What Does It Mean To Be Human? Don’t Ask A Darwinist

_{Donald McLaughlin

November 19, 2019

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“What does it mean to be human?” is one of the fundamental questions we all ask. Every once in a while something happens to remind us that those influenced by Darwinism usually only answer the question with “not much”. As a case in point, just today it’s being reported that the father of a son born with two rare diseases was trying to raise money for medical expenses. He had put up signs at a local mall to raise awareness and funds.

“KC Ahlers said he posted six signs around the Franklin Park Mall in Toledo, Ohio to spread awareness about an upcoming fundraiser for his 4-month-old son, RJ. The father told WTVG on Friday that he discovered three additional signs posted next to his that read: “Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.”

And there you have it. “Only the fit survive, and your diseased child isn’t fit to survive, so just let him die!” Only a true Darwinist would say that.

Comments

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/the-bible-on-homosexual-behavior If this is at all helpful for those on this discussion There’s plenty more, but it is too much for me to put in this post The readers digest version is the act is condemned and the act is condemned for multiple reasons one being natural law In Leviticus it is the act that rewards you the punishment Being homosexual in in itself does not reward you the punishment nor did Jesus speak of it Christians do not hate homosexuals and again to emphasize reapers point saying one group that hates homosexuals and calls itself Christians should not be generalized for all the other groups It is understood that Darwinism leads to flawed assumptions about existence, that does not however entail that everybody falls under the same category I do however agree with that if an Almighty supreme being judges something to be bad that we really don’t have much that we can say about it, for is was that being that created all the rules of reality including our judgments But that’s how I see about itAaronS1978_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT}

BA77
Not to be nitpicky with inconsistent argumentation but perhaps, before you try to sit in moral judgement of almighty God Himself, it might behoove you to find an objective moral basis that does not necessarily include God as its basis? ,
Are you suggesting that I can’t pass judgement on someone who believes that homosexuals should be killed in a horrific fashion? Sorry, but any being who would do that, whether human, dog or the almighty God, is one sick being and one that I refuse to take seriously. Of course, that is just my opinion. If you choose to worship such a being, that is your choice. But just remember, it is a conscious choice.Reapers Plague_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
05:24 PM
5
05
24
PM
PDT}

Not to be nitpicky with inconsistent argumentation but perhaps, before you try to sit in moral judgement of almighty God Himself, it might behoove you to find an objective moral basis that does not necessarily include God as its basis? ,
The Moral Argument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU The non-Christian, then, in Van Til’s famous illustration, is like a child sitting on her father’s lap, slapping his face. She could not slap him unless he supported her. Similarly, the non-Christian cannot carry out his rebellion against God unless God makes that rebellion possible. Contradicting God assumes an intelligible (and moral) universe and therefore a theistic one. https://frame-poythress.org/transcendental-arguments/
bornagain77_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT}

BA77
God more than did his part in demonstrating His great love for us.
By instructing us to kill homosexuals? Or women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night (with no comment about the husband’s virginity?). Sorry. How do you or anyone justify these reprehensible instructions? Jesus never said anything about homosexuals other than ‘the old laws stand’. And the old laws said that they should be killed. Do you stand by these laws?Reapers Plague_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT}

"Because killing someone is what you do if you love them." Verses:
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends. Romans 5:8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
God more than did His part in demonstrating His great love for us. What the sinner who lost all control of his destructive sin, (and has been redeemed by Christ), readily understands, but the sinner, who does not think he is really a sinner (if he even admits that there is even such a thing as sin), but who is under the delusion that he is somehow controlling his sin, does not readily understand, is that Jesus Christ had the full power and authority of heaven to relieve Himself of the horrid torment of the cross but instead chose, because of His great love for us, to endure it, in its entirety, willingly, so that he might completely overcome temptation, sin, hell and death, and all their horrors, on our behalf, (since we were and are completely incapable of doing so), so that we may be set free from our sin, even from death, and reunited with Him forever and ever in heaven. Love is the only proper response on our part.
The Easter Question - Eben Alexander, M.D. - March 2013 Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that -- a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn't simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one. But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it's-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,, We are, really and truly, made in God's image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation -- one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone. But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It's not the world we actually live in.,,, ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer... and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html
bornagain77_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

ET
See, not one word about hating “fags”. Thank you.
Because killing someone is what you do if you love them.Reapers Plague_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
03:27 PM
3
03
27
PM
PDT}

See, not one word about hating "fags". Thank you.ET_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

ET
Show us the same for God and “fags”.
Leviticus 20:13
If a man practices homosexuality, having sex with another man as with a woman, both men have committed a detestable act. They must both be put to death, for they are guilty of a capital offense.
Reapers Plague_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT}

seversky:
The Westboro Baptist Church seem to be convinced they are truly Christian and can quote chapter and verse from the Bible to support their position.
I doubt that.
And, once again, the theory of evolution describes “survival of the fittest” as a process observed in nature.
Except it is only a process dreamed of by Darwin and his followers.
It does not prescribe it as a guiding principle for human societies.
Umm, societies are part of nature. And according to you and yours they were produced by nature.
In fact, it makes no moral recommendations at all, something of which the author of those reprehensible sentiments on the poster was apparently unaware, which makes one wonder how much of a “Darwinist” he or she actually is.
According to the literature he is as much a Darwinist as Darwin himself:
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”– Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
ET_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
12:33 PM
12
12
33
PM
PDT}

Reaper:
By that argument, a sign held by a Westboro Baptist church parishioner that says “GOD HATES FAGS” stems from what God said.
Except it doesn't. What Darwin said:
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.”– Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
The sign:
“Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.”
Show us the same for God and "fags".ET_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

Subjectivism and trying to use objective science to support it has lead to the nonsense that is going on in universities right now about identity and transgenderism By saying that something isn’t objectively wrong is open the door for people to define whatever they want to be objectively wrong or objectively right because in the end it’s all subjective and I would say that it’s really not working out too wellAaronS1978_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT}

I can dumb it down even further... There's nothing inherently wrong with what the poster said. There's nothing inherently wrong with blaming Darwinists for what the poster said. There's nothing inherently wrong with calling people names on the internet. There's nothing inherently wrong with getting mad about people calling each other names on the internet. There's nothing inherently wrong with getting glad when other people call each other names on the internet. There's nothing inherently wrong with genocide. There's nothing inherently wrong with thousands of abortions a day. There's nothing inherently wrong with commenting on the internet that aborting a thousand children in a day is inherently wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong with people saying something is inherently wrong or not saying something is inherently wrong. There's nothing inherently wrong, period. There's nothing inherently wrong with me then concluding I'm inherently right. Excuse me, I have to go to the bathroom now. Andrewasauber_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
10:27 AM
10
10
27
AM
PDT}

Seversky, Your position is self-refuting. Epistemologically or morally I am not obligated to accept your subjective opinions. So your argument fails on both epistemological and moral grounds. Moral arguments without moral obligation are pointless.john_a_designer_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT}

"What matters is what we think" Sev, You could think anything. You could think one thing one minute and the opposite the next. That's the point. It's all the same, according to your position. The only question is why you cling to this stupidity? Andrewasauber_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77@ 25
That is to say, while the Westboro Baptist church was/is acting contrary to the morality inherent within Christianity, (and everybody, including atheists, seems to intuitively knows that they are acting contrary to the morality of Christ), the person who posted the sign that said “Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.” was acting perfectly consistently within the amorality inherent within Darwinism. Darwinian atheists simply have no moral basis within their materialistic worldview to condemn the act as being ‘reprehensible’.
The Westboro Baptist Church seem to be convinced they are truly Christian and can quote chapter and verse from the Bible to support their position. They would probably regard you as some sort of insufficiently devout,"snowflake" Christian. How do we decide between you? And, once again, the theory of evolution describes "survival of the fittest" as a process observed in nature. It does not prescribe it as a guiding principle for human societies. In fact, it makes no moral recommendations at all, something of which the author of those reprehensible sentiments on the poster was apparently unaware, which makes one wonder how much of a "Darwinist" he or she actually is.Seversky_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT}

John_a_designer@ 27
Maybe the posters are not really Darwinists. If so is there anything inherently wrong with what they posted? Not from a moral subjectivist POV. There is nothing inherently wrong or reprehensible from a subjectivist POV. Which is why I find subjectivism to be reprehensible.
So what if there is nothing "inherently wrong" with what the poster said? What matters is what we think. I, as one of those subjectivists, think it is reprehensible and I suspect that the vast majority of other subjectivists would agree. So why would we need validation from some third-party, extraterrestrial moral umpire? Aren't you able to make that judgment for yourself?Seversky_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

ET
The “reprehensible” signs stem from what Darwin said. Period. End of story.
By that argument, a sign held by a Westboro Baptist church parishioner that says "GOD HATES FAGS" stems from what God said.Reapers Plague_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
09:13 AM
9
09
13
AM
PDT}

AaronS1978:
He simply saying that the behavior was entirely inappropriate but blaming Darwinists or atheist is just as bad as blaming Christians for stupid things posted by the Westborough church.
The "reprehensible" signs stem from what Darwin said. Period. End of story.ET_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

Maybe the posters are not really Darwinists. If so is there anything inherently wrong with what they posted? Not from a moral subjectivist POV. There is nothing inherently wrong or reprehensible from a subjectivist POV. Which is why I find subjectivism to be reprehensible.john_a_designer_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT}

AronS1977@23, Thank you.Reapers Plague_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

Well AaronS1978, while I agree with the overall sentiment that "blaming it on Darwinists or atheists makes as much sense as blaming the protest signs used by the Westboro Baptist church on the Christian religion", it is also important to note that Darwinists have to 'borrow' morality from Christianity in order to condemn the act as being reprehensible in the first place. That is to say, while the Westboro Baptist church was/is acting contrary to the morality inherent within Christianity, (and everybody, including atheists, seems to intuitively knows that they are acting contrary to the morality of Christ), the person who posted the sign that said “Stop asking for money. Let the baby die. It’s called Darwinism. Happy Holidays.” was acting perfectly consistently within the amorality inherent within Darwinism. Darwinian atheists simply have no moral basis within their materialistic worldview to condemn the act as being 'reprehensible'. As Sedgwick told Darwin
My dear Darwin,,, "There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly".,,, - Adam Sedgwick professor of geology at Cambridge University - 1859 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
bornagain77_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

UGG my phone’s acting funky Here’s a better statement There’s no reason to attack him on this and it’s looking like this thread is devolving quickly into a fight for nothing I don’t agree with some of the reaper’s responses either, But this kind of escalated pretty quickly for an no reasonAaronS1978_{November 20, 2019
November
11
Nov
20
20
2019
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

Reapers Plague November 19, 2019 at 3:26 pm As reprehensible as this is, blaming it on Darwinists or atheists makes as much sense as blaming the protest signs used by the Westboro Baptist church on the Christian religion. I kind of want to put aN end to this, The “up here’s the reason why we were attacking RP? He simply saying that the behavior was entirely inappropriate but blaming Darwinists or atheist is just as bad as blaming Christians for stupid things posted by the Westborough church This is a very true statement and there’s no reason to attack him on this or to get nasty with him what did I miss somethingAaronS1978_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
11:55 PM
11
11
55
PM
PDT}

So Darwin's a court jester? Darwin is the one you are not reading/ listening to.ET_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
08:41 PM
8
08
41
PM
PDT}

ET
Reaper admits to willful ignorance.
If willful ignorance means not listening to the court jester, I plead guilty.Reapers Plague_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

Reaper admits to willful ignorance. Typical, but still pathetic.ET_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
07:14 PM
7
07
14
PM
PDT}

BA77
R.P. reading comprehension not your strong suit eh?
Reading comprehension implies that I actually read all of your comments. I, like most people, can’t be bothered reading past your first couple sentences. Maybe if those first couple sentences said anything interesting...Reapers Plague_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

bornagain77- Reaper is just another creeper and quote-mining troll. It has no intention to read what Darwin said and make the obvious connections. But please, keep exposing it as a reprehensible troll.ET_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

Reapers:
Were you bullied as a child or are you just naturally a sociopath?
And that is why you are a quote-mining coward and reprehensible fool? Really? But your projection is duly noted.
You, obviously, are not worth talking to.
Well not if you are just going to be a quote-mining coward who doesn't have anything to say.
I assume this happens to you often.
As often as there are quote-mining cowards polluting this blog, anyway.ET_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
06:49 PM
6
06
49
PM
PDT}

R.P. reading comprehension not your strong suit eh? Please note the period after the "red in tooth and claw, theory." statement.
A period is a small dot-shaped punctuation mark that is used at the end of any sentence that is intended to make a statement. As with other punctuation marks that end sentences, the period should be placed directly behind the last letter of the last word of the sentence.
Then note the blockquoted quote of Charles Darwin after the "As Darwin himself stated" statement that I made (without a period)
“One general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” – Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species
Do you find "let the strongest live and the weakest die” to be morally reprehensible? Especially in regards to humans, i.e. eugenics?
Cousins: Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton and the birth of eugenics Nicholas W. Gillham First published: 24 August 2009 Abstract Sir Francis Galton, scientist, African Explorer and statistician, was a key figure in statistical history. He was the man who devised the statistical concepts of regression and correlation. He was also Charles Darwin's cousin. And, inspired by his reading of Darwin, he was the founder of eugenics: the “science” of improving the human race through selective breeding. https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2009.00379.x
bornagain77_{November 19, 2019
November
11
Nov
19
19
2019
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply