« Home | I'm not one to advocate violence... » | A Clear Sense of Priorities » | Oh that al-Zarqawi! » | Israel, Palestine, and tugging at the right » | A meandering brain dump » | Yeah, Tony, it's your ministers they want out of o... » | ¡Pase el doobie, amigo! ¿Qué es eso? Oh man, Buzz... » | The Asian Century » | Who's second-best? » | How to deal with the Palestinians? Why treat them ... »

Sometimes It's Scary out on the Edge of Exploration

Or at least that's what I discovered today, when following some roundabout links from one of my favourite sites, I discovered this site - yes folks, geocentricity, or the belief that the sun revolves around the earth, is alive and well. I quote:
This site is devoted to the historical relationship between the Bible and astronomy. It assumes that whenever the two are at variance, it is always astronomy—that is, our "reading" of the "Book of Nature," not our reading of the Holy Bible—that is wrong. History bears consistent witness to the truth of that stance.
Yeah - cause why believe all that pesky 'evidence'? Now, if you don't mind - I'm not going to explore for a bit - I'm just going to have a nice cup of tea - and lie in my bed whimpering for the future of the human species.

The flat-earth society was created by some of the first Libs . . . .

"Most modern scholars claim that the Bible teaches an earth, flat and rectangular in shape, which is placed on several pillars which, in turn, are based on a foundation. This, scholars claim, is how the ancients thought of the earth and man, in writing the Bible, merely echoed the scientific dogmas of the time. Because of that, many have assumed that the Bible was written by men and not by God and, as a result, that the Bible is not to be viewed as an authority in science. But a careful investigation and search of the Scriptures reveals that such a model is not dictated by the wording of the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible was already hinting of the sphericity of the earth by referring to the "compass upon the face of the depth" (Proverbs 8:27) some 500 years before the nations first started to doubt the flatness of the earth."

There is also a great read on the site re: Evolution and Racism . . . . did you know that the so-called science of Eugenics, was embraced by Social Darwinists in the 19th century, a was promoted by the left, including Hitler and Stalin?
The Left has such a colorful history . . . KKK, Apeasement (PM Chaimberlain 1938),
and of course our modern-day carpet-baggers who have now retired from Ottawa!

The fact that you take anything on that site seriously says everything about you, Ex-Dip, (that and the fact that you can't spell Chamberlain - idiot) Oh - and you screwed up appeasement too.

ExNDIP,

Why the continuous off-topic slander all of the time? If you are actually formerly NDP, they're all the better for having you on the other side. It makes them look more rational.

I mean, as we all know, nobody on the Right side of the political spectrum ever believed stupid shit, right?

Besides, as odious as it is, to say that social darwinism was only embraced by the left is an outright lie. It underlies every paragraph of Ayn Rand's odious prose.

Not to mention how eagerly eugenics and social darwinism were embraced by Herr Himmler and the SS, a single example of the Nazi racial obsession. I think it has been rather firmly established by posterity that regardless of the use of 'socialist' in 'National Socialist German Worker's Party', they had very little to do with the socialism that exists today.
In fact, I don't get where you're coming from at all, EX-NDIP - Social darwinism seems to me to be the polar opposite of any concept of social welfare - it advocates for the gradual elimination of those deemed 'unsuitable'. A far cry from advocating on their behalf. Herbert Spencer, the sociologist who coined the phrase 'natural selection' prior to Darwin, posited that the poor were poor for a reason, that they were intellectually and biologically inferior. He was a product of his times, and an embarrasing footnote in the study of Sociology as a discipline.
Casual rhetorical associations of bad people with those you disagree with is cheap, and shows a complete lack of thought. An Ad Hominem attack is one thing, but an Ad Hominem attack based on a false premise tells me a lot about where you're coming from.
If you can produce evidence to support spurious assertions, fine, I'll look at them, but don't expect me or anyone else to cower to your apparent sense of 'moral superiority'.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link