Re: Social Darwinism; was: So Long Judge Moore, We'll Miss You

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 23:44:12 +0000 (UTC), [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(ambrose searle) wrote:

>> >> >That's the admission that apparently many of your ilk cannot bring
>> >> >themselves to admit. This was the beginning problem that led to this
>> >> >present thread: when Lechevalier said that Darwin held no theory of
>> >> >Social Darwinism.
>> >> 
>> >> Can you ever say anything at all without lying?
>> >
>> >Here's the link where LeChevalier said there is "no such theory" as
>> >Darwin's theory of Social Darwinism.
>> 
>> You are still a liar.  Your claim that atheists cannot admit that
>> Darwin could be in error remains a lie. 
>
>Perhaps you can prove that you are not lying when you write that I
>claimed that atheists *cannot* admit that Darwin could be in error.

Perhaps you are insane or just have an incredibly short memory.  See
below:

>Arne Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> (Darwin was also wrong on numerous 
>> accounts),

You then wrote:


>That's the admission that apparently many of your ilk cannot bring
>themselves to admit. This was the beginning problem that led to this
>present thread: when Lechevalier said that Darwin held no theory of
>Social Darwinism.

>
>No, you can't.


Bull

>
>> Furthermore Darwin held no
>> theory of Social Darwinism for the simple reason that it is not a
>> scientific theory, 
>

>Do you realize how ridiculous what you just wrote is? You think that
>only scientific theories can be theories!!??


Only scientific theories can be scientific - to state the absurdly
obvious.  Social Darwinism is not a scietific theory, and it was not
developed by Darwin.


>
>> and, in addition, he had nothing to do with
>> developing it.
>

>Whether or not he originated it, he held it, promoted it, advocated
>it, etc.
>
>Why can't you just admit the obvious?

That you are lying?  We all know that.


>
>> >Whose theories are contained in the Descent of Man? Thomas
>> >Jefferson's?
>> 
>> And you continue with your lying.  
>
>Is that the best you can do? You can't argue a case, you can only
>insult your opponent.
>
>You have really proven yourself to the readers to be without any
>substance.

Do you think so?  I believe you will discover that I am not the one
with a credibility problem.


None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.