[Virginia Day Templeton]

Many Christians talk about Darwinism and libtardation as if they are synonyms. This is understandable. Absent a coherent creation story, Godlessness has not a leg to stand on, and evolution is the best they've got.

But is it enough? No. Noooo-ho-ho. As I will show, evolutionary theory is less than insufficient in justifying liberalism—they are totally incompatible, and even the slackest adherence to Darwin completely obliterates the liberal holy cows.

1) Negroes

Negroes are primitive. We're honest Christians and since God hates all liars, we don't dance around the facts. Everyone knows Negroes are primitive. They know it. They look more like apes than people with their prognathous jaws, sloped foreheads, wide noses, and coarse, woolly hair, and as anybody who's been downwind of one on a hot summer day will tell you, they don't smell like other people either.

But it's more than just skin-deep. Statistics about Negro violence are staggering, gobsmacking—to the point where even a seasoned Grand Dragon might shake his head in wonderment at the "hate facts" printed on the Department of Justice website. Blacks are 50 times more likely to attack whites than vice-versa, 100 times more likely to rape whites, and 140 times more likely to rob them.

The average IQ of the American Negro is 85, a full standard deviation below that of whites; on the Dark Continent itself, scores range from the low seventies, teetering on the 'tard threshold, to a near-protozoan 59 in Equatorial Guinea. In contrast, Koko the Gorilla's IQ is thought to fall between 70 and 95. Disease figures rival even those of the precious homosexuals (whom we'll return to shortly).

And the more money we chuck at 'em, the worse it gets.

Evolutionists claim that all people diverged from a common ape-like ancestor a few million years ago. That as time went on, we evolved into humans and shed most of our simian traits. Since Negroes have clearly failed to do so, they must be less human than the rest of us, perhaps about 250,000 years behind. According to Darwin, these "niggers" are just dirty beasts, no more worthy of personhood than your run-of-the-mill chimp. There's absolutely no reason not to enslave or wipe out the lot of them. They should not be voting and for the love of all that is good and decent, there sure as heck should never be one within a grenade's toss of the White House. According to Darwin.

As Christians, we reject such racist nonsense. We believe Negroes can change and we have seen the proof. God's love wins out.

2) Homosexuals

Here, it gets even worse. Just what is homosexuality? A filthy, repulsive perversion? A state of rebellion against God and one's own body? A value-neutral lifestyle choice? An inborn, immutable genetic condition? A source of pride? An illness?

One thing it is not, is normal. Radical sodomites will tell you they comprise 10% of the population, but the actual figure is closer to 1 or 2%. In contrast, between one half and one third of all people will develop cancer during their lifetimes, and nearly a quarter will die from it. By any measure, cancer is a more common, natural, normal condition than homosexuality.

Does this mean we should stop treating it? Should we attack oncologists as "bigots" or "carcinophobes" and tell cancer survivors they really do have cancer, will always have it, should accept it and be proud of it, and are delusional nutcases for claiming to be cancer-free? When they are seen in cancer wards meeting with patients to share their own experiences and offer hope, should we take photos of them and put them up on pro-cancer blogs, trumpeting them as evidence that those who purport to be treated will inevitably backslide in cancerdom? Think about that for a minute.

Not only is sodomy more abnormal than cancer—it is far more destructive. Being molested or "recruited" by a cancer patient won't make you sick, too, but that's not true of homosexuality. Most people who develop cancer don't do so until after 50; most homosexuals don't even make it to 50! People with cancer still get married and have children, which, according to Darwinian theory, is the single driving purpose behind all life. Homosexuals don't. If homosexuality has a genetic component (there's no proof of this whatsoever), it is by definition a dysgenic trait. A disorder. A disease. The DSM classed it thus until 1973, and the Pentagon still does.

Wow! That's harsh. That's about as bad as it can get for homos under a Darwinian wordview... right?

Wrong.

One of the criteria by which life is defined is the ability to reproduce. Another disease-spreading parasite, the virus, is exempted from the tree of life because it cannot reproduce on its own, without a host, just as homosexuals cannot do so without a surrogate or turkey baster.

In other words—by the doctrine of evolutionism—HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT EVEN ALIVE!

They are literally lower than pond scum on the Darwinian ladder. Their position is more akin to that of the feces they eat: produced by biological processes and expelled from a living animal, they themselves are merely clumps of semi-organic matter. They can be tortured and killed by the truckload with no moral repercussions.

Such nihilistic hate is anathema to Christians. Homosexuals can change and we have seen the proof. God's love wins out.

3) Rape

This one's simple. Liberal say rape bad. Darwin say rape good. The more children you have, the better the chances your DNA will survive to the next generation—and the quickest way to make children is through rape. Ergo, the soundest evolutionary strategy is to rape as many women as possible.

True Christians would never sanction rape except as a tool of war. We believe in the strictest monetary penalties for this chiefly Negroid crime, and in extreme cases even execution. Women are God's baby ovens and should be treated with respect. They are sluts by nature, but they can change and we have seen the proof. God's love wins out.

When we call liberalism a mental disorder, we're not just flinging insults. It involves such profound cognitive dissonance and logical contortions that in order to adopt it, one must by necessity have either a few dozen screws loose or a willingness to loosen them, figuratively speaking.

So take your pick: Darwin or liberalism. You can't go to Hell and eat it, too.

[DerpHerpBurp]

africans' skin hasn't changed because their environment hasn't changed

darwin NEVER condoned rape, I want a source on that.

there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, don't like it? then do unto others, stay out of others' business

there is NO evidence that homosexuality is a disease, where do you get this from?

Also, just because a pair of homosexuals can't reproduce, doesn't mean they aren't living, Homosexuality is not a species

Judges 21:10-24 condones rape, your bible logic is flawed

Numbers 31:7-18 condones rape

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is the law OF rape

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 rape victims must be killed

Zechariah 14:1-2 says women ravished, is that not rape?

[Zechariah Smyth]

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

africans' skin hasn't changed because their environment hasn't changed

Have you ever been to Chicago in January? I have. Have you ever been to the the Central African Republic in August? I have. Both places are plumb bursting with negros, and the climates couldn't BE any different, but they look EXACTLY the same.

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

darwin NEVER condoned rape, I want a source on that.

there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, don't like it? then do unto others, stay out of others' business

there is NO evidence that homosexuality is a disease, where do you get this from?

Also, just because a pair of homosexuals can't reproduce, doesn't mean they aren't living, Homosexuality is not a species

God thinks queers are nasty, and that's good enough for me.

(Leviticus 18:22) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

Judges 21:10-24 condones rape, your bible logic is flawed

Numbers 31:7-18 condones rape

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is the law OF rape

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 rape victims must be killed

Zechariah 14:1-2 says women ravished, is that not rape?

Rape happens, generally because whores (or pre-whores) insist on it, either with their clothing or their actions.

The Bible describes it AND gives punishment for it (paying the father of the slut, forcing the man to marry her, etc.). This is not condoning rape.

By your definition, The Origin of the Species is tacit approval of monkey-man-sex.



Yours in Christ,

Zech

[Virginia Day Templeton]

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

africans' skin hasn't changed because their environment hasn't changed

Where did I say anything about their skin?

Anyway, from this...



...to this...



...is a pretty big change. They can thank the mean ol' waht dibbulz for that.

If you doubt that they are primitive (LOL), take a gander at Erectus Walks Among Us.

darwin NEVER condoned rape, I want a source on that.

Ask and you shall receive.

there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, don't like it? then do unto others, stay out of others' business

There's, um, everything wrong with it.

It shortens your life span by 20 years, making it twice as deadly as smoking.

That's if you're lucky. The end comes a bit more swiftly with God in charge.

Leviticus 20:13

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

there is NO evidence that homosexuality is a disease, where do you get this from?

There is plenty of evidence.

And that's just the question of origin. It is now, and has always been, classed as a disorder by the Pentagon. The American Psychological Association did the same in their DSM until 1973, when radical sodomites bullied them into changing it.

Also, just because a pair of homosexuals can't reproduce, doesn't mean they aren't living, Homosexuality is not a species

I just Googled "definition of life." Here is what I saw at the top of the very first page:

life /līf/

Noun: The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.

Boo-ya.

Judges 21:10-24 condones rape, your bible logic is flawed

Numbers 31:7-18 condones rape

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is the law OF rape

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 rape victims must be killed

Zechariah 14:1-2 says women ravished, is that not rape?

I know what the Bible says. 'Cause, y'know, I kinda base my life on it.

Non-consensual lovemaking is an acceptable tool of war, but it's not really "rape" any more than a soldier who kills another on the battlefield is guilty of murder.

If a betrothed virgin is "raped" in the city and does not cry out, then yes, she must be killed. Again, this is not rape but adultery; if she isn't enjoying it, why doesn't she cry out?

[DerpHerpBurp]

Originally Posted by Zechariah Smyth

Have you ever been to Chicago in January? I have. Have you ever been to the the Central African Republic in August? I have. Both places are plumb bursting with negros, and the climates couldn't BE any different, but they look EXACTLY the same.



God thinks queers are nasty, and that's good enough for me.

(Leviticus 18:22) "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."



Rape happens, generally because whores (or pre-whores) insist on it, either with their clothing or their actions.

The Bible describes it AND gives punishment for it (paying the father of the slut, forcing the man to marry her, etc.). This is not condoning rape.

By your definition, The Origin of the Species is tacit approval of monkey-man-sex.



Yours in Christ,

Zech

actually no, I never said that the origin of species is that butchered mess, The Origin of Species never shows or condones anything to do with monkey on man fornication.

please stop making things up.

Also Africans were transported to the US a bit over 350+/- years ago during settlers times and what not.

400 years is no where near the amount of time required for an evolutionary change to be observed, let alone happen.

[/quote]
[JL]: So, if men rape for evolutionary reasons then they are not responsible for their rape?

[CP]: Oh, absolutely not. That's not—

[JL]: How could they be responsible? To what?

[CP]: Excuse me?

[JL]: Evolutionary man would be responsible to what? To whom?

[CP]: The question of causation is a different question from responsibility. Let me turn it around and say the typical explanation is that culture, your culture, causes you to rape. Why aren't people saying then, 'Oh, then the person can't be responsible because it's their culture, something else that caused them [to rape].'

[JL]: I assume you think rape is wrong and should be a crime.

[CP]: Absolutely. Yes.

[/quote]

That right there, proves how it didn't condone rape

There's, um, everything wrong with it.

It shortens your life span by 20 years, making it twice as deadly as smoking.

That's if you're lucky. When God is in charge, the end comes a bit more swiftly.

I can't believe I read that entire article to attempt and find what you want me to and find that it has nothing to do with Homosexuality at all, just the affects of HIV on age, not Homosexuality on age.


HIV/AIDS is not limited to gay people, anyone can get it, I really hope you know this, look at Magic Johnson.

Where did I say anything about their skin?

Anyway, from this...

Attachment 17604

...to this...

Attachment 17605

...is a pretty big change. They can thank the mean ol' whaht dibbulz for that.

That is a picture from africa compared to a city in a 1st world country, those are not related.

[DerpHerpBurp]

Dear Pastor Ezekiel,

This is not a debate, I simply think people should not present unfounded information, this is also known as Bias

Darwin did not condone rape, why would you let that lie slide?

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Amen sister! Darwin was a horrible racist, but the joos don't like to talk about that because it puts off the liberals.

And I have long held that queers aren't really human beings. What they do is wallow in selfish, unreproductive self gratification, just like monkeys in a zoo.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

Darwin did not condone rape, why would you let that lie slide?

Not only did Darwin condone rape, he also was married to his cocker spaniel.

That's what atheists do.

[DerpHerpBurp]

Originally Posted by Pastor Ezekiel

Amen sister! Darwin was a horrible racist, but the joos don't like to talk about that because it puts off the liberals.

And I have long held that queers aren't really human beings. What they do is wallow in selfish, unreproductive self gratification, just like monkeys in a zoo.

I read the first line of that link and all it says is that

"Darwinian evolution is inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or races evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others."

I don't see how that is racist, it was an observation made by him.

The first and a few other lines have this [14] foot notes, saying there is a source, kind of like wiki and conservawiki, but you can't click on the number and there is no source.

Also Darwin made these observations when the US was going through a massive slavery conflict an a dividing civil war, if darwin was racist, he may have shared this idea like tens of millions of others.

[Virginia Day Templeton]

I'm going to parse this babble as best I can. Bear with me.

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

Also Africans were transported to the US a bit over 350+/- years ago during settlers times and what not.

400 years is no where near the amount of time required for an evolutionary change to be observed, let alone happen.

The point isn't whether blacks have or have not evolved in 400 years. It's that they haven't evolved in a quarter of a million years. According to evolutionism. Erectus Walks Among Us.

You worship them, and yet your own religious doctrine states that they are subhuman beasts. Ours simply says God cursed them.

That right there, proves how it didn't condone rape

No, that proves they do condone it, along with the part above it you so cleverly omitted.

[CP]:That there is obviously some evolutionary basis to rape just like there is some evolutionary basis to all aspects of living things. In the book we narrow it down to two plausible specific evolutionary reasons for why we are a species in which rape occurs. One is just a by-product of evolved differences between the sexualities of males and females. Or, two, rape might be an adaptation. There might have been selection favouring males who raped under some circumstances in the past. And therefore there might be some aspects of male brains designed specifically to rape under some conditions.

So rape is either a natural byproduct of sexual differences (value-neutral) or a beneficial (positive, good) evolutionary adaptation. And he confirms it when he states that...

[JL]: So, if men rape for evolutionary reasons then they are not responsible for their rape?
[CP]: Oh, absolutely not.

...men who commit rape have no responsibility for it! No culpability! It's not their fault, just something (beneficial, positive, good) that their genes told them to do.

I can't believe I read that entire article to attempt and find what you want me to and find that it has nothing to do with Homosexuality at all, just the affects of HIV on age, not Homosexuality on age.

No, no, no, no, no. Wrong. Read it again. The article shows that sodomite lifespans are dramatically shorter than normal ones regardless of HIV status. Or that all sodomites have AIDS. Depends on how you interpret the data.

HIV/AIDS is not limited to gay people, anyone can get it, I really hope you know this, look at Magic Johnson.

Okay, I looked at him.



You were saying?

That is a picture from africa compared to a city in a 1st world country, those are not related.

Haha. Hahahaha. Ahahahahahahahahahaha.

(It's a picture of Johannesburg, which is a city in South Africa. Which is a country in Africa. It actually was a First World country before they gave it back to the blacks.)

I will gladly furnish you with sources for any other statement I have made.

[DerpHerpBurp]

Originally Posted by Virginia D. Templeton

I'm going to parse this babble as best I can. Bear with me.



The point isn't whether blacks have or have not evolved in 400 years. It's that they haven't evolved in a quarter of a million years. According to evolutionism. Erectus Walks Among Us.

You worship them, and yet your own religious doctrine states that they are subhuman beasts. Ours simply says that God cursed them.

No, that proves they do condone it, along with the part above it you so cleverly omitted.

[CP]:That there is obviously some evolutionary basis to rape just like there is some evolutionary basis to all aspects of living things. In the book we narrow it down to two plausible specific evolutionary reasons for why we are a species in which rape occurs. One is just a by-product of evolved differences between the sexualities of males and females. Or, two, rape might be an adaptation. There might have been selection favouring males who raped under some circumstances in the past. And therefore there might be some aspects of male brains designed specifically to rape under some conditions.

So rape is either a natural byproduct of sexual differences (value-neutral) or a beneficial (positive, good) evolutionary adaptation. And he confirms when he states that...

[JL]: So, if men rape for evolutionary reasons then they are not responsible for their rape?
[CP]: Oh, absolutely not.

...men who commit rape have no responsibility for it! No culpability! It's not their fault, just something (beneficial, positive, good) that their genes told them to do.

No, no, no, no, no. Wrong. Read it again. The article shows that sodomite lifespans are dramatically shorter than normal ones regardless of HIV status. Or that all sodomites have AIDS. Depends on how you interpret the data.

Okay, I looked at him.

Attachment 17606

You were saying?

Haha. Hahahaha. Ahahahahahahahahahaha.

(It's a picture of Johannesburg, which is a city in South Africa. Which is a country in Africa. It actually was a First World country before they gave it back to the blacks.)

I will gladly furnish you with sources for any other statement I have made.

First statement, a quarter million years isn't enough to cause an evolutionary change, also Africa's climate hasn't change much, the desertification of the Sahara was the last major change, but since little life lived there its not even missed.

Also in the interview with what ever JP is, the context shows that he is disagreeing with him, but without actually seeing his expression or the jist of the moment, no one can actually tell what he was feeling in just those 3 words.

the Johannesburg picture, by what you said, was probably taken during apartheid.

[Virginia Day Templeton]

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

First statement, a quarter million years isn't enough to cause an evolutionary change, also Africa's climate hasn't change much, the desertification of the Sahara was the last major change, but since little life lived there its not even missed.

Again and again, you hippity-hop around my point. Pretend I am an evolutionist for a minute.

[EVOL]A quarter-million years is certainly enough time for substantial microevolutionary changes to accumulate. Regardless, you are correct that the African environment has changed little in that time.

And that is precisely why blacks are primitive! No one is saying they have some deficiency that prevents them from evolving. They didn't need to evolve much, and so they didn't—which has left them far, far behind the rest of humanity. One might question whether they are even human at all.

Sieg heil! Tod zum untermenschen![/EVOL]

Get it? Got it? Good. (But I'm sure you didn't.)

Also in the interview with what ever JP is, the context shows that he is disagreeing with him, but without actually seeing his expression or the jist of the moment, no one can actually tell what he was feeling in just those 3 words.

"Whatever" JP is, is a highly respected and distinguished paleoconservative Christian journalist, columnist, editor, and political scholar. Google is your friend. And just what are you?

I can't tell what he was feeling, but I can tell what he was saying: that rapists aren't responsible for their rapes. At all. That rape is normal, natural, and good. He tries to backpedal, but his words are there for all to see.

the Johannesburg picture, by what you said, was probably taken during apartheid.

Mm-hm. That they have electricity, working roadways, and a general sense of order all point to that conclusion.

[The Humanist]

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

First statement, a quarter million years isn't enough to cause an evolutionary change,

Rubbish! You're just making up stuff to support your argument. If you knoew the slightest thing about evolution you would know it does not progress at a steady rate but in a series of rapid increments with long intervals between those increments.

By the way, some of the most profound human evolution happened in the last 250,000 years.

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

also Africa's climate hasn't change much, the desertification of the Sahara was the last major change, but since little life lived there its not even missed.

There are cave drawings showing a pre-desert Sahara. You are seriously suggesting that the environment hasn't changed as a result? Again you are just coming out with stuff that sounds right and hoping these hicks are too dumb to notice you doing it.

Yes, these people are talking a lot of garbage but at least we see them being honest about where their delusions come from; i.e. their fixation on a book written by desert goat herders. You, however, are just basing what you believe on an over inflated sense of knowing stuff and talking a lot of rubbish.

You are an embarrassment to thinking beings.

[DerpHerpBurp]

Originally Posted by Virginia D. Templeton

Again and again, you hippity-hop around my point. Pretend I am an evolutionist for a minute.

[EVOL]A quarter-million years is certainly enough time for substantial microevolutionary changes to accumulate. Regardless, you are correct that the African environment has changed little in that time.

And that is precisely why blacks are primitive! No one is saying they have some deficiency that prevents them from evolving. They didn't need to evolve much, and so they didn't—which has left them far, far behind the rest of humanity. One might question whether they are even human at all.

Sieg heil! Tod zum untermenschen![/EVOL]

Get it? Got it? Good. (But I'm sure you didn't.)



"Whatever" JP is, is a highly respected and distinguished paleoconservative Christian journalist, columnist, editor, and political scholar. Google is your friend. And just what are you?

I can't tell what he was feeling, but I can tell what he was saying: that rapists aren't responsible for their rapes. At all. That rape is normal, natural, and good. He tries to backpedal, but his words are there for all to see.



Mm-hm. That they have electricity, working roadways, and a general sense of order all point to that conclusion.

That JP character is therefore not Darwin

quote something from darwin's work to find where he condoned rape, not some christian scholar, that is a secondary source and doesn't cite where he got that opinion from.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

quote something from darwin's work to find where he condoned rape, not some christian scholar, that is a secondary source and doesn't cite where he got that opinion from.

This is a CHRISTIAN forum. It is not a debate site, nor is it a Darwinista terrorist group. It is NOT our job to spoonfeed you, nor is it our job to come up with proofs that would satisfy you that Darwin was wrong. The Holy Bible does that job nicely.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23:Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Get thee hence!

[Virginia Day Templeton]

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

quote something from darwin's work to find where he condoned rape, not some christian scholar, that is a secondary source and doesn't cite where he got that opinion from.

Whether Darwin himself personally condoned it is irrelevant.

Did Muhammad tell his followers to strap dynamite to their chests and blow themselves up in coffee shops, or to behead people who made films/books/cartoons that insulted him? Of course not, but these are indisputably part of contemporary Islam.

Just as rape is part of Neo-Darwinian theory, the only form of Darwinism that has any relevance today.

[Brother Temperance]

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

I read the first line of that link and all it says is that

"Darwinian evolution is inherently a racist philosophy, teaching that different groups or races evolved at different times and rates, so some groups are more like their ape-like ancestors than others."

I don't see how that is racist, it was an observation made by him.

So racist. You're so racist you can't even see how saying that jigaboos are monkeys is racist.

Also Darwin made these observations when the US was going through a massive slavery conflict an a dividing civil war, if darwin was racist, he may have shared this idea like tens of millions of others.

But not everyone. Did you know that, at that very same time, Godly Republicans were fighting a war to end racism - the very same cause that Republicans are still committed to today?

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

First statement, a quarter million years isn't enough to cause an evolutionary change.

So you admit that evolution is impossible, since the earth has been around for way less than a quarter of a million years?

Originally Posted by DerpHerpBurp

That JP character is therefore not Darwin

quote something from darwin's work to find where he condoned rape, not some christian scholar, that is a secondary source and doesn't cite where he got that opinion from.

You're just trying to trick us into getting possessed by demons. I know your game only too well, Satan!