Possible troll thread: Atheism and evolutionary racism

[joeblow]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_an ... ary_racism

Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists.[1] The errant and ill founded writings of atheist Charles Darwin (see: religious views of Charles Darwin) [2], which became very influential in the late 19th century, provided a pretext for racism. Evolutionary racism refers to a racist philosophy based on Charles Darwin's evolutionary theory. It assumes that men have continually evolved, and thus some races are more evolved than others. It replaces Christian morality with the atheistic "survival of the fittest" ideology of Social Darwinism.

Charles Darwin wrote in his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex:
"    At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.[3][4]    "

The atheist Ernst Haeckel was a virulent evolutionary racist. The agnostic and staunch evolutionist Stephen Gould admitted the following:
"    Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).[5]    "

An example of evolutionary racism is when an evolutionary racist put Ota Benga on display at the Bronx Zoo in the monkey house.[6] In addition, evolutionary racism was directed at Michelle Obama.[7]

When asked in an interview, "If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren't right?", Richard Dawkins replied, "What's to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn't right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question, but whatever [defines morality], it's not the Bible. If it was, we'd be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath."[8]

The interviewer wrote in response, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."[8]

Evolutionary racism still exist today. For example, evolutionary racism was recently directed at Michelle Obama.[9] The historic taint of white evolutionary racism within the white atheist community no doubt has been a factor which has hindered the adoption of atheism in the Western World among racial minorities. Leading creation science organizations such as Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research commonly point out the evolutionary racism that has existed within the evolutionary community.[10][11][12][13]

Thomas Sowell wrote:
"    While slavery was common to all civilizations, as well as to peoples considered uncivilized, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in hits history...not even the leading moralists in other civilizations rejected slavery at all.... Moreover, within Western civilization, the principle impetus for the abolition of slavery came first from very conservative religious activists – people who would today be called 'the religious right.'...this story is not 'politically correct' in today's terms. Hence it is ignored, as if it never happened."[14]    "

The Christian abolitionist William Wilberforce was the father of Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford who took part in the famous creation vs. evolution with evolutionist T. H. Huxley in 1860. In the United States, the black church has been a major force in advancing the cause of racial equality.
See also

    Western atheism and race
    Atheism appears to be significantly less appealing to women
    Social effects of the theory of evolution

References

    ↑
        Dr. Don Batten, A Who's Who of evolutionists Creation 20(1):32, December 1997.
        Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.,F.M., Refuting Evolution, Chapter 1, Facts and Bias
    ↑
        http://www.creation.com/content/view/1877
        Barrett, Paul H. Darwin on Man 1974:276
        American Scientist May 1977:323
    ↑ http://www.aim.org/wls/90/
    ↑ The Descent of Man, chapter VI
    ↑ http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html
    ↑ http://creation.com/ota-benga-the-pygmy ... y-in-a-zoo
    ↑ http://creation.com/obama-racism-row
    ↑ 8.0 8.1 http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-wo ... evangelist
    ↑ http://creation.com/obama-racism-row
    ↑ http://creation.com/racism-questions-and-answers
    ↑ http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-ans ... pic/racism
    ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/evolution-modern-racism/
    ↑ http://www.icr.org/article/ascent-racism/
    ↑ Sowell, Thomas (2005) The real history of slavery. In Black Rednecks and White Liberals. San Francisco, CA: Encounter Books

[Yo Mama]

Science is "racist"!

We're all equal!

 

[Michael K.]

Mikey likes this.

[Michael K.]

EVIL LOOSHIN'

1.)  Science seeks objective knowledge and relies upon replicable experimental results for proof.

2.)  "Evolution" is a theory by some scientists attempting to explain certain conditions, but it is not replicable in an experiment and therefore it will never be proven and become a scientific law, like the Law of Gravity.

3.)   Real scientific objectivity admits that what it doesn't know is vastly greater than that which is proven and doesn't jump to conclusions.

4.)   Some people take a theory and treat it like a proven fact; these people are not scientists in the true sense but lay persons who are creating their own belief system based on science's subject matter.

5.)  Theories such as Evolution are interpreted by some to mean that they are a "chosen race", chosen by the power that they believe guided destiny to allow them to be born wealthy, beautiful, etc.

6.)  So Evolution is not "science", but an imaginary narrative derived from it, and people who regard it as a repository of faith about themselves and others are engaged in religion.  

7.)  Such people, in choosing to elevate theories originating in the human imagination to the level of revelatory truths, are engaged in the error of idolatry and intellectual self-worship.

[Anonymous]

I believe in evolution and natural selection theory. Everything observable points to it being fact and true unlike any other belief system such as christianity.

I think the reason most people are uncomfortable with natural selection theory is that they don't measure up, if it became a mainstream belief system, policies would be enacted such as birth control on undesirables and likely reproductive people given a genetic quality rating and given a quota on how many offspring they are allowed to produce, ranging from 0 for undesirables and unlimited for the highest quality including support benefits. Eugenics was starting to become big early last centry and it was crushed and demonised ever since. Jews do not want the goy to improve their genetics, seems like they want to breed everyone back down into apes and monkeys. I believe Eugenics is the way forward to advance and improve mankind.

Alot of people say Eugenics is wrong and cruel, my opinion is the opposite, not using Eugenics is wrong and cruel. If 100 years ago Eugenics was enacted in America and only the best were allowed to breed and genetic imperfections were weeded out, everyone today would have a high genetic quality, all the women beautiful, all the men hansom, everyone intelligent, everyone civilized. Imagine you today.....instead of yourself today perhaps being slow, short and unattractive, what would your life be like today if your ancestors decided to enact eugenics and improve the genetic quality of their people? you would be taller, more intelligent and much better looking. That is something everyone dreams of being and is something that pays off in the medium future, something very easily attainable. Americans would have been like that today if it weren't for the jews, they stop every effort of people to try to enact Eugenics.  

Today we have vast swaths of the population who do not measure up to be quite frank and would be good for the long term to limit their breeding. In my view it is the only way to really move forward. Jews have never supported or endorsed natural selection for the goy but they certainly have practiced it amongst themselves with great success with the main natural selection marker of cunningness and deviousness winning out. The Jew is especially scared of an Ayran talking about natural selection and eugenics as anyone who understands it well realizes that the jew is something to be weeded out and it gets them very nervous.

[Michael K.]

Dear Bluejelly,

It is not my place to pass judgment on you personally, and I sympathize with your thoughts and feelings on this subject as I too have seriously entertained these ideas.  I am a sinner too.

However, in all fairness to objective truth, yours is a creedal statement and not an offer of scientific proof:

I believe in evolution and natural selection theory.

Your honesty is refreshing, although I disagree with you.  And in an appeal to reason I ask you to be slow to judge others based on those assumptions.

I raise animals and slaughter them myself for food, and I know all about barnyard politics and the survival of the fittest.  There is no denying the cruelty and indifference of a pig who escapes the pen and eats a newborn goat kid, leaving the mother bleating pathetically.  

With animals, and with humans, good fences make good neighbors, which is a validation of White separatism if you want to look at it that way.  But before we take another step toward eugenics, let us be humble before the mystery of beingness in every soul.  Even the blind and the crippled have a destiny to fulfill in the world, and we know not what it is.

In death we are all equal, although in life we are not.  Let's live with our death to remind us of the value of even the simplest and most lowly of men.

[ada]

Evolution is a protected religion like communism is.
Most scientists are not up for the truth but what the
fabricated textbooks of some technocrats say.
This is their belief system to get rid of divine logos.
We have no king but cesar!
But is this kind of liberation worth it?

[youtube:1w2e20ie]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNtFUagtl0g[/youtube]1w2e20ie]

[Yo Mama]

Awesome post, bluejelly.  I couldn't have said it better myself.  But don't expect any support from the anti-science leftists and religious kooks who dominate TIU.   :up:

[Michael K.]

Dear Yo Mama,

You are attempting to pass off your views as "science," when I proved logically through syllogism above that you views are religious beliefs, and bluejelly has confessed honestly that he knows he is a "believer" in a worldview, not a possessor of irrefutable evidence.  "Anti-religious" views are a logical subset of "All religious views."  

It is a counterfeit argument that you are on the side of some objective "reality," and we are not.  It's just religious views all around, I worship the I AM THAT I AM, creator of my spirit, mind and body; you seem to idolize your genes and own sense of rationality.  In any case, your scientific reasoning is insufficient to count as professional science, as your religious belief in taking an unproven genetic theory as a guide for your morality and ethics demonstrates.

 At least I know which part of my thinking is irrational, you seem to be unaware that you are even possessed of irrationality, as if you deny categorically that you believe without seeing.  Here:  Have you ever seen a "big bang" create everything?  Do you believe it did, anyways?  I rest my case.

[GordZilla]

With due respect Bluejelly, IMHO, the problem with eugenics is about 100 fold.

For one, there'd be no "you" today to imagine, unless of course you believe in souls, but you do not, so you, nor I, nor Yo Moma nor Michael would even be here had we practiced eugenics for any significant time period in the past.

Two; What is perfection? Symmetry only? Or is it more? These questions would have to be determined -my question is; by whom?

What about racial questions? Generally Whites are very creative and imaginative, Blacks are athletic, Asians are mentally superior (all in general) so where's that leave eugenics? Do we save only the best of the Asians? The Blacks? the Whites? The best of all? What if they later mix together and throw the whole mechanism into disarray? Again enforcement must be mandatory, again this is shaping up to be a Brave New World indeed.

Next would be child birth, would it be controlled? There is little to suggest that just because the father and the mother are deemed perfect that then, for sure, their offspring would also be perfect. What if one earlobe is lower than the other? Should the child be then disposed of? Again who makes these decisions, and who would tell the hearts of these parents not to care?

The whole notion is ridiculous, in my opinion, as it completely disregards human nature and affairs of the heart, we are not machines nor can we be. A system of eugenics would also need, and I stress need, a control mechanism, and it would have to be extremely heavy handed and apathetic to any mere human concerns or feelings.

Really you could go on and on about what a miserable Orwellian world we'd find ourselves in it we were to practice such a moronic notion such as this. I'd imagine an underground of 'breeders' who'd be hunted like dogs for daring to practice their human wants and desires without government approval, that's the world that eugenics would offer. Like most ideologies that look great on paper, it would fail in practice, because humans are humans, not numbers not machines.

And as for your comment; "The Jew is especially scared of an Ayran talking about natural selection and eugenics as anyone who understands it well realizes that the jew is something to be weeded out and it gets them very nervous."  I haven't actually looked into this but I'd bet dollars to doughnuts  that there'd be more Jews to be found supporting eugenics than those opposed, I really don't think you'd have any hard facts to show either way. I'm confident in my stand though, as I know the Jew and an excuse to cull the masses, as long as they are in control -and they would be-,  is a good enough excuse for them.


Yo Moma;  'anti-science' lol, do you only see in black and white? Many great men and women of science have also been God-fearing, the two are NOT mutually exclusive, they  just only happen to be in your mind.



"The first sip out of the cup of science leads to atheism, but at the bottom of the cup awaits God. "

[Anonymous]

GordZilla, there is no problem with Eugenics, there is no '100' fold problem.

Yes you are right there would be no 'me' or 'you' today if there was a eugenics program 100 years ago (or still maybe I would heh), but they would be better people. It's much like claiming the civil war should never have happened but legitimizing it because we would not be here today if it did not happen.

Two; What is perfection? Symmetry only? Or is it more? These questions would have to be determined -my question is; by whom?

I think the answer is pretty obvious, there are better humans than other humans, it is not all purely objective, whom should decide?

What about racial questions? Generally Whites are very creative and imaginative, Blacks are athletic, Asians are mentally superior (all in general) so where's that leave eugenics? Do we save only the best of the Asians? The Blacks? the Whites? The best of all? What if they later mix together and throw the whole mechanism into disarray? Again enforcement must be mandatory, again this is shaping up to be a Brave New World indeed.

I think all races should enact eugenic programs, all races should improve themselves. This isn't about White people trying to be superior to other races, I want all races to increase in quality, even the mixed race people can practice Eugenics, they simply mix with higher quality mixed people. One Idea I had is in the future we will beable to clone people, people nomatter who they are can simply flick through a book of pictures of people they would like to marry and the person would be cloned and sold to the person. After afew generations of people doing this, the genetics would improve. There are many ways to enact Eugenics.

Next would be child birth, would it be controlled? There is little to suggest that just because the father and the mother are deemed perfect that then, for sure, their offspring would also be perfect. What if one earlobe is lower than the other? Should the child be then disposed of? Again who makes these decisions, and who would tell the hearts of these parents not to care?

China has a one child policy, there is no selection but the policy is not physically enforced but it is enforced economically through taxes I believe. Yes if the baby has a defect, sure why not dispose of it, we do it with everything else from animals in the farm yard to widgets coming out of the factory or atleast sold as factory seconds. I am not saying that a funny baby should be ripped from the mothers arms and have it's head smashed on the pavement by a over zealous eugenics officer, more likely while the baby is in the womb or after it is born and examinations and tests have been done, the woman and the eugenics officer would discusses the baby and offer their opinions and recommendations, if the woman decides to get rid of the child she can try for another without taxation levy charged.

Thanks for replying to the post, I am getting tired and would have liked to respond to your other questions as they are very good but I want to move onto another poster.  

Michael K.

At least I know which part of my thinking is irrational, you seem to be unaware that you are even possessed of irrationality

'I believe in the theory of evolution and natural selection' atleast I can say that with it sounding reasonable, I have never heard a Christian profess that they 'believe In the theory of Jesus Christ', likely because Christianity has no theory, it's based on stories, they have used word tricky such as 'Theology' to try to make is sound similar with respectability but it is really neither. You are also a bad Christian to say your belief in Christianity is irrational, I am really suprised you went that far out on the limb to try to link the two belief systems together in order to beable to discuss the 'irrationality' of my belief system. Also is there any type of belief system that you know of that is rational? as I supposing that is your claim that any belief someone has about the world is irrational.

Michael K, are you denying that implementing simply the process of Eugenics, it would not work? They use Eugenics on farms, they always use the best animals for breeding purposes because it improves the stock. I do claim to believe in Evolution and Natural Selection theory, but I did not expect that would be a reason for a rebuttal, I was expecting if anyone disagreed they would have come from the angle that it would be unfair for some people or claim that selecting does not work and is not transfered to the offspring, the latter easier to refute.

I was not expecting to argue about beliefs but about facts which I think if you break down atleast selection theory, there is nothing to refute, to implement Eugenics you don't have to believe in evolution or natural selection, simply only 'selection' and even then you don't have to believe in it. Christianity has in the past shown they are afraid of progress because it may expose the fallacy of their belief system, they went around killing anyone who believed the world was not flat and refused to look at the science of it. Not surprising alot of christians are the same today or they may compromise in some way with the jews and believe in evolution yet god still loves everyone equality which is a contradiction. There is no love or anything in Evolution and Natural Selection theory, it is simply a process.

I think it is advantageous to believe in evolution and natural selection theory, it's the closest and most reasonable logical thing to believe as it mirrors reality and the natural world and is the most accurate rule book to use in the game of life rather than religious views which give a warped and flawed rule book to play the game. Sure it would be nice to goto paradise after I die, but seeing how easily Christians are fooled in this life, I think they are being fooled about the afterlife as well.

Thanks Michael K

[Yo Mama]

Eugenics is okay for animal breeding, but it's too good for humans.

     

[Yo Mama]

The religious kooks actually have the nerve to compare natural selection and biologic evolution with their ancient pre-scientific superstitious Semitic fairy tales, as if the two things are on the same level.

Unbelievable.   :wtf:

[Michael K.]

At the risk of being further abused, let me rebut a few presumptions:

The religious kooks actually have the nerve to compare natural selection and biologic evolution with their ancient pre-scientific superstitious Semitic fairy tales, as if the two things are on the same level.

RE:  OK genius, so you have seen and can experimentally replicate the existence of biologic evolution?  Go ahead and show me and I will not call it your belief, but a fact.

'I believe in the theory of evolution and natural selection' at least I can say that with it sounding reasonable, I have never heard a Christian profess that they 'believe In the theory of Jesus Christ', likely because Christianity has no theory, it's based on stories, they have used word tricky such as 'Theology' to try to make is sound similar with respectability but it is really neither.

RE:  You sound reasonable because you own your beliefs.  Evolution is based on stories, stories about little fragments of bone and rock which are far from stand-alone self-evident proof of the "survival of the fittest", "natural selection," and the fossil record is so scant that there is no proof that one creature "evolved" from another, as there have been no "cat-dog" type fossils discovered.  The theory of evolution has as one of its creeds that some day these fossils will be found, but they do not exist to show anyone, hence a belief without proof.

I'm sorry you misunderstand Theology, but we at least acknowledge that it is based on faith and is not some Jewey Kabbalistic pseudo-science.

You are also a bad Christian to say your belief in Christianity is irrational, I am really suprised you went that far out on the limb to try to link the two belief systems together in order to be able to discuss the 'irrationality' of my belief system.

RE:  If I am a bad Christian for being intellectually honest about my belief system, what is a good Christian to you?  I maintain that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person and that the New Testament about him is accurate; this is not the irrational part, but this withstands the rigors of scholarly dissection.  The theory of the Holy Trinity is irrational, though, as is the belief that he is the Son of God.  It takes an act of faith, of course, to believe so.

Also is there any type of belief system that you know of that is rational? as I supposing that is your claim that any belief someone has about the world is irrational.

RE:  That's right, there are only facts that can be scientifically proven, and there are beliefs that can not be scientifically proven.  Do you know of a third category?

I was not expecting to argue about beliefs but about facts which I think if you break down at least selection theory, there is nothing to refute, to implement Eugenics you don't have to believe in evolution or natural selection, simply only 'selection' and even then you don't have to believe in it.

RE:  You are correct.  But are you capable of selecting wisely enough?

There is no love or anything in Evolution and Natural Selection theory, it is simply a process.

RE:  That's so true.  I'm just asking you to consider love before making a prejudicial decision about someone else's existence.  Perhaps you don't believe in love?  Decisions made without love may bring results without love.  That's my concern.  Am I a bad Christian?

[Yo Mama]

I maintain that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person and that the New Testament about him is accurate; this is not the irrational part, but this withstands the rigors of scholarly dissection.

No, it doesn't.  In fact, it's completely ridiculous.  The New Testament is literature.  It's not history.  Do you know the difference between literature and history?   :roll:

[pas]

Interesting eugenics discussion, i'm on the fence on this one.Both sides have strong arguements.
Thanks.

ps. Micheal K.:

Am I a bad Christian?

As an ''atheist'' i might not be the best judge.But reading your posts you seem to me an awesome Christian and a great human being.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

[MikeWB]

̆Banana, The Atheist's Nightmare!
[youtube:1ct4qjn8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4[/youtube]1ct4qjn8]

̆Peanut Butter, The Atheist's Nightmare!
[youtube:1ct4qjn8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZFG5PKw504[/youtube]1ct4qjn8]

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I wonder if Kirk Cameron has finally discarded his Zionist Christian deception and embraced a pure form of Christianity. He knows Jews run Hollywood. He accused the Jewish producers of his television show, Growing Pains, of being pornographers.

[GordZilla]

I wonder if Kirk Cameron has finally discarded his Zionist Christian deception and embraced a pure form of Christianity. He knows Jews run Hollywood. He accused the Jewish producers of his television show, Growing Pains, of being pornographers.

Even as a believer you gotta admit those are some funny videos, I'm sure -in fact I know - stronger arguments have been made in favour of intelligent design. Never-the-less those videos will always make me laugh, regardless of my position, as they are just too funny, especially the banana one ...  

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I wonder if Kirk Cameron has finally discarded his Zionist Christian deception and embraced a pure form of Christianity. He knows Jews run Hollywood. He accused the Jewish producers of his television show, Growing Pains, of being pornographers.

Even as a believer you gotta admit those are some funny videos, I'm sure -in fact I know - stronger arguments have been made in favour of intelligent design. Never-the-less those videos will always make me laugh, regardless of my position, as they are just too funny, especially the banana one ...  

Yeah, and look who is a strong proponent of the peanut butter thing—none other than Chuck Missler, the CIA agent/Zionist evangelist.

[Wimpy]

I wonder if Kirk Cameron has finally discarded his Zionist Christian deception and embraced a pure form of Christianity. He knows Jews run Hollywood. He accused the Jewish producers of his television show, Growing Pains, of being pornographers.

I looked up Kirk Cameron and discovered he and his wife are actively involved in the "Firefly Foundation" out in CA.  This rang a bell and I looked it up, again, and verified that The Firefly Foundation was established in Toronto by:

Heather McKenzie Anspach Fraser, Founder
As the Founder of Firefly, Heather brings drive and inspiration to lighting a new path to brain health. As Director of the Business Design Initiative and Designworks at the Rotman School of Management (University of Toronto), Heather helps others (students and enterprise executives) design new ways to build better solutions every day through insight, imagination and smart strategies. She joined Rotman in 2005 after 25 years in the marketing and communications business, including 10 years of research and business design at Procter & Gamble, 5 years of global brand campaign development and agency management at Ogilvy & Mather, and 10 years as Principal & Executive Vice President at TAXI Advertising and Design. Heather also included Firefly in the Designwork's portfolio of developmental projects, illustrating her commitment to support people and ideas with the potential to make an important contribution to the world.

She is a jewish woman who lost her parents to Alzheimers.  I know, since I dated her in college; Dad was CEO of Whirlpool and she started Firefly with $500,000.  So, I wonder if Kirk knows this and is only interested in helping out those with Alzheimers or is Firefly membership a means to remain pals with prominent CA jews?

Believe it or not we, Heather and I, never approached the religious discussion.  I was raised Catholic.

http://fireflyfoundation.wordpress.com/ ... spiration/

Kirk Thomas Cameron (born October 12, 1970) is an American actor best-known for his role as Mike Seaver on the television situation comedy Growing Pains (1985–1992), as well as several other television and film appearances as a child actor. In the 1980s and 1990s, Cameron appeared in dozens of television shows and in the films Like Father Like Son and Listen to Me.

Recently, he portrayed Cameron "Buck" Williams in the Left Behind film series and Caleb Holt in the 2008 drama film, Fireproof. Cameron is also an active Christian evangelist, currently partnering with Ray Comfort in the evangelical ministry The Way of the Master, and has co-founded The Firefly Foundation with his wife, actress Chelsea Noble.

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

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

I wonder if Kirk Cameron has finally discarded his Zionist Christian deception and embraced a pure form of Christianity. He knows Jews run Hollywood. He accused the Jewish producers of his television show, Growing Pains, of being pornographers.

I looked up Kirk Cameron and discovered he and his wife are actively involved in the "Firefly Foundation" out in CA.  This rang a bell and I looked it up, again, and verified that The Firefly Foundation was established in Toronto by:

Heather McKenzie Anspach Fraser, Founder
As the Founder of Firefly, Heather brings drive and inspiration to lighting a new path to brain health. As Director of the Business Design Initiative and Designworks at the Rotman School of Management (University of Toronto), Heather helps others (students and enterprise executives) design new ways to build better solutions every day through insight, imagination and smart strategies. She joined Rotman in 2005 after 25 years in the marketing and communications business, including 10 years of research and business design at Procter & Gamble, 5 years of global brand campaign development and agency management at Ogilvy & Mather, and 10 years as Principal & Executive Vice President at TAXI Advertising and Design. Heather also included Firefly in the Designwork's portfolio of developmental projects, illustrating her commitment to support people and ideas with the potential to make an important contribution to the world.

She is a jewish woman who lost her parents to Alzheimers.  I know, since I dated her in college; Dad was CEO of Whirlpool and she started Firefly with $500,000.  So, I wonder if Kirk knows this and is only interested in helping out those with Alzheimers or is Firefly membership a means to remain pals with prominent CA jews?

Believe it or not we, Heather and I, never approached the religious discussion.  I was raised Catholic.

http://fireflyfoundation.wordpress.com/ ... spiration/

Kirk Thomas Cameron (born October 12, 1970) is an American actor best-known for his role as Mike Seaver on the television situation comedy Growing Pains (1985–1992), as well as several other television and film appearances as a child actor. In the 1980s and 1990s, Cameron appeared in dozens of television shows and in the films Like Father Like Son and Listen to Me.

Recently, he portrayed Cameron "Buck" Williams in the Left Behind film series and Caleb Holt in the 2008 drama film, Fireproof. Cameron is also an active Christian evangelist, currently partnering with Ray Comfort in the evangelical ministry The Way of the Master, and has co-founded The Firefly Foundation with his wife, actress Chelsea Noble.

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

I wonder if Heather is a crypto-Jew or a Christian Jew. Is she the one behind Kirk Cameron's Zionist deception?

[Wimpy]

Heather is a jew, jew.  I believe this Firefly Foundation has many branches now but the first was founded by her in Toronto.  I am speculating that Kirk and his wife co-founded a local branch and that this branch would likely be hooked up with the Canadian foundation.  Or, since Firefly Foundation is Canadian and falls under Canadian Law, it could be that Kirk's Firefly Foundation is a me too under US Law.  I can't seem to find anything specific yet on his. I'll search more.

Evangelical Christians are notorious jew fans.

Camp Firefly is week-long summer camp run by The Firefly Foundation in Atlanta, Georgia, which was founded by married-couple film actors Kirk Cameron and Chelsea Noble.[1][2] It gives terminally ill children and their families a free week's vacation.[3] It was given a donation by Sherwood Baptist Church, as Cameron played in its major film, Fireproof, and was not paid.[4]

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

It seems Kirk and wife may have borrowed the name?

[MikeWB]

I wonder if Kirk Cameron has finally discarded his Zionist Christian deception and embraced a pure form of Christianity. He knows Jews run Hollywood. He accused the Jewish producers of his television show, Growing Pains, of being pornographers.

Even as a believer you gotta admit those are some funny videos, I'm sure -in fact I know - stronger arguments have been made in favour of intelligent design. Never-the-less those videos will always make me laugh, regardless of my position, as they are just too funny, especially the banana one ...  

Hheheh... creationists are some of the dumbest people on planet. They think they can use religious beliefs to prove scientific facts.

This is a funny video:

[youtube:2u1r6tzo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wzjjxi7f0Oc[/youtube]2u1r6tzo]

PS: In the video above, there is a brief shot of a Bible. Do you know the significance of that particular edition?

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Here's a Chuck Missler thread:

Chuck Missler: Chrisitan Think Tank Operator for Murderous Zionism
viewtopic.php?f=41&t=2993&start=0


I'm a believer in Intelligent Design. If you examine evolution and Wave Cycle Theory... you need to have some kind of intelligence behind it all to bring about things like "eyes" in humans.  How many lives of any animal is needed to create "eyes" from embryos and chromosomes from inorganic material a few million? Let's stretch it across the years.  Humans are now on the cusp's edge in creating artificial eyesight even at the insect level. From scratch, it can't be done. Primordial soup can sit for Billions of years and likely nothing will dramatically happen.
 The cross over from inorganic to replicating and very advanced life-forms requires a special "switch" otherwise life from inorganic materials (atoms) would have been successful already in experiments.  All these have basically failed or produced results requiring a "leap of faith" to make the next level of development -- laughable.
This belief is one that really can't be replicated with any form of "honesty" by Evolutionists without a "Creator".

As philosopher Paul Feyerabend wrote:

"Given any rule, however 'fundamental' or 'necessary' for science, there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite."

[MikeWB]

I'm a believer in Intelligent Design. If you examine evolution and Wave Cycle Theory... you need to have some kind of intelligence behind it all to bring about things like "eyes" in humans.  How many lives of any animal is needed to create "eyes" from embryos and chromosomes from inorganic material a few million? Let's stretch it across the years.  Humans are now on the cusp's edge in creating artificial eyesight even at the insect level. From scratch, it can't be done. Primordial soup can sit for Billions of years and likely nothing will dramatically happen.

So why did god give you a blind spot in the eye?

Eyes can be perfectly explained through evolution... even imperfections in human eyes can be traced back and explained. ID and creationists should leave science alone because they are way out of their expertise.


The evolution of eyes
[youtube:2togxq4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ybWucMx4W8[/youtube]2togxq4s]

#2
[youtube:2togxq4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb9_x1wgm7E[/youtube]2togxq4s]

And please people, quit blaming jews for evolution and quit making up nonsense about how evolution is a jew ploy. It's not. Blame American education for dumbing people down and for  teaching the kids religion instead of critical thinking. And if you have to, blame jews for teaching you their superstitions and myths and for propagating them and pushing them so hard onto the gullible population. Religion's just a tool to keep people in a specific state of mind in which they won't rise up against those that are oppressing & robbing them.

[GordZilla]

I use science myself to prove intelligent design;

science states nothing comes from nothing, give it as much time as you want but nothing remains nothing.

science shows that codes require design, a code is a language, except some scientists make one exception to this rule; DNA. Some scientists believe this particular code wrote itself into existence. A honest scientist knows that's impossible, but the bad ones believe this fairy tale.

And of course there's the Jew itself, evolution has a hard time explaining them, they evolved in the same areas and regions as others, yet maintained differences that are beyond all other humans, not 'beyond' as in more advanced, but more 'un human'. Their conscious is nothing like everyone else's, no slight bit of guilt when they spread lies, no empathy for others. They are simply made of different stuff, seeded by a different 'code'.


So for me the jury is still out on that, as the first two points quite clearly illustrate that life needed a 'kick start' and DNA needs an author. Call that 'author' whatever you feel comfortable with, that's fine. And by no means does this rule out evolution, but evolution itself may also very well be planned. We don't know for sure, still to this day. And as religion used to impede science, evolutionary atheism is now starting to take up that role.


And a final note; Marxism meshes well with evolutionary thinking, that also scares me. As Marxism, and more so; communism, needs people not to think of themselves as anything more than mere animals. No 'inherent God given and inalienable rights'. Just animals, but with some animals being more equal than others. So yeah I can see why the Jew heavily supports evolutionary thinking, and they do.

[Timothy_Fitzpatrick]

Heather is a jew, jew.  I believe this Firefly Foundation has many branches now but the first was founded by her in Toronto.  I am speculating that Kirk and his wife co-founded a local branch and that this branch would likely be hooked up with the Canadian foundation.  Or, since Firefly Foundation is Canadian and falls under Canadian Law, it could be that Kirk's Firefly Foundation is a me too under US Law.  I can't seem to find anything specific yet on his. I'll search more.

Evangelical Christians are notorious jew fans.

Camp Firefly is week-long summer camp run by The Firefly Foundation in Atlanta, Georgia, which was founded by married-couple film actors Kirk Cameron and Chelsea Noble.[1][2] It gives terminally ill children and their families a free week's vacation.[3] It was given a donation by Sherwood Baptist Church, as Cameron played in its major film, Fireproof, and was not paid.[4]

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

It seems Kirk and wife may have borrowed the name?

Considering Kirk Cameron's past statements about Hollywood Jews, I would say he is highly susceptible to defecting from Zionism. The problem is, who could get close enough to him to reveal the facts?



MikeWB said:

Hheheh... creationists are some of the dumbest people on planet. They think they can use religious beliefs to prove scientific facts.

Come on, Mike. This is a pretty ignorant thing to say. Just because some Christians don't have the knowledge to defend their religious beliefs from a scientific point of view doesn't make them dumb. There are many Christians who do, indeed, argue for their religion from a scientific point of view. You just don't encounter them very often because, frankly, the Church has not done a good job of preparing its people for the current explosion in atheistic thinking—thinking that has been largely brought to prominence by Jewish intellectual movements.

And please people, quit blaming jews for evolution and quit making up nonsense about how evolution is a jew ploy.

So we should ignore the current and historical fact that Jews are over-represented in atheist movements? That's quite remiss.

Blame American education for dumbing people down and for teaching the kids religion instead of critical thinking.

There's a lot wrong with American education, but what you are suggesting isn't one of them. Where is your evidence that one can't be both religious and a critical thinker?

Religion's just a tool to keep people in a specific state of mind in which they won't rise up against those that are oppressing & robbing them.

This is flawed reasoning. One could also argue that the absence of religion could also be used as a tool for tyrants. It goes both ways. Besides, religious people have and do revolt. There are oodles of examples of this.

[Anonymous]

BTW Ray Comfort is a jew, wikipedia lists his mother as Jewish, supporting intelligent design using a banana and a crazy form of evangelism which would really make you look the fool if you tried any of his stuff out in public. He defiantly is playing a game with people.

http://raycomfortfood.blogspot.com/2009 ... f-jew.html

To say that all six million Jews who died in the holocaust are in Hell, is a twisted interpretation of Christian theology. I am a Jew, and I became a Christian. Jesus was Jewish. The disciples were Jewish. The first 8,000 converts were Jewish. Christianity went "to the Jew first." It came through the Jews, from the land of the Jews, to the Jews. Any Jew who believes the Scriptures will come to Christ. Those who don't, wont.

'Posted by Ray Comfort  on 10/09/2009 08:53:00 AM'

That was in response to someone claiming that all the jews that hitler gassed are in hell. Notice this 'I am a Jew, and I became a Christian' certainly careful wording there, likely a crypto jew, didn't say 'was a jew'. I have found Jews often have funny made up last names, which often are used to represent an image of themselves. What kind of last name is Comfort?

From wikipedia

According to Ray Comfort's blog, after finishing high school at 17, he worked in a bank, and began a successful business when he was 20. He "came to know the Lord" at 22

Kirk Cameron obviously is a shill as well, he 'supposedly' left the hollywood lifestyle to dedicate his live to evangelicalism, I think he simply got a new agent who recommended him to get into Christian themed movies for which he has become a hot christian movie star who's movies all seem to revolve around the rapture. He was a child actor on the show called growing pains, I guess he had to reinvent himself before the show ended so he didn't end up as a washed out child star with no job.

Then you had Ben Stein with his film expelled, no thinking allowed which he puts forth the case for intelligent design.



I have seen claimed scientists who say they believe in intelligent design, they all look abit kooky.

Jews just want to keep you in a artificial ideal of reality, It is pretty obviously theory of evolution is correct. About the eyes, it shows there is not much too the basic design of the eye.

GordZilla, about DNA code, it is quite different from computer code in that it is physical matter and it replicates itself by splitting down the middle. It makes perfect sense to me, DNA started off as RNA, mutations if they are a benefit and are they are able to replicate again, the mutation is passed on and that is how DNA code builds up to become very complicated like it is today. Also they say that 80% of DNA is junk, it has no purpose, although I have seen some far out christians claim that is dormant DNA which will become activated giving everyone new bodies as fortold in the bible, the junk DNA are part of the DNA that is no longer active in coding, but it would be impossible to remove through evolution, but if intelligent design is correct, why would the designer leave all the junk in there, why wouldn't the code be clean and perfect? I don't believe what others claim that it has a purpose but that we are not technically advanced enough yet to work it out.

Good thread here, I think one reason why Christians keep clinging to intelligent design is what Jim Howard Kunstler says (JEW) is that people are reluctant to change if they have previously invested alot into something. If you have spent the last 50 years living your life for christ, well I can understand why people would be reluctant.

BTW I have heard all the Intelligent Design cases, I even watched the entire Kent Hovind CSE course (Christian Science Evangelicalism) which was 40 tapes.