Human Intelligence

Speaking of non sequitur. Crashfrog was the one who started with term "universal view".
As for Darwin, he refers to Negroes in his writing as if they were far less developed than whites. Are you embarassed about that?
But help me here a little. Did the Negroes evolve from the white races (whichever white race you wish to select), or vice versa? Or if they evolved tother, then what creature is at the fork (where we split)?

So, it sounds to me like Europeans are further advanced/evolved than Savages and Negroes like Darwin leads his readers to believe?

I must have misundertood the OoS and DoM. Please tell me, what "difference" did Darwin imply between "Europeans", "savages", "lowest savages", and "Negroes"?

You're asking what I think? I think man has changed over time (variations), but not that he evolved from a frog or a primate. I think Darwin was clearly a racist, and his scientific views weren't "culture" driven. It's the hatred that Satan manages to put into our hearts (after we wander into enemy territory). He leads us to hatred, fights, brutality, wars, etc. Satan hates God, and he hates us because we remind him of God every time he sees us. His OoS was a rebellion against God. Hey, you asked me what I think.

Because that's what Darwin led his readers to believe. Do you remember your history book that referenced the headlines "...science proves negroes not human..." that white supremacists loved in those days? (and not just THOSE days). Oh, yes, that's what people were led to believe, and the thanks goes to Darwin himself.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

You asked me a question in post 137, and I answered it. Are you following along here?

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Which thread? I was probably laughing so hard at one of your responses that I may have missed your direction.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

You wrote:
[qs/](And I notice that you never joined the thread that I directed you to after you specifically asked me to. Changed your mind?)[/qs] The thread you mention has nine posts on it from me. But in one post, you do mention another thread, but it seems as if there are good debates going there and I would only repeat much of what has already been said. Should I make a few posts in cheerleader style, supporting those people who actually make sense? Or do you have a specific question that hasn't already been answered there? And I don't know where you got the idea that I would "set you straight" on anything. That's YOUR method of dealing with your fellow man.What I did say was: Now where in blazes did you get the idea that I was intent on setting you straight on Satan? YOU asked the question, while I didn't want to get accused of topic drift again, so I tossed the ball back to you since you asked it (and especially since Admin seems to (relatively) rarely jump on evolutionists for topic drift).
Your quote above just proves once again that all you seem to be interested only in is being able to stubbornly hold your ground in an argument no matter how hopeless your position is, or how ridiculous your arument may be. You twist, turn, weave, bob, accuse, play dirty pool, changes horses in mid-stream, etc, etc, rather than discuss in good faith. You have not demonstrated that you care about who may have made a good point, just who can win the argument (you seem to consider it a win if you get the last word, or depart from the topic by setting off every fallacy argument alarm in the book), even if it means twisting another man's words, or even fabricating something he never said. Luckily, there are only a couple of you like that on this forum. For the most part, this is a good forum with quite intelligent people offering well thought out opinions. The only reason I continue to respond to you is, well, I'll explain that later. You have indeed been an unexpected windfall for me. My time on this forum has almost expired.

Again, weaving, bobbing, twisting, turning, dodging, fabricating, etc., to serve your own purpose. Define "WE" please. While you're at it, let's play your game and define the word "did" and "or". It's ludicrous and you're proving all the points I've been making about how you argue. I did NOT make the statement in the context that you show above. I DID say: "WE" refers to the people on this forum, as you can see above (did you notice the word "folks"?). You're only interested in being argumentative. I didn't challenge you with the question, YOU were the one who asked it. If you're interested, start the topic (primarily because the question was off topic); I didn't claim to have the answers; some other folks may (I am repeating myself because you don't seem to get it the first time) as you see above. I already explained in a different post why the pain and suffering exists in this world, but you ridiculed that like anything else you don't like. Then you wanted to talk about Satan, and I responded with the above words, and you interpreted them like you did. You have proved my point once again that you are highly interested in pointless off topic arguing. Yeah, funny that other people have told you the same thing, eh?[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-15-2004]

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Really? Ya know, if you evolutionists would at least get together ahead of time to decide what lie they're going to tell the rest of us, it wouldn't be so embarrassing for them.Please explain what Darwin meant when he wrote: You also wrote: Well, then lets see how you can twist the words of Stephen J. Gould: My claims are inaccurate? I'm using information from YOUR camp. Will you distance yourself from SJG?[This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-16-2004]

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

See post 149 of this thread. Hmmm. You don't mean Stephen J. Gould, do you? See post 149 too. [This message has been edited by Skeptick, 02-16-2004]

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

You wrote: LOL. You and Sylas need to get together and discuss stuff before you post. Unless you want to distance yourself from him and his arguments.You wrote: Oh, yes... I DO understand, yes I do. My difficulty was with developing a line a questioning that finally led to you saying what you did in the two quotes above. Sylas, on the other hand, played a gambit (hoping I was uninformed) and lost. For you, I now respect you a little for at least finally answering a question honestly. Unless you just failed to realize what you said.Oh, yes. I DO understand. You see, evolutionary ideas existed long before Darwin, as you know. Darwin was just in the right place at the right time, and possessed the proper skills and training to document it. The OoS was an instant best seller (I already told you the reason why, but you scoffed as usual). But you just admitted that "...we don't teach evolution out of the Origin of Species anymore" as it was in 1859-18XX. Of course not, for obvious reasons. And it goes beyond that: You don't even teach evolution as it was taught in the 1920s. Much of the "scientific" evidence that the evolutionist lawyers presented at the Scopes trial in 1925 is no longer valid today either. The textbooks in the 1950s that taught about Piltdown man, Nebraska man, Ernst Haekel's hoax (yes, Ernst Haekel, even though it had been long debunked), etc, etc, are no longer valid either. Do you want me to continue through the last few decades (as I have in earlier posts)?

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

Already explained my views much earlier. You missed it completely. Just like you don't believe in God. Do you think we'll ever connect on that? I rebutted, you rebutted. "Did so, did not, did so, did not." That's how you argue. I stated my views, you stated yours, we move on. But you think if you've said the last word on a topic, that you "won" somehow because the other person didn't "rebut" (translation: "Didn't get in the last word"). I don't need the last word; you do, so I give it to you as long as I made my views known. Just because you scoff doesn't make my viewpoint less valid.

---

Even the devils believe; and they tremble....

My goodness, I've heard that exact same argument before somewhere. But let's say those "dishonest people" were truly dihonest; how come they all tend to see the same thing even though they're not connected to each other? Mental telepathy, perhaps? Or just similar observations?

Where do you see me saying that in post #150? You ARE replying to post #150, right? You didn't substantiate your claim with quote from that post.But since you say I quoted SJG out of context, please explain to me what SJG meant, in the proper context, of course. I'm very interested in hearing this.In case you forgot, here is his quote: