posted.

Yes, I did. Most of what Omar and Tlaib say are biased lies due to hatred of Israel and the Jews.

Drlee wrote:They do.

Politicians do many things for money, but they also do many things because they believe in what they are doing.

Drlee wrote:This is not even a matter under debate.

Then why are you attempting to debate it?

Drlee wrote:You seem to hate her because she stated the unvarnished truth.

I don't hate anyone for stating the unvarnished truth. If Omar and Tlaib would do that, then I might even heap praise on them for being truthful, but I can't imagine that happening anytime soon.


Rashida Tlaib needs History lesson

Ron Cantor MAY 14, 2019

It is important to not get too bent out of shape over the lies and ignorance expressed by Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar. This is their strategy: Keep saying outrageous things that the media must cover.

Tlaib must have been getting jealous of all the headlines that her colleague Ilhan Omar was getting with her outlandish statements. So she decided to outdo her and for that, she needed to say something crazy about the Holocaust.

It would be easy to ignore her, but when it comes to the Holocaust and the creation of Israel, it’s impossible to not address the lies. People are not educated on these issues. So when someone who is charismatic, like Rep. Tlaib, spreads a false narrative, it is often believed without being challenged.

This is the first time I have ever, ever heard someone (and it is a U.S. Congresswoman) say that the murdering of six million Jews, raping of our women, grotesque scientific experiments on our children, confiscation of our property and displacement of millions, brings someone calm.

In 1948, there were no, as in zero, ethnic Palestinians in the world. The word simply referred to anyone, Jewish or Arab, who lived in the region. There was no government of Palestine or State of Palestine—not ever.

Tlaib loves the fact that it was her “ancestors that provided… a safe haven for Jews, post-the Holocaust,” except, there is no truth in that!

The Land was not theirs to give. It was under Ottoman rule for 400 years until 1917, and then under the British Mandate until Israel’s independence.

In November 1947, the United Nations passed the “Partition” plan. This was a plan to take what was left of Palestine (after creating Jordan with 80% of Palestine) and create two states—one for the Jews and one for the Arabs. The Arabs rejected this; the Jews accepted.

The British left Israel on May 14, 1948 and Israel declared independence on the same day.

As for her ancestors, instead providing a safe haven for Jews (as the silly congresswomen suggests), they declared war on Israel, seeking to murder the upstart Jews. While many Arabs living in the region did not want war, the surrounding Arab nations called for them to evacuate, so they could wipe Israel off the map. Roughly 800,000 of her “Palestinian” ancestors fled, praying for an Islamic massacre, after which, they would return to the plunder. Israel’s unexpected victory threw a monkey wrench into that plan and created the refugee crisis. Had they stayed, they would have become full citizens here in Israel—just like the 600,000 Arabs who did not flee.

Tlaib spreads a false narrative that Jews just showed up in “Palestine” after the Holocaust because the Arabs here were going to help them establish a “safe haven.”

There were already 500,000 Jews living in “Palestine” at the end of World War 2.

Great Britian passed a law in 1939 that said only 75,000 more Jews could immigrate to Palestine without Arab approval. Eleven million were at risk, and that Arab approval never came; thus no “safe haven” for Jews.
In fact, Great Britain worked tirelessly throughout WW2 with Rep. Tlaib’s Arab ancestors to keep European Jews from immigrating to Israel, even unleashing British destroyers against European Jews seeking to enter by boat. It only became a safe haven to those Jews after Israel was a nation.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/calm-ra ... ory-lesson
#15019602
blackjack21 wrote:It is. However, it also forces Democrats to replay the "deplorables" sentiment expressed by Hillary Clinton about blue collar working class people who ended up voting for Trump. It's a deep psychological game, as I noted earlier.

I'm never quite sure how much is tactical or strategic and how much is just Trump's personality. The two probably seamlessly merge, but I always have to chuckle when people assert that Trump is dumb.

blackjack21 wrote:A traditional Marxist won't. The cultural Marxist perhaps deserves a different name, because that philosophy relies on post-modern philosophy rather than modernism or materialism.

Yes, the group that people call cultural marxists are almost always postmodernists. The traditional marxists and postmodernists share to some degree the "fetishisation" of the oppressed and assign to them moral virtue (although the favoured groups are different), but you can have a discussion based on reality and empiricism with marxists which is not guaranteed with postmodernists.

blackjack21 wrote:What I find fascinating about adherents of Evolution is that they are adamant that it is correct, until we apply it to human beings.

I've seen the term "cognitive creationism" which is quite fitting I think. Anything above the neck is essentially taboo.
#15019612
Provenance is a well known concept. It’s applied in the art world; to verify manuscripts; for classifying and dating archeological finds, to ascertain an automobiles history, shit - even human bones are put under the microscope. Many things AND PEOPLE in this world are analyzed to trace back their ‘origins’. But pose the question to a politician or allude to it any way and you’re a big fat racist :roll:

This is a dumb thread. Move on.
#15019618
blackjack21 wrote:Black people use the n-word all the time.


Black people have no racist intent against each other, if you were to use it however towards Black people that would a be a different story.

blackjack21 wrote:He just argued that you deliberately misquoted Trump, which you did. I already provided Trump's actual statement. You just rephrased Trump's words into what you wanted Trump to say. If your argument is about what Trump said, what he said is relevant to your argument. You are just deliberately dropping context to make it appear that Trump said something he didn't say, so you can justify feeling outraged and hope that you can get other people to feel outraged as well. Race clearly wasn't the basis of his comments, or he would not have used "progressive" as a qualifier. He also would not have used "Congresswomen" as a qualifier.


Fake news.

As I already said:

noemon wrote:Despite the fact that I have asked you to explain how that is, you are still unable to do so, clearly because you have no argument other than empty accusations. But since you insist so much:


Trump wrote:So interesting to see “Progressive” Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even have a functioning government at all), now loudly ...and viciously telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our government is to be run. Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how ....it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough. I’m sure that Nancy Pelosi would be very happy to quickly work out free travel arrangements!


Aside from the fact that Trump considers these women as separate from the United Stated nation, he is explicitly saying that these women cannot be telling the US how it is to be run due to their origins. Their jobs as Congresswomen however is to do exactly that.

blackjack21 wrote:He was being very specific.


Specific to the ones that are telling him things he don't like about his policies.

blackjack21 wrote:Ethnic bigotry is a separate question from racial bigotry.


As long as we all agree that Trump has engaged in ethnic-bigotry, it matters little if ethnic bigotry qualifies as "racism" in your semantic opinion. This is great progress for you as well as Hindsite:

Hindsite wrote:That is because they do not prove the comment was racist. If it was meant to be racist, Trump would not have added at the end, "come back and show us how it is done." A racist would not say, "come back? A racist would say, "don't come back" or "stay away."


I like how Hindsite has totally acquiesced to the reality that his tweets were totally racist but the only thing apparently not making them racist is his empty rhetorical task about them "going back-fixing imaginary countries with magical powers-then combing back".

You guys are 99.9% there already, congratulations. :up:
#15019633
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:Yes, the group that people call cultural marxists are almost always postmodernists. The traditional marxists and postmodernists share to some degree the "fetishisation" of the oppressed and assign to them moral virtue (although the favoured groups are different), but you can have a discussion based on reality and empiricism with marxists which is not guaranteed with postmodernists.


How are "cultural marxists" postmodernists, and what is a "cultural marxist" to begin with?
#15019641
noemon wrote:Black people have no racist intent against each other, if you were to use it however towards Black people that would a be a different story.

Actually, it is in their minds as to how it is intended. Perhaps, they can't take a joke.

noemon wrote:Aside from the fact that Trump considers these women as separate from the United Stated nation, he is explicitly saying that these women cannot be telling the US how it is to be run due to their origins. Their jobs as Congresswomen however is to do exactly that.

Obviously, they have been doing a very poor job of it. They even have been disrupting their own party and calling their Speaker of the House racist for what they imagine is being disrespectful to them. With only a few months in the House, they think they should be able to dictate policy to a congresswomen that has been serving in Congress since 1987. That is what President Trump and many others think is being very disrespectful to the only women Speaker ever. They are so arrogant and ignorant that they think they should not only speak for their small districts, but also for the whole country, which they don't. As Nancy Pelosi pointed out, they only have 4 votes in Congress.

noemon wrote:As long as we all agree that Trump has engaged in ethnic-bigotry, it matters little if ethnic bigotry qualifies as "racism" in your semantic opinion. This is great progress for you as well as Hindsite:

I don't see anything that Trump has done as representing bigotry or racism. I see him as being patriotic to the USA.
noemon wrote:I like how Hindsite has totally acquiesced to the reality that his tweets were totally racist but the only thing apparently not making them racist is his empty rhetorical task about them "going back-fixing imaginary countries with magical powers-then combing back".

You guys are 99.9% there already, congratulations. :up:

You sound like you are hallucinating. I certainly have NOT acquiesced to Trump's tweets as being racist just because he was criticizing Ilhan Abdullahi Omar, who came from the country of Somalia, for her anti-American, anti-Jewish, and anti-Israel comments. President Trump is not the only one that has criticized her and her cohorts for their comments. He is just the one the Democrat Main Stream Media news outlets concentrate on for their negative reporting.

Omar is also the one the crowd from the NC campaign rally referred to when they chanted, "Send her back." That was also not racist, but being patriotic and showing support for President Trump in a similar manner as the chant "Lock her up" was in his first election campaign. President Trump did not lock Hillary Clinton up and he is not going to sent Ilhan Omar back. However, she is free to go back on her own if she wishes. She certainly does not have the knowledge and experience to tell us how our country should be run when she came from one of those shit-hole countries.
#15019642
blackjack21 wrote:

I for one like Intelligent Design, not because I think it's 100% right, but because Evolution is incomplete, obviously. What I find fascinating about adherents of Evolution is that they are adamant that it is correct, until we apply it to human beings.



Earlier adherents almost universally did apply Evolution to human beings, because human beings were the clear object of the theory's intellectual consequences, as witness not only the Work of Darwin or Wallace, but also more pointedly Spencer and Galton, Darwin's son-in -law.

And obviously, there are Racists and Racialists who apply Evolution to human beings today, among both ''Liberals'' and ''Conservatives'' alike, as witness the roots of Planned Parenthood's Margret Sanger in the Eugenics movement. Nobody necessarily says anything about it or even has to; it's still in the background providing a fig leaf for what they'd try to do anyway to the ''human weeds''.

But as i've said before, persons who realize that we human beings are one family coming from one set of original parents, are pretty much immune to real Racism. This was what most of mankind believed for most of it's history, by the way. For this and other reasons I reject Evolution.
#15019648
And the attacks from the godless begin :excited: :roll:

Yes, because for most of it's history mankind didn't know shit about biology.


They knew themselves and they knew Logic. That as Aristotle says;

''Out of nothing, nothing comes.''



Nowadays we know every little detail


Sure we do :lol: :roll:


and people who still reject evolution are simply dumbasses.


I'll wear that slander as a badge of honor. If you want to be an de facto apologist for racism by supporting evolution, knock yourself out. I don't mind being proven right on this matter in the end.
#15019650
annatar1914 wrote:But as i've said before, persons who realize that we human beings are one family coming from one set of original parents, are pretty much immune to real Racism. This was what most of mankind believed for most of it's history, by the way. For this and other reasons I reject Evolution.

Yes, and the Holy Bible presents that truth in the first chapters. It is because of the original sin of our first two ancestors that we are actually devolving genetically, instead of evolving as evolutionists would have us falsely believe. Our current knowledge of DNA proves that we were intelligently designed and are also devolving into death just as the Holy Bible says.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

(Genesis 3:17-19 KJV)

Praise the Lord.
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 25
Trump's Dumb Economics

I was thinking about your earlier comment. That i[…]

Capital Punishment

The death penalty is an absurdity because the rac[…]

The left have created a pathetic fantasy world. In[…]

The biggest scandal in American history

Sprinkling incriminating adjectives doesn't help[…]