Richard Dawkins Shows His Racism.

[ikester7579 19]

Richard Dawkins brings up the idea that a black man is an ape. To make it "sound" not like a racist comment he softens it with calling himself an ape even though the black made it clear he is not an ape.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4YLhKtdSvg&feature=feedlik

 

This just proves that no matter how much people claim evolution is not based in racism, a fool like Dawkins will open his big mouth and cement the case for evolution being racist even today. What i find ironic is that he is trying to make the black guy feel proud to be called an ape.

[jason 18]

uh, can we get the whole video so that the athiests wont say quote mine. i would like to see the response, and yes that african ape can be taken the wrong way so easily.easily as a racial slur. i wouldnt say that to a black man at all.

[ikester7579 19]

uh, can we get the whole video so that the athiests wont say quote mine. i would like to see the response, and yes that african ape can be taken the wrong way so easily.easily as a racial slur. i wouldnt say that to a black man at all.

 

I don't know where the whole video is, I just ran across this on my start page on youtube. By the way, when they accuse me of quote mining, I remind them that they run the biggest quote mine website (FSTDT.com). And if they have a problem with us quote mining, take down that site first. otherwise they are being hypocrites by more or less saying: Do as I say not as I do.

 

Don't be surprised if you are on that quote mine website, they love to quote mine stuff from this forum. We have several regular visitors from FSTDT.com that come here to quote mine, I know because some of my stuff gets quoted the same day I post it. This is just another example where the atheists hold everyone else to a standard they cannot hold up to themselves.

 

I also think this video proves how desperate Dawkins is to get everyone to conform to his views.

[Calypsis4 639]

I don't know where the whole video is, I just ran across this on my start page on youtube. By the way, when they accuse me of quote mining, I remind them that they run the biggest quote mine website (FSTDT.com). And if they have a problem with us quote mining, take down that site first. otherwise they are being hypocrites by more or less saying: Do as I say not as I do.

 

Don't be surprised if you are on that quote mine website, they love to quote mine stuff from this forum. We have several regular visitors from FSTDT.com that come here to quote mine, I know because some of my stuff gets quoted the same day I post it. This is just another example where the atheists hold everyone else to a standard they cannot hold up to themselves.

 

I also think this video proves how desperate Dawkins is to get everyone to conform to his views.

 

Right. I have repeatedly been accused of quote mining whenever I reveal what evolutionists reveal about the facts of their own theory. Once they even accused me of quote mining the definition of abiogenesis from Wikipedia. But at bottom line I would have to have quoted the entire article in order to avoid the charge. However, the first paragraph which distinctly brings out just what abiogenesis was was quite sufficient.

 

I also might point out that Wikipedia has since then rewritten the article with a very favorable attitude towards the possibility of abiogenesis in earth's distant past using the Miller/Urey failure as their example of 'success'. Good grief.

[ikester7579 19]

Right. I have repeatedly been accused of quote mining whenever I reveal what evolutionists reveal about the facts of their own theory. Once they even accused me of quote mining the definition of abiogenesis from Wikipedia. But at bottom line I would have to have quoted the entire article in order to avoid the charge. However, the first paragraph which distinctly brings out just what abiogenesis was was quite sufficient.

 

I also might point out that Wikipedia has since then rewritten the article with a very favorable attitude towards the possibility of abiogenesis in earth's distant past using the Miller/Urey failure as their example of 'success'. Good grief.

 

When they cannot address your comment with science, then they resort to the next thing which is to discredit the messenger because he challenged their beloved theory. It's lame because if their theory is such a true proven fact, then science that supports it could not be put to question. Their efforts show that their theory is not what they exalt it to be (a scientific theory), as for the reason it has to be defended by such tactics because proving it to degree they claim that it is, is impossible. So to cover for that impossibility they do the unscientific thing.

 

I have had evolutionists try to claim evolution is an absolute. And I tell them that if it's an absolute, then it would be a law instead of a theory. It's ironic that they make the unprovable claims and get mad at us for pointing it out. Here are some pages I'm doing on this:

http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=946

http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=961

[jason 18]

gotta love em. i love the you dont understand the toe. and they that post that on the other forum tell that do a gentlemen who holds degrees in agriculture and has a job in the field while they are just athiest bloggers!

 

funny aint it, the ameteur telling the sciencetist that they dont know thier own field. they wouldnt dare attempt that with evolutionist.

[ikester7579 19]

gotta love em. i love the you dont understand the toe. and they that post that on the other forum tell that do a gentlemen who holds degrees in agriculture and has a job in the field while they are just athiest bloggers!

 

funny aint it, the amateur telling the scientist that they dont know their own field. they wouldnt dare attempt that with evolutionist.

 

Their reasoning about us not understanding TOE is that we disagree with it. In their mind the only way anyone understands evolution is if they agree and believe. So when they say you don't understand, just respond: Of course I don't understand because to do so, in your mind, I would have to believe also, right? So using that logic I could also say you don't understand creation... Trying to defend a situation that will never be accepted is a waste of time. Agreeing with them defuses it's power against you.

[Isabella 22]

This just proves that no matter how much people claim evolution is not based in racism, a fool like Dawkins will open his big mouth and cement the case for evolution being racist even today.

 

Are you familiar with the term "spotlight fallacy"? Evolution is not about racism, and the majority of evolutionists are not racists.

[Calypsis4 639]

Are you familiar with the term "spotlight fallacy"? Evolution is not about racism, and the majority of evolutionists are not racists.

 

Phooey on 'spotlight fallacy'. The full title of Darwin's famous book: The Origin of the Species, by Means of Natural Selection; subtitled: Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

 

There you have it. And would not 'natural selection' be logically included in the 'preservation of the races'? After all, the white moths of England were replaced by the black ones because of 'evolution'...right (at least for a time)?

 

Well, you dug this hole for yourselves when you accepted that ridiculous theory in the first place so now you have to live with it.

[Isabella 22]

Phooey on 'spotlight fallacy'. The full title of Darwin's famous book: The Origin of the Species, by Means of Natural Selection; subtitled: Preservation of the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.

 

Darwin wrote that book over 150 years ago, when language like that was common and acceptable. But even if it had been written yesterday, it would make no difference. Darwin’s views do not represent the views of all evolutionists. Same goes for Richard Dawkins, who says plenty of things I disagree with. Hence the fallacy.

 

If I were to dig into the history of Christianity, I know I’d find examples of racism, S*xism, and a whole lot more. That doesn’t mean all modern Christians are terrible people.

[jason 18]

yes and you would find clear scripture that condemns hating of the fellow man, S*xism right like trying to say hey women you cant do that because its anamtomically impossible or if you do that its going to cost. its laugable that these feminists call me chavinist and yet a pagan(yes a real one) acknowledges my position as she is a tomboy. and has issues with women in the canadian military. they cant hang with her as she meets or exceeds many a male physical standards. yet her body has paid dearly. she may not be able to serve longer. both her hips are rebuilt and both knees and her back is taking a hit. the doc well if you want to work and not be disabled and in a wheel chair quit while you are ahead.

 

so he is sexist i guess? btw she isnt even 40.

[Geode 2]

funny aint it, the ameteur telling the sciencetist that they dont know thier own field. they wouldnt dare attempt that with evolutionist.

 

I have had this happen to me on this very board.

[Calypsis4 639]

Darwin wrote that book over 150 years ago, when language like that was common and acceptable. But even if it had been written yesterday, it would make no difference. Darwins views do not represent the views of all evolutionists. Same goes for Richard Dawkins, who says plenty of things I disagree with. Hence the fallacy.

 

If I were to dig into the history of Christianity, I know Id find examples of racism, S*xism, and a whole lot more. That doesnt mean all modern Christians are terrible people.

 

Why don't you stop making excuses for a philosophy that led the death of untold millions in everything from the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 (led by atheist/communist/evolutionists) to the Lenin purges, to Stalin (all the same atheist/communist/evolutionist) to the Red Guard purge of Mao (atheist/communist/evolutionist) to the millions murdered by Pol Pot (atheist/communist/evolutionist)...shall I go on?

 

The difference is that biblical Christians soundly condemn the actions of both the Catholic and protestant state churches in their corruptions and persecution of all who opposed them. But though I don't know if we would agree on the definitions of 'racism' and 'S*xism', we are indeed opposed to the oppression of both and those 'Christians' who did that are just as wrong as those who killed others in the name of Jesus. THE BIBLE DOESN'T TEACH SUCH THINGS.

 

The Word of God doesn't teach 'survival of the fittest' as does evolution theory.

 

The truth is that modern evolutionists (with few exceptions) are intolerant of any who believe in either creationism as taught in scripture or of intelligent design. It's ridiculous. The claim that only Darwinian evolution is 'science' is pure humbug. It is no such thing.

[Calypsis4 639]

I have had this happen to me on this very board.

 

Do you see this, friends? He gives the most pitiful answers in reply to the massive, direct evidence that earth's history is quite different than what he promotes & then has the gall to say this?

[rico 38]

Darwin wrote that book over 150 years ago, when language like that was common and acceptable. But even if it had been written yesterday, it would make no difference. Darwin’s views do not represent the views of all evolutionists. Same goes for Richard Dawkins, who says plenty of things I disagree with. Hence the fallacy.

 

If I were to dig into the history of Christianity, I know I’d find examples of racism, S*xism, and a whole lot more. That doesn’t mean all modern Christians are terrible people.

 

You are right Isabella. People make this fallacy alot when 'arguing'/discussing politics too, I've noticed.

 

 

We don't have a leg to stand on apart from Him.

 

Phil 3:9-10;

Jer. 29:4

 

Bible believers have a whole different context for melanin than non bible believers.

 

 

Some articles on genetics/skin color (secular):

 

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3060907/Black-parents-give-birth-to-white-baby.html

http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/health/2008/07/17/von.germany.twins.ap

AiG articles: http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=skin+color&search=Go

If only Columbus and others would have known the truth about the "indians".

[Isabella 22]

Why don't you stop making excuses for a philosophy that led the death of untold millions in everything from the Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 (led by atheist/communist/evolutionists) to the Lenin purges, to Stalin (all the same atheist/communist/evolutionist) to the Red Guard purge of Mao (atheist/communist/evolutionist) to the millions murdered by Pol Pot (atheist/communist/evolutionist)...shall I go on?

 

The difference is that biblical Christians soundly condemn the actions of both the Catholic and protestant state churches in their corruptions and persecution of all who opposed them. But though I don't know if we would agree on the definitions of 'racism' and 'S*xism', we are indeed opposed to the oppression of both and those 'Christians' who did that are just as wrong as those who killed others in the name of Jesus. THE BIBLE DOESN'T TEACH SUCH THINGS.

 

The Word of God doesn't teach 'survival of the fittest' as does evolution theory.

Social Darwinism is not the same as biological evolution, so please do not lump the two together. Evolutionists are not necessarily social Darwinists. When evolutionary terminology is used to justify purges or anything else under the eugenics umbrella, it only shows a misunderstanding of what “survival of the fittest†actually means.

 

In the context of evolution, fitness is defined as the ability to successfully reproduce, and having offspring which survive to the age of reproduction. “Survival of the fittest†really just refers to the ability of an organism to pass on it’s genes to future generations. And as implied by the term natural selection, it is largely the environment which determines what organisms are fit.

 

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that humans should step in and decide which people are worthy of living and which ones should be killed off. This is a social/political idea with no biological basis, and it stems from a misunderstanding of what fitness means in an evolutionary context. It is not representative of the theory of evolution, nor has it ever been.

 

 

The truth is that modern evolutionists (with few exceptions) are intolerant of any who believe in either creationism as taught in scripture or of intelligent design. It's ridiculous. The claim that only Darwinian evolution is 'science' is pure humbug. It is no such thing.

 

You seem very intolerant of evolutionists based on the discussions we’ve had here. Many of my closest friends are Christians, and although I disagree with their beliefs I still respect them.

[Calypsis4 639]

Social Darwinism is not the same as biological evolution, so please do not lump the two together. Evolutionists are not necessarily social Darwinists. When evolutionary terminology is used to justify purges or anything else under the eugenics umbrella, it only shows a misunderstanding of what survival of the fittest actually means.

 

You are so sold out on the lies of Darwiniam evolution that you can't even think clearly. So many times since I was a grade school child I heard even schoolteachers (who believed in evolution) say, "The kids in my classes act like animals." Little wonder since that is what they are taught since early grade school. But since you have so much trouble making the connections between D.E. and modern behavior is it necessary for me to explain this matter even further? You tell me, for I honestly don't know if you can even grasp the terrible consequences of D.E. on the attitude and behavior of human beings who are afflicted by it.

 

In the context of evolution, fitness is defined as the ability to successfully reproduce, and having offspring which survive to the age of reproduction. Survival of the fittest really just refers to the ability of an organism to pass on its genes to future generations. And as implied by the term natural selection, it is largely the environment which determines what organisms are fit.

And those who grabbed power were, according to Darwinian evolution, homo sapien organisms who decided who would 'pass on it's genes to future generations,' by use of the bullet against those who were 'unfit', or, if your name is Pol Pot; plastic bags.

 

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that humans should step in and decide which people are worthy of living and which ones should be killed off. This is a social/political idea with no biological basis, and it stems from a misunderstanding of what fitness means in an evolutionary context. It is not representative of the theory of evolution, nor has it ever been.

But the fact is they did so, and the basis for their actions was Darwinian evolution.

 

You seem very intolerant of evolutionists based on the discussions weve had here. Many of my closest friends are Christians, and although I disagree with their beliefs I still respect them.

 

And you forget that I am an ex-evolutionist and that I have given you many excellent reasons (along with my companions who have done even better) to toss out that fool theory that you give honor and respect to. It deserves no respect. Your beliefs about it are merely interpretations of facts that are not justified by those facts.

[ikester7579 19]

Are you familiar with the term "spotlight fallacy"? Evolution is not about racism, and the majority of evolutionists are not racists.

 

Oh my gosh. A whole new term. Spotlight Fallacy?

 

Not racist? Are black people lower evolved or not? Yes or no question.

[ikester7579 19]

Darwin wrote that book over 150 years ago, when language like that was common and acceptable. But even if it had been written yesterday, it would make no difference. Darwin’s views do not represent the views of all evolutionists. Same goes for Richard Dawkins, who says plenty of things I disagree with. Hence the fallacy.

I can see it now: Your not the favored race so we won;t sell to you and your money is not good here. Yeah, common and acceptable.

 

Also, is not Dawkins the spokes person for evolution? So if you don't like what he says, or the position he seems to hold. Voice it and have him removed. But let's be honest, that's not going to happen because to belong to the evolution group you have to conform. Therefore to speak up is taboo and unwelcome. Free speech only on the grounds that the speech is not against evolution.

 

So besides only voicing it here so far, why have you not gone to Dawkins forum and voiced your dislike for his conduct in representing evolution?

 

In fact I'll make it easy. Let's see if the evolutionist group here who says they don't like Dawkins actions, have the freewill to voice that opinion. Here the link: http://forum.richarddawkins.net/

 

If I were to dig into the history of Christianity, I know I’d find examples of racism, S*xism, and a whole lot more. That doesn’t mean all modern Christians are terrible people.

 

I have no problem admitting to the past, because I deem not to repeat it. But, why do evolutionists run from theirs? I can show where Indians and Blacks were stuck in zoos as displays for evolution. I can show where several humans of a non-favored race in Australia were killed for their skulls and jaw bones for museum displays. etc...

 

So will you or any other evolutionist here go post on the Dawkins forum how they do not like his representation of evolution?

 

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/

[ikester7579 19]

Social Darwinism is not the same as biological evolution, so please do not lump the two together. Evolutionists are not necessarily social Darwinists. When evolutionary terminology is used to justify purges or anything else under the eugenics umbrella, it only shows a misunderstanding of what “survival of the fittest” actually means.

Like that Darwin's cousin headed up eugenics, and Hitler supported it? That Hitler even had a hitlist for race extermination that compared each race to how much they were to being ape? Where did the ape to man idea come from anyway that Hitler would have made such a list? Was there someone else that had the idea before Darwin? That would make Darwin a plagiarizer if that were the case.

 

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that humans should step in and decide which people are worthy of living and which ones should be killed off. This is a social/political idea with no biological basis, and it stems from a misunderstanding of what fitness means in an evolutionary context. It is not representative of the theory of evolution, nor has it ever been.

 

 

 

 

 

Evolution itself does not have to have it written when the people who are considered the founding fathers voice it as a part of why they believed in evolution.

[ikester7579 19]

I guess while I am at it I will post the rest of the stuff.

 

Indians in a zoo for what reason?

 

Darwin's racist title.

 

The human evolution chart shows white man above the black man.

 

And our museums are full of black wax figures of lower evolved, missing link, humans.

 

And here's that connection to Hitler again. Yep, no one has ever done anything bad in the name of evolution .

[ikester7579 19]

Darwin was also a sexist.

 

 

Ernst Haeckel also believed that blacks were basically animals.

 

 

People of the non-favored races were killed for their skulls.

http://www.africawithin.com/rashidi/destruction_aborigines.htm

 

 

Their skulls packed away in a museum.

 

 

More people put in zoos.

 

[Isabella 22]

Oh my gosh. A whole new term. Spotlight Fallacy?

Google it if you’re not familiar with it.

 

Not racist? Are black people lower evolved or not? Yes or no question.

No, black people are not “lower evolvedâ€ÂÂ. I don’t even know what you mean by that. Do you think I’m a racist, Ikester?

 

Also, is not Dawkins the spokes person for evolution?

He’s definitely not. Evolution doesn’t have a “spokespersonâ€ÂÂ.

 

So besides only voicing it here so far, why have you not gone to Dawkins forum and voiced your dislike for his conduct in representing evolution?

I don’t feel the need to voice every single opinion I have on the internet. There are plenty of celebrities, authors, politicians, etc. that I disagree with, and I don’t need to go to their websites and tell the world why.

 

I have no problem admitting to the past, because I deem not to repeat it. But, why do evolutionists run from theirs? I can show where Indians and Blacks were stuck in zoos as displays for evolution. I can show where several humans of a non-favored race in Australia were killed for their skulls and jaw bones for museum displays. etc...

I’m not running from the past. I know that evolution has been wrongly used to justify all kinds of terrible and racist things, but that’s not representative of modern evolution.

 

Like that Darwin's cousin headed up eugenics, and Hitler supported it? That Hitler even had a hitlist for race extermination that compared each race to how much they were to being ape? Where did the ape to man idea come from anyway that Hitler would have made such a list? Was there someone else that had the idea before Darwin? That would make Darwin a plagiarizer if that were the case.

Eugenics has nothing to do with biological evolution. Those examples are misrepresentations of the theory.

 

Evolution itself does not have to have it written when the people who are considered the founding fathers voice it as a part of why they believed in evolution.

There are almost no modern evolutionists who would agree with the quotes you posted. I definitely have not met one. Darwin came up with some ideas that we still hold true today, but he also said many things that we now know to be false. Darwin may have been the “founding fatherâ€ÂÂ, but no evolutionist will agree with everything he says.

[ikester7579 19]

Google it if you’re not familiar with it.

I did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

If a person wanted, they could apply a fallacy to every point reading that list. Which by the way makes it pointless.

 

No, black people are not “lower evolved”. I don’t even know what you mean by that. Do you think I’m a racist, Ikester?

Evolution promotes it, and you absolutely believe it.

 

He’s definitely not. Evolution doesn’t have a “spokesperson”.

Then why do you evolutionists allow him to speak for you? You guys buy his books, attend his meetings, watch his debates, etc... What is he if he's not speaking for evolutionists, and how is he getting support if he is not also being approved of?

 

I don’t feel the need to voice every single opinion I have on the internet. There are plenty of celebrities, authors, politicians, etc. that I disagree with, and I don’t need to go to their websites and tell the world why.

 

You just made my point.

 

I’m not running from the past. I know that evolution has been wrongly used to justify all kinds of terrible and racist things, but that’s not representative of modern evolution.

The ideas that spark it are still allowed.

 

Eugenics has nothing to do with biological evolution. Those examples are misrepresentations of the theory.

 

I suggest you study into Eugenics more. The idea was born from evolution and is connected to Darwin through his cousin who "ran" the Eugenics movement.

 

There are almost no modern evolutionists who would agree with the quotes you posted. I definitely have not met one. Darwin came up with some ideas that we still hold true today, but he also said many things that we now know to be false. Darwin may have been the “founding father”, but no evolutionist will agree with everything he says.

 

You have not met one because it's not politically correct. So the idea stays in the closet. If the idea were made popular again, you would find yourself surrounded. And you would find evolution the driving force of it. The KKK believe in evolution. Can you figure out why?

 

I also noticed you did not address the other posts. Was it to much reality for you? Or can you prove that this history is bogus?

[rico 38]

...Eugenics has nothing to do with biological evolution. Those examples are misrepresentations of the theory.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Where does the idea for Eugenics come from?

 

.....Its in the media... this ideology is promoted in society.

Ever watch American TV, statistics say that 20% of people are disabled http://www.realising-potential.org/stakeholder-factbox/disabled-people-worldwide/

, not a lot of that is shown on TV. TV in the U.S. anyways appears to promote people who are healthy, skinny – it mocks overweight people, and the shows that are on there aren't very intellectual/technical. The channels like on discovery health are different and exciting. Its said that 99 percent of Americans watch 4 hours a day. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html

 

Now they have all these murder shows on like, CSI, SVU, Mentalist, and Criminal Minds... on prime time... should I fear and disrespect older people more? No.

I only have basic cable,

I've noticed people are psychologically effected by who they are around. This perhaps because we're spiritual beings – we were made to worship and love. (spirits in temples)

 

Feel free to explain your beliefs origin of race here, do you know what we believe? Our biological history/ancestory... you'd be surprised...