Chag HaGeulah – Holiday Of Freedom
Details:
Today is the 200th anniversary of the births of both Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln. More than any others – except, perhaps, Rev. Martin Luther King – these two men put into motion what would become the end of slavery and, eventually, the presidency of Barack Obama.
Why this is so for Lincoln is self evident. Buy why Darwin?
Because Darwin's theory of evolution and the descent of man was meant to smash the concept that blacks were somehow a different species than whites:
Darwin's twin track: 'Evolution and emancipation'
What drove Charles Darwin to his extraordinary ideas on evolution and human origins? Adrian Desmond, with co-author James Moore, argue in a new book that the great scientist had a "sacred cause": the abolition of slavery.
"It makes one's blood boil," said Charles Darwin.
Not much outraged the gentle recluse, but the horrors of slavery could cost him a night's sleep.
He was thinking of the whipped house boy and the thumbscrews used by old ladies in South America, atrocities he had witnessed on the Beagle voyage.
The screams stayed with him for life, but how much did they influence his life's work?
Today you can still read of Darwin's "eureka" moment when he saw the Galapagos finches.
Alas, his conversion to evolution wasn't so simple, but it was much more interesting. It didn't occur in the Galapagos, but probably on his arrival home.
And new evidence suggests that Darwin's unique approach to evolution - relating all races and species by "common descent" - could have been fostered by his anti-slavery beliefs.
Family feelings
After circumnavigating the globe (1831-6), Darwin settled in London. Here in 1838 he formulated his theory of "natural selection", after which he became increasingly reclusive, particularly following his move to Down village in Kent.
He refrained from publishing a word on evolution until 1858 - not even a brief, priority-grabbing paper, as was his way with other projects. His hesitance is understandable. Evolution was execrable to his Cambridge friends.
One naturalist called it "abominable trash vomited" out by revolutionaries; and radicals did, indeed, deploy a self-sustaining evolution to undermine the creationist miracles on which Anglican power rested.
Darwin's gouty Cambridge professor, Adam Sedgwick, used "contempt, scorn, and ridicule" to trash one "filthy" evolution book in 1844. Darwin, sensitive about his reputation, wisely laid low.
So why devise such a beastly theory in the first place, if it threatened ignominy? Was there some integral moral gain?
Consider another question. Why was Darwin's evolution uniquely defined by common descent, the joining of races and species through shared ancestry? Darwin's common descent image is so obvious today that we forget to question where it came from.
'Man and brother'
Common descent in Darwin's younger day was ubiquitous in anti-slavery tracts. Consider the words of the famous cameo, depicting a kneeling slave asking "Am I Not a Man and a Brother?" That cameo was in fact the brainchild of the pottery-dynasty founder, Josiah Wedgwood, Darwin's grandfather.
New evidence shows how indebted Darwin was to this anti-slavery heritage.
Darwin's uncle Jos Wedgwood sold the firm's London showroom, and ploughed the proceeds into an anti-slavery society, and in the 1850s (with American slavery still flourishing) the Wedgwoods continued using labels showing the slave under Britannia's banner, which read "God Hath Made of One Blood All Nations of Men".
The anti-slavery agitator Thomas Clarkson - the man who rode 35,000 miles collecting statistics in the sea ports on the evil trade - was another bankrolled by Josiah Wedgwood.
With a Wedgwood wife and mother, Darwin saw abolition as a "sacred cause" too, and in his culminating work, the Descent of Man (1871), he placed Clarkson at the moral apex of humanity and called slavery a "great sin".
Such family feelings explain why, as a 16-year-old at Edinburgh University in 1826 (in a period often dismissed by historians), Darwin could spend 40 extra-curricular hours with a freed slave from Guyana studying taxidermy and become his "intimate" friend.
And this when many visiting Americans saw any black/white friendship as "revolting".
Torture accounts
Darwin witnessed slavery everywhere in South America. The Beagle's own supply ship on her previous trip had originally been a slaver, and, once sold, it reverted to slaving. While Darwin was on the continent, it was again disgorging chained Africans.
Darwin's journal of the voyage (1845) gives a damning account of the tortures he saw or heard of; but of all the "heart-sickening atrocities", the worst for him were the stories of masters threatening to sell the children of disobedient slaves.
As an outsider, he was "powerless as a child even to remonstrate". But within weeks of the Beagle's return, he developed a science which undercut the slave-master's notions.
Many plantation owners considered slaves a separate species, an animal to be exploited as such. Blacks and whites shared no joint ancestry.
Yet the Darwin-Wedgwood maxim made the slave a "Man and a Brother". Darwin opened his first evolution notebook in 1837, damned slave-holders for their separate species view, then pushed common parentage to the zoological limit.
Since species were only extended races, they too must share an ancestry. He moved from talking of the common "father" of mankind to an "opossum"-like fossil as the father of all mammals.
Human genealogy became the model for his famous "tree of life".
Fossil evidence
None of this minimizes the importance of Darwin's Galapagos and Pampas observations. The giant tortoises, mockingbirds and finches varied from island to island, and this became clearer to Darwin after London Zoo's bird expert John Gould analysed his finches in January 1837.
Then Richard Owen (the man shortly to give the world the "dinosaurs") diagnosed Darwin's fossils. Darwin thought that some were "rhinos" (Old World mammals), yet Owen showed that they were indigenous giant armadillos, sloths and anteaters.
So extinct animals were being succeeded by related living types. This evidence remains crucial, but it was the way Darwin marshalled it that concerns us. Assuming the tacit truth of racial "brotherhood" allowed him to join the bloodlines into a common descent configuration.
And he did so in 1837-8, just as the West Indies slaves were being released (technically freed in 1833, they were forced to serve an "apprenticeship" which effectively kept them in bondage till 1838).
This freedom filled Darwin with a sense of pride and he declared that "we... have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin". He certainly had.
All too clear
His common descent imagery was unknown elsewhere in natural history, beyond racially unifying works such as James Cowles Prichard's Researches into the Physical History of Mankind. That book traced animal races to common ancestors in order to prove that all humans could have descended from Adam.
Darwin, preparing to write the Origin of Species, scribbled inside his copy of Prichard: "How like my Book all this will be". It wasn't so. He remained a worried man and in the later 1850s dropped humans from his publishing plans because the subject was "so surrounded with prejudices".
But even though the Origin of Species (1859) skirted people, no one doubted that they remained at its core.
Darwin's "bulldog" T.H. Huxley, who took over the fight for human evolution, said that when it came to uniting black and white ancestries, he "was pleased to be able to show that Mr Darwin was for once on the side of orthodoxy".
Darwin could have wished for no more.
Adrian Desmond is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Biology Department at University College London. He is co-author with James Moore of Darwin's Sacred Cause.
What drove Charles Darwin to his extraordinary ideas on evolution and human origins? Adrian Desmond, with co-author James Moore, argue in a new book that the great scientist had a "sacred cause": the abolition of slavery.
Not much outraged the gentle recluse, but the horrors of slavery could cost him a night's sleep.
He was thinking of the whipped house boy and the thumbscrews used by old ladies in South America, atrocities he had witnessed on the Beagle voyage.
The screams stayed with him for life, but how much did they influence his life's work?
Today you can still read of Darwin's "eureka" moment when he saw the Galapagos finches.
Alas, his conversion to evolution wasn't so simple, but it was much more interesting. It didn't occur in the Galapagos, but probably on his arrival home.
Family feelings
After circumnavigating the globe (1831-6), Darwin settled in London. Here in 1838 he formulated his theory of "natural selection", after which he became increasingly reclusive, particularly following his move to Down village in Kent.
He refrained from publishing a word on evolution until 1858 - not even a brief, priority-grabbing paper, as was his way with other projects. His hesitance is understandable. Evolution was execrable to his Cambridge friends.
One naturalist called it "abominable trash vomited" out by revolutionaries; and radicals did, indeed, deploy a self-sustaining evolution to undermine the creationist miracles on which Anglican power rested.
Darwin's gouty Cambridge professor, Adam Sedgwick, used "contempt, scorn, and ridicule" to trash one "filthy" evolution book in 1844. Darwin, sensitive about his reputation, wisely laid low.
So why devise such a beastly theory in the first place, if it threatened ignominy? Was there some integral moral gain?
Consider another question. Why was Darwin's evolution uniquely defined by common descent, the joining of races and species through shared ancestry? Darwin's common descent image is so obvious today that we forget to question where it came from.
Common descent in Darwin's younger day was ubiquitous in anti-slavery tracts. Consider the words of the famous cameo, depicting a kneeling slave asking "Am I Not a Man and a Brother?" That cameo was in fact the brainchild of the pottery-dynasty founder, Josiah Wedgwood, Darwin's grandfather.
New evidence shows how indebted Darwin was to this anti-slavery heritage.
Darwin's uncle Jos Wedgwood sold the firm's London showroom, and ploughed the proceeds into an anti-slavery society, and in the 1850s (with American slavery still flourishing) the Wedgwoods continued using labels showing the slave under Britannia's banner, which read "God Hath Made of One Blood All Nations of Men".
The anti-slavery agitator Thomas Clarkson - the man who rode 35,000 miles collecting statistics in the sea ports on the evil trade - was another bankrolled by Josiah Wedgwood.
With a Wedgwood wife and mother, Darwin saw abolition as a "sacred cause" too, and in his culminating work, the Descent of Man (1871), he placed Clarkson at the moral apex of humanity and called slavery a "great sin".
Such family feelings explain why, as a 16-year-old at Edinburgh University in 1826 (in a period often dismissed by historians), Darwin could spend 40 extra-curricular hours with a freed slave from Guyana studying taxidermy and become his "intimate" friend.
And this when many visiting Americans saw any black/white friendship as "revolting".
Darwin witnessed slavery everywhere in South America. The Beagle's own supply ship on her previous trip had originally been a slaver, and, once sold, it reverted to slaving. While Darwin was on the continent, it was again disgorging chained Africans.
Darwin's journal of the voyage (1845) gives a damning account of the tortures he saw or heard of; but of all the "heart-sickening atrocities", the worst for him were the stories of masters threatening to sell the children of disobedient slaves.
As an outsider, he was "powerless as a child even to remonstrate". But within weeks of the Beagle's return, he developed a science which undercut the slave-master's notions.
Many plantation owners considered slaves a separate species, an animal to be exploited as such. Blacks and whites shared no joint ancestry.
Yet the Darwin-Wedgwood maxim made the slave a "Man and a Brother". Darwin opened his first evolution notebook in 1837, damned slave-holders for their separate species view, then pushed common parentage to the zoological limit.
Since species were only extended races, they too must share an ancestry. He moved from talking of the common "father" of mankind to an "opossum"-like fossil as the father of all mammals.
Human genealogy became the model for his famous "tree of life".
Fossil evidence
None of this minimizes the importance of Darwin's Galapagos and Pampas observations. The giant tortoises, mockingbirds and finches varied from island to island, and this became clearer to Darwin after London Zoo's bird expert John Gould analysed his finches in January 1837.
Then Richard Owen (the man shortly to give the world the "dinosaurs") diagnosed Darwin's fossils. Darwin thought that some were "rhinos" (Old World mammals), yet Owen showed that they were indigenous giant armadillos, sloths and anteaters.
So extinct animals were being succeeded by related living types. This evidence remains crucial, but it was the way Darwin marshalled it that concerns us. Assuming the tacit truth of racial "brotherhood" allowed him to join the bloodlines into a common descent configuration.
And he did so in 1837-8, just as the West Indies slaves were being released (technically freed in 1833, they were forced to serve an "apprenticeship" which effectively kept them in bondage till 1838).
This freedom filled Darwin with a sense of pride and he declared that "we... have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin". He certainly had.
All too clear
His common descent imagery was unknown elsewhere in natural history, beyond racially unifying works such as James Cowles Prichard's Researches into the Physical History of Mankind. That book traced animal races to common ancestors in order to prove that all humans could have descended from Adam.
Darwin, preparing to write the Origin of Species, scribbled inside his copy of Prichard: "How like my Book all this will be". It wasn't so. He remained a worried man and in the later 1850s dropped humans from his publishing plans because the subject was "so surrounded with prejudices".
But even though the Origin of Species (1859) skirted people, no one doubted that they remained at its core.
Darwin's "bulldog" T.H. Huxley, who took over the fight for human evolution, said that when it came to uniting black and white ancestries, he "was pleased to be able to show that Mr Darwin was for once on the side of orthodoxy".
Darwin could have wished for no more.
Adrian Desmond is an Honorary Research Fellow in the Biology Department at University College London. He is co-author with James Moore of Darwin's Sacred Cause.
The Torah's conception of slavery is closer to a gentle form of indentured servitude then the slavery practiced in the Americas.
It was meant to soften the institution, not to endorse it.
Most of us understand this.
For those who do not, I can have only pity.
Photos: Top right, Darwin; top left, Lincoln; middle left, Wedgewood anti-slavery medallion, bottom right, slave torture devices.
Interesting way of looking at things this Shmarya has.
He is so dead set on glorifying Blacks, that he says ok, they do descend from apes, but we are all in the same boat in solidarity with them.
And not to be outdone he also has to sing the praises of that old Commie windbag womanizer, Martin Luther King.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 09:15 AM
"Chag HaGeulah" sic
Failed Messiah indeed.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 09:16 AM
PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way.
Younger Americans, who are less likely to be religious than those who are older, are also more likely to believe in evolution. Still, just about half of those aged 18 to 34 say they believe in evolution.
As Darwin is being lauded as one of the most important scientists in history on the 200th anniversary of his birth (on Feb. 12, 1809), it is perhaps dismaying to scientists who study and respect his work to see that well less than half of Americans today say they believe in the theory of evolution
Naturally, some of this is because of educational differences. Americans who have lower levels of formal education are significantly less likely than others to be able to identity Darwin with his theory, and to have an opinion on it either way. Still, the evidence is clear that even to this day, Americans' religious beliefs are a significant predictor of their attitudes toward Darwin's theory. Those who attend church most often are the least likely to believe in evolution, and most likely to say they do not believe in it.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 09:21 AM
"Holiday of Freedom" sic
Shmarya, every day is a "holiday" for you of your "freedom" from the yoke of Heaven.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 09:30 AM
Erasmus Darwin, Charlie's grandad and a scientist in his own right, was a major abolitionist. Lincoln never joined a church but was influenced by the bible. For jillionth time, you can respect Darwin's achievement and still believe in God and an allegorical Bereisheet.
Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | February 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California's octuplets mum, already jobless and receiving food stamps, has gone into hiding with her six older children because of death threats, her spokesman said on Wednesday.
Nadya Suleman, 33, has come under mounting public ridicule for expanding her already large family via fertility treatments that led to the January 26 birth of six boys and two girls at a Los Angeles-area hospital.
That criticism has mushroomed as it was reported that she was divorced, living with her parents, unemployed for several years, receiving disability checks for three of her children -- one of whom is autistic -- and collecting nearly $500 a month in food stamps.
According to the Los Angeles Times, the Kaiser Permanente hospital where the newborns remain is seeking reimbursement for the cost of their care from Medi-Cal, the sate's health care program for the poor. Those costs are expected to reach into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, the newspaper said.
For the past few days, Suleman and her six older children, ages 2 to 7, have moved into "what we are referring to as an undisclosed location," said Michael Furtney, a public relations consultant working for the family. The Web site RadarOnline.com reported the family was staying at a hotel.
Furtney said Suleman and the PR firm have been deluged with hostile telephone and email messages in recent days, some of them containing threats of violence and death.
"The bulk of them just rail against her being, as they would refer to her, as a person who's taking advantage of the system, and they just go from there," Furtney said.
He said "volunteers" were paying for her temporary living arrangements.
Suleman might temporarily move back into her mother's three-bedroom house in a Los Angeles suburb, but that house will likely prove too small for all 14 children, Furtney said.
Suleman's mother, Angela, has called her daughter's decision to keep expanding her family "unconscionable" and she said she had pleaded with her daughter's fertility doctor not to implant her with more embryos.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Yochanan, this whole allegory thing is not so simple. We have to know what the Rishonim actually meant that cannot be satisfied with a simplistic translation of what we think the words mean.
I have been told this by rabbis who are not afraid to be politically incorrect. I would like to try to tackle these writings one day but there may not be many people in this generation who can properly decipher them.
I can assure you that there is no mind control conspiracy at least from the rabbis I am referring to. And it's rather telling that until recently, you did not see people trying to latch on to these supposed allegorical interpretations.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 10:43 AM
"face" is probably wondering if Shmarya will invite Nadya & her 14 children to come live in his mother's spacious basement.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 10:50 AM
The anti-Darwin religious fanatic trolls are out in full force on many websites today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
"...an internet troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of provoking other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion...the troll attempts to pass as a legitimate participant, sharing the group's common interests and concerns; the newsgroups members, if they are cognizant of trolls and other identity deceptions, attempt to both distinguish real from trolling postings, and upon judging a poster a troll, make the offending poster leave the group. Their success at the former depends on how well they — and the troll — understand identity cues; their success at the latter depends on whether the troll's enjoyment is sufficiently diminished or outweighed by the costs imposed by the group..."
And that, dear friends, is what we are faced with here on FM. Let us learn from Lincoln and Darwin- let us unify and evolve this site.
Posted by: WoolSilkCotton | February 12, 2009 at 10:57 AM
WoolSilk knows that most of the posts here pertain to Darwin. He just gets enraged if anyone introduces evidence that he doesn't descend from monkeys.
So let's do him a favor and let him be an exception.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 11:24 AM
There are 2 ways to remove a troll from a blogsite:
1. The administrator censors the troll (which Shmarya won't do, because the troll runs up the thread lengths, which Shmarya thinks is good for business)
2. We all refuse to respond to the troll. This takes a lot of will power, because the troll, by definition, tries to provoke with inflammatory postings. Be strong, fellow FMer's. If we all unite and ignore the troll for just a few days, he will disappear. This is not the first website to be infected by a troll, but, with everyone's help, it will soon be rid of one.
Posted by: WoolSilkCotton | February 12, 2009 at 11:38 AM
OU taking heat re: peanut salmonella scandal
http://www.vosizneias.com/27316/2009/02/12/kosher-consumers-question-certifiers-vigilance-in-wake-of-salmonella-peanut-recall-ou-responds/
Posted by: a reader | February 12, 2009 at 11:45 AM
I actually dated Nadya Suleman back when I was running my deli in partnership with Rubbashkin. We broke up when I started dating a Falasha woman who the Lubavitcher Rebbe refused to grant an American visa too. Its the same time I ended my friendship with my former yeshiva roomate Rabbi Krinsky. I have much more to share but I have to go take a phone call from the FBI they want to discuss a top secret issue with me. More on that later.
Posted by: Shmarya | February 12, 2009 at 11:64 AM
Posted by: face | February 12, 2009 at 11:51 AM
I find it ironic that "Archie Bunker" defends a simplistic reading of the pshat of Genesis by insisting that the plain meaning ("pshat") of the words of the Rishonim is too complex to understand. So, in order to maintain a literal interpretation of Genesis we allegorize the Rishonim. How quaint.
Posted by: yirmiyahu | February 12, 2009 at 12:44 PM
Thanks Archie for rising to the bait. Nice to know you can always be counted on for a little entertainment.
Posted by: Max | February 12, 2009 at 12:51 PM
1. The administrator censors the troll (which Shmarya won't do, because the troll runs up the thread lengths, which Shmarya thinks is good for business)
I don't censor, period. It has nothing to do with the number of comments.
Posted by: Shmarya | February 12, 2009 at 01:37 PM
Shmarya, kindly consider these 3 scenarios, listed in the order of likelihood:
1. This blog will end up with only you, the troll, and an occasional passer-by. You may have already noticed a gradual decline in the presence of the menschliche bloggers here.
2. A concerted effort by all to ignore or otherwise not engage the troll will result in his disappearance within a few days.
3. You clean up the mess you created (which you already said you won't do). Freedom of speech is not absolute; it ought to be accompanied by personal responsibility.
Obnoxious trolls, like spam and viruses, have infected a lot of blogsites. The site can be cleansed, but it requires a concerted effort by the good people here.
Posted by: WoolSIlkCotton | February 12, 2009 at 02:02 PM
There are 2 ways to remove a troll from a blogsite....ignore the troll for just a few days, he will disappear. This is not the first website to be infected by a troll, but, with everyone's help, it will soon be rid of one.
Well said, we hear you.
One may not want to accept and rebel against the fact that they are the product of Evolution...but then they go and act primitive, go figure, it must be in the genes.
Science and Evolution represent one of the greatest of Human Endeavors.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY DARWIN !
Posted by: not a troll | February 12, 2009 at 02:07 PM
more to it than random selection-open eyes please--not everything is given to us to know, the skein of the carpet may not tell us of the weave or the weaver
Posted by: Paul Freedman | February 12, 2009 at 02:30 PM
funny how that emancipation thing worked out. Planned Parenthood started its life as a eugenics organization exploiting the enthusiasm for biological self-improvement unleashed by the popularization of Darwinian evolution to preach the sterilization of the lower and unfit orders.
Posted by: Paul Freedman | February 12, 2009 at 02:36 PM
they didn't doubt you see that we had common roots, they just objected to the quality and existence of some of the branches. Absent a moral compass good luck with finding human happiness and ethical guidance in the activities of Science with a capital S.
As they said in the schoolhouses when we grew up in the shadow of science's latest advance,
Duck and Cover
Posted by: Paul Freedman | February 12, 2009 at 02:41 PM
A couple of thoughts. Archibald, you called Martin Luther King a Commie. I actually believe that MLK would be horrified at the politics practiced by our current President. MLK was a heroic man, and I believe he was absolutely an advocate of capitalism, and not for Govt. handouts.
Alright, so he was a womanizer - men of power attract women, and I am sure it is difficult to stay strong under those circumstances. It does not make it right, but it does not erase the wonderful things he represented.
I am not a politically correct person so here it goes. If Archibald was not on the site, it wouldn't be as interesting a site. I guess those who want him censored are for the (un)fairness doctrine also. Well, I don't want to live in a reincarnation of the U.S.S.R. People, don't be so daggummed thin-skinned. I love you Arch, despite the fact that your style is far harsher than mine. If Arch goes, I go! ok,ok, I can hear many of you going sarcastically "big loss", "whoopdy doo", "don't let the door hit you on the tuchis on your way out", etc..:)
Posted by: itchiemayer | February 12, 2009 at 02:49 PM
The unskeptical celebrator of Darwin Day may google the word "savage" in Darwin's Descent of the Species to get a slightly less airbrushed view of the racist social milieu of Darwinism early years than found in the hagiography above. A little experiment to try.
Posted by: Paul Freedman | February 12, 2009 at 02:51 PM
more to it than random selection-open eyes please--not everything is given to us to know, the skein of the carpet may not tell us of the weave or the weaver
Yes, if know about the weavers, analysing the weave one can easily determine who the weaver was.
I agree open eyes PLEASE
Follow Science or believe in Fairy tales, hum, what should a rational person follow? Right answer.
Posted by: not a troll | February 12, 2009 at 03:00 PM
From the good people in freakonomics
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/happy-birthday-charlie-darwin/
Take that Archie Bunker
The friction between evolution and creation will likely live on at least another 200 years but, in the interim, let me offer the following song. It was composed this morning by my friend Jonathan Rosen, a very good writer whose most recent book, The Life of the Skies: Birding at the End of Nature, is just out in paperback. It is meant to be sung to the tune of “Happy Birthday.”
Image: CATRJonathan wrote it so that his daughter Ariella could take it to school and maybe sing it in class if the opportunity arose. She goes to a Jewish day school. I think it does a pretty good job of satisfying any Darwin admirers, whichever side of the evolution/creation aisle they sit:
Happy Birthday Charlie
You come from the sea
You look like a monkey
And so do we.
Happy Birthday Charlie
We come from the sea
But what’s really odd:
We were also made by God.
Posted by: Jack Bauer (AKA The Monsey Tzadik ) | February 12, 2009 at 03:01 PM
funny how that emancipation thing worked out. Planned Parenthood started its life as a eugenics organization exploiting the enthusiasm for biological self-improvement unleashed by the popularization of Darwinian evolution to preach the sterilization of the lower and unfit orders
How does this negate Evolution?
Religion used by people or organizations in a far more destructive way indeed.
You can not let yourself accept the facts that you must stop believing in fairy tales...morality comes from man.
"it is discreditable if one accepts that that morality was promoted though fear, is moral, that is not morality" EINSTEIN
Posted by: not a troll | February 12, 2009 at 03:09 PM
they didn't doubt you see that we had common roots, they just objected to the quality and existence of some of the branches. Absent a moral compass good luck with finding human happiness and ethical guidance in the activities of Science with a capital S.
As they said in the schoolhouses when we grew up in the shadow of science's latest advance,
Duck and Cover
Here you confirm your silliness...can you figure why, sure you can, try.
Open Eyes PPPLLLEEEAAASSSEEE! WHEW!
Posted by: not a troll | February 12, 2009 at 03:13 PM
Happy Birthday Charlie
You come from the sea
You look like a monkey
And so do we. AS WE CAN SURELY SEE.
Happy Birthday Charlie
We come from the sea
But what’s really odd:
We were also made by God. As we may want believe what is not so.
Not a bright guy, is he, it was made for a school girl by a elementary school aged mind, don't you agree.
Posted by: not a troll | February 12, 2009 at 03:23 PM
not a troll--you grasp the issues involved in seeking materialist causality superficially but then your post indicates a liking for nice big capital letters scrawled in rhetorical crayola-- there is evolution and science and then there is Evolution and Science poster billboard sloganeering mantras. You think you know the religious beliefs or lack of beliefs of every person you encounter who doesn't bow down and submit to the lamentably incomplete state of materialist empirical progress as it currently exists? It negates the propagandizing bs that equates the origin of the theory of evolution (not necessarily the science of genetics) with a grand Human Endeavor.
Peasant.
Posted by: Paul Freedman | February 12, 2009 at 03:23 PM
And yes, the belief that "morality comes [solely] from man" is not only questionable from those claiming to represent the Jewish traiditon but the first belief in the chain that leads us from that the adolescent certainty of the pseudo-profound village atheist to Nietzche to cartoons of Nietzche to you know where
Posted by: ues | February 12, 2009 at 03:26 PM
if you move your lips fast enough you can understand what people post here, troll
Posted by: Paul Freedman | February 12, 2009 at 03:28 PM
but troll, seriously, have you read Sartre or Camus? or the Derridean post-structuralists? the wonderful world of existential denial of God awaits you as you rediscover the wheel.
Enjoy!
Posted by: Paul Freedman | February 12, 2009 at 03:31 PM
The unskeptical celebrator of Darwin Day may google the word "savage" in Darwin's Descent of the Species to get a slightly less airbrushed view of the racist social milieu of Darwinism early years than found in the hagiography above. A little experiment to try.
I am sorry, but how exactly does negate EVOLUTION.
Nice effort, stop with emotional knee-jerk reactions and process the overwhelming evidence, not what people some did with it.
Are you familiar with the Dover case?
In 200 years contrary to what was sated in NYtimes piece it will be much more than the only accepted theory, everyone will know everything about themselves and ancestors through the DNA, as it will be prevalent in those societies.
No more fairy tales will be allowed, that will be bad for some publishers though.
Posted by: not a troll | February 12, 2009 at 03:34 PM
not a troll--you grasp the issues involved in seeking materialist causality superficially but then your post indicates a liking for nice big capital letters scrawled in rhetorical crayola-- there is evolution and science and then there is Evolution and Science poster billboard sloganeering mantras. You think you know the religious beliefs or lack of beliefs of every person you encounter who doesn't bow down and submit to the lamentably incomplete state of materialist empirical progress as it currently exists? It negates the propagandizing bs that equates the origin of the theory of evolution (not necessarily the science of genetics) with a grand Human Endeavor.
Peasant.
Now, now, lets act civilly, ooops that would mean you would have to grow up.
Well thank you for that, you know what that means don't you, come on now accept it, come on, you know - YOU LOST THE ARGUMENT. HURRAY! for moi.
Thanks
NOT A PAUL FREEDMAN
Posted by: not chief rabbi | February 12, 2009 at 03:38 PM
but troll, seriously, have you read Sartre or Camus? or the Derridean post-structuralists? the wonderful world of existential denial of God awaits you as you rediscover the wheel.
Enjoy!
YES of course, so, have you read their other works, of course not that would conflict with primitive beliefs
I allow them the right to be wrong, but not you.
Posted by: not a troll | February 12, 2009 at 03:42 PM
And yes, the belief that "morality comes [solely] from man" is not only questionable from those claiming to represent the Jewish traiditon but the first belief in the chain that leads us from that the adolescent certainty of the pseudo-profound village atheist to Nietzche to cartoons of Nietzche to you know wher
By the way you wrote the above I am as certain as I am that Morality comes from Man, and not some fairy tale story, that you never EVER read Nietzsche (proper spelling), but rather some uneducated commentary that fit your preconceived notions, yes!
Posted by: not a troll | February 12, 2009 at 03:51 PM
Hey I like the 'troll' (Mr Bunker)
At least he is honest.
But I do have a question for Mr Bunker.
Mr Bunker, is the Earth more than 6,000 years old?
Isa
Posted by: Isa | February 12, 2009 at 04:03 PM
The possibility that the earth is more than 5,769 years old is a valid theory within orthodox Judaism, having to do with the first six days being measured by something far, far greater than 24 hour periods of time. Viva la Archie! and of course, Viva la George, Weezy, and Lionel!
Posted by: itchiemayer | February 12, 2009 at 04:54 PM
The unskeptical celebrator of Darwin Day may google the word "savage" in Darwin's Descent of the Species to get a slightly less airbrushed view of the racist social milieu of Darwinism early years than found in the hagiography above. A little experiment to try.
Really?
Savage meant uncivilized, as in lacking aspects of advanced civilization like cities, science, modern medicine, states, etc.
It was largely a synonym for "tribal society."
And Darwin fought to free captured "savages" from slavery.
In other words, you have no valid point here that I can see.
Posted by: Shmarya | February 12, 2009 at 05:26 PM
I've read both Sartre and Camus. And the post structuralists. Depressing a-holes.
No one gets it like the python boys:
Mrs Premise: It's a funny thing freedom. I mean how can any of us be really free when we still have personal possessions.
Mrs Conclusion: You can't. You can't ' I mean, how can I go off and join Frelimo when I've got nine more instalments to pay on the fridge.
Mrs Premise: No, you can't. You can't. Well this is the whole crux of Jean-Paul Sartre's 'Roads to Freedom'.
Mrs Conclusion: No, it bloody isn't. The nub of that is, his characters stand for all of us in their desire to avoid action. Mind you, the man at the off-licence says it's an everyday story of French country folk.
Mrs Premise: What does he know?
Mrs Conclusion: Nothing.
Mrs Premise: Sixty new pence for a bottle of Maltese Claret. Well I personally think Jean-Paul's masterwork is an allegory of man's search for commitment.
Mrs Conclusion: No it isn't.
Mrs Premise: Yes it is.
Mrs Conclusion: Isn't.
Mrs Premise: 'Tis.
Mrs Conclusion: No it isn't.
Mrs Premise: All right. We can soon settle this. We'll ask him.
Mrs Conclusion: Do you know him?
Mrs Premise: Yes, we met on holiday last year.
Mrs Conclusion: In Ibeezer?
Mrs Premise: Yes. He was staying there with his wife and Mr and Mr Genet. Oh, I did get on well with Madam S. We were like that.
Mrs Conclusion: What was Jean-Paul like?
Mrs Premise: Well, you know, a bit moody. Yes, he didn't join in the fun much. Just sat there thinking. Still, Mr Rotter caught him a few times with the whoopee cushion...
(Interior the Sartres flat. It is littered with books and papers. We hear Jean-Paul coughing. Mrs Satrre goes to the door. She is a ratbag with a fag in her mouth and a duster over her head. A French song is heard on the radio. She switches it off.)
Mrs Sartre: (MICHAEL) Oh, rubbish. (opens the door) Bonjour.
Mrs Conclusion: (entering) Parlez vous Anglais?
Mrs Sartre: Oh yes. Good day. (Mrs Premise comes in) Hello, love!
Mrs Premise: Hello! Oh this is Mrs Conclusion from No. 46.
Mrs Sartre: Nice to meet you, dear.
Mrs Conclusion: Hello.
Mrs Premise: How's the old man, then?
Mrs Sartre: Oh, don't ask. He's in one of his bleeding moods. 'The bourgeoisie this is the bourgeoisie that' - he's like a little child sometimes. I was only telling the Rainiers the other day - course he's always rude to them, only classy friends we've got - I was saying solidarity with the masses I said... pie in the sky! Oooh! You're not a Marxist are you Mrs Conclusion?
Mrs Conclusion: No, I'm a Revisionist.
Mrs Sartre: Oh good. I mean, look at this place! I'm at my wits' end. Revolutionary leaflets everywhere. One of these days I'll revolutionary leaflets him. If it wasn't for the goat you couldn't get in here for propaganda.
(Shot of a goat eating leaflets in comer of room.)
Mrs Premise: Oh very well. Can we pop in and have a word with him?
Mrs Sartre: Yes come along.
Mrs Premise: Thank you.
Mrs Sartre: But be careful. He's had a few. Mind you he's as good as gold in the morning, I've got to hand it to him, but come lunchtime it's a bottle of vin ordinalre - six glasses and he's ready to agitate.
(Mrs Premise and Mrs Conclusion knock on the door of Jean-Paul's room.)
Mrs Premise: Coo-ee! Jean-Paul? Jean-Paul! It's only us. Oh pardon ... c'est m'me nous...
(They enter. We do not see Jean-Paul although we hear his voice.)
Jean-Paul: Oui.
Mrs Premise: Jean-Paul. Your famous trilogy 'Rues i Liberte, is it an allegory of man's search for commitment?
Jean-Paul: Oui.
Mrs Premise: I told you so.
Mrs Conclusion: Oh coitus.
Posted by: dr. dave | February 12, 2009 at 06:33 PM
Isa, I will not argue with Itchiemeyer and add that there are factors that can speed up Carbon 14.
There was a finding on the Moon that corresponded to Masseh Breishis but after a brief mention in the press it was quickly covered up for all practical purposes. Scientists ignore the important finding because it conflicts with their desire to deny the Divine.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 07:11 PM
"The possibility that the earth is more than 5,769 years old is a valid theory within orthodox Judaism, having to do with the first six days being measured by something far, far greater than 24 hour periods of time. "
Posted by: itchiemayer | February 12, 2009 at 04:54 PM
itchie, there is No such valid theory, at least not one which is compatible with ortho since ortho requires not only literal translation, but a meticulous look at every choice of words and even letters. what does exist is a desire by some to maintain their halachas in spite of their realization that science has shown the torah's literal translation to be ridiculously wrong. and since torah didnt come with a teachers guide which says which parts are literal and which not, the following of halacha is incongruous with any non-literal translation. that is why the big boys like rav moshe and elyashiv prohibit any belief in evolution, or a 3 billion year old earth.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 12, 2009 at 08:05 PM
Dr. Dave: Rene Descartes/ Was a drunken fart/ "I drink therefore I am!" (Australian "Bruce" philosophers sketch).
The Darwin (pre-Charles) and Wedgewood families were very religious (but non-fundies- Unitarians and suchlike), and were motivated by the idea that man is made in God's image- including Blacks. The facts of evolution do not negate this- Charles just illuminated some of the mechanics behind it. (This is a theological statement, not a scientific one. It's not verifiable or falsifiable, but I believe it anyway. Sue me.).
MLK, Jr. and A. Philip Randolph were outspoken pro-Zionist, pro-Israel, and philosemitic. They were probably also motivated by the bible.
Josiah Wedgewood's grandson was a famous Christian Zionist and a big endorser of the Balfour Declaration.
If I could chose an ape ancestor, it would be Roddy McDowell as Cornelius in the original Planet of the Apes (the Marky-Mark remake is whack dreck, except for the makeup).
Anyone who disagrees with this post is a hater, descended from the evil Zaius (from the original POTA).
Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | February 12, 2009 at 08:08 PM
"Scientists ignore the important finding because it conflicts with their desire to deny the Divine."
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 07:11 PM
archie, keep spouting your nonsense. scientists are mostly atheistic because of their findings. not vice -versa. they have no inherent desire to believe or disbelieve in anything. you, on othe other hand start out with a belief which you must maintain at all costs, even in the face of the mountains of contrary evidence, so you are forced to accuse the unbiased of your crime. does it make you feel better?
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 12, 2009 at 08:10 PM
happy birthday to 2 of world's greatest men.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 12, 2009 at 08:11 PM
"there are factors that can speed up Carbon 14."
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 07:11 PM
your ignorance of the many varied methods which can be used to date the earth is astonishing. carbon dating is only used to a maximum of about 60,000 to 75,000 years.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 12, 2009 at 08:22 PM
All pee & no chorus is being absolutely ridiculous by claiming that the orthodox are somehow contradicting themselves with the yud gimel middos shehatorah nidreshes bahem. He also ignore the fact that the Divine has methodologies that transcend science as we know it. There are several examples of this like the 10 plagues in Egypt and seeing sound on Har Sinai.
The word MIRACLE is not the vocabulary of heretics like APC.
APC also cannot prove that many scientists have atheistic beliefs that cannot be shaken by evidence. I think many people would not agree with his view of this.
And the Carbon 14 finding on the Moon is not "nonsense" except to heretics who are afraid their house of cards will come tumbling down.
It's rumored btw that a lot of mad scientists sit around theorizing in the same attire (or lack of) as a certain blogger.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 08:27 PM
"in God's image- including Blacks"
That is until their "image" was altered by the curse of Ham.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 08:31 PM
apikorus - Just because you say it, does not make it so. There are many, many scientists who are not atheists. Moreover, science has not proven the Torah to be "ridiculously wrong". Nevertheless, since you are so sure of yourself, why are you so angry? I would think anyone who has all of the answers would be at peace, and would not come across so angrily. You are a "know it all" who knows not even close to all. ah-pee-chorus puts forth a lot of ah-pee-chorsus.
Posted by: itchiemayer | February 12, 2009 at 08:37 PM
I wasn't born yet when man landed on the Moon. So excuse me if I confused the exact dating method that was refuted.
But APC seems to be the one confused as proof the Moon is less than 6000 years old is well under the limit of Carbon 14 that he cites.
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 12, 2009 at 08:37 PM
archie, the new testament, koran and book of mormon to name a few rely on their very own versions of the "yud gimel middos " to explain their books obvious errors and internal inconsistencies. i guess they must be true as well.
i can't wait till the next meeting of conspiratory evil atheistic scientists to see what these connivers will agree to next. they did a good job of covering up that moon thing you referred to. thats why there is no such thing. hahahahaha
the truth shall set you free. but only if you are truly seeking it.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 12, 2009 at 08:43 PM
itchiemayer , who said i was angry? i am at complete peace. i am simply amazed at the cognitive dissonance employed by so many otherwise intelligent people. and their beliefs have a negative impact on many of the rest of us. and yes, my name choice was no accident. but you say it with a negative connotation.. why? have you possibly been commanded to despise those who deny youir beliefs? i know i was when i was in the yeshiva world.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 12, 2009 at 08:58 PM
arcie, i'll come clean, i know the moon is really only 76 years old but i have squelched the data that proves it. i'm tricky that way.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 12, 2009 at 09:01 PM
"There are many, many scientists who are not atheists. Moreover, science has not proven the Torah to be "ridiculously wrong". "
itchie, there are far more who are atheistic. according to survey of national academy of science, whose membership includes many nobel prize winners, 93% are non-believers versus 7% who believe in something, (not necessarily a bible god). thats a pretty solid majority. ever ask yourself why?
re: torah being wrong, science has proven man evolved, he didnt come from dust. thats just for an easy starter point. as hard as you and others may try to claim otherwise, the 2 concepts are mutually exclusive.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 12, 2009 at 09:09 PM
ah-pee-chorus - well, the name, by definition has a negative connotation, so I'm not sure why you are complaining. You are proud of it, and that should be good enough for you. But yes, I say it with the negative connotation that it should get from a religious Jew. Of course I don't despise those who deny my beliefs. I actually did see that study in the last twenty minutes which did contradict some materials I had read prior on the subject regarding scientists and atheism. I will defer to you on that one. The bottom line is there are so many things which have happened in the history of the world which are so consistent with that which is written in our holy Torah. The day of immersion in the mikva is the same day that conception has the greatest chance...no accident. The bris on the 8th day - I forgot the specific reason but apparently something matures in the body after seven days, making a bris safer on day 8 - no accident.
The Jews still being around today when all of these great powerful nations have tried to destroy us - we have no business still being around, except that Hashem promised that we will NEVER be destroyed - no accident that we are still here. That we accomplish for mankind far more per population than any other group, consistent with being a light unto the world - no accident. That the Talmudic masters had knowledge of certain nuances of the universe which have only come to light within the last few hundred years - no accident. And one who is a true Kabbalist, not the Phillip Berg type, knows the secrets of the world, far beyond any scientist. Albert Einstein was not the smartest man of his time. Rather a simple Jew from Radin named Rabbi Yisroel Meir Hakohen Kagan was no doubt the smartest man of his time. And the countless archeological findings consistent with that which can be found in Tanach.
Posted by: itchiemayer | February 12, 2009 at 09:36 PM
arcie, i'll come clean, i know the moon is really only 76 years old but i have squelched the data that proves it. i'm tricky that way.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 12, 2009 at 09:01 PM
Are you the guy who staged the moon landing? I thought Spielberg or Lucas would have been better choices.
(Serious:) The curse of Ham refers to Egypt, Khemet in their ancient language. They were mixed race- dark-skinned caucasians with only a small admixture of sub-saharan African "Black" blood. This red herring was refuted centuries ago:
http://www.umsl.edu/~cfh/abstracts/ham.html
"The Negro Race Not Under A Curse," [Alexander Crummell 1862]
Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | February 12, 2009 at 09:58 PM
itchiemayer, the talmudic rabbis were actually remarkably ignorant. the believed lice didn't reproduce, rather came from sweat or dirt. in niddah 44b and 45a they said a pregnant woman could get pregnant and second baby could expel first. not to mention the main point of the mishnah and gemara, which was that having sex (raping) with a three year old was permissible. and of course the proclamation that a girl cant get pregnant until the exact age of 12 and a day. i think that overwhelms an approximate conception date for the mikvah goers. the eighth day holds no particular advantage.
you take fact that we're still here as proof of anything? we have been attacked and killed more than most. homosexuals are still here. is their preference therefore divine? does god love gypsies? they too still exist. mormons are fastest growing religion. does that make their laughable book true?
and finally, the archaeol. evidence shows that the exodus could never have taken place. jews were never in egypt, the desert for 40 years or in canaan till hundreds of years after torah said. and then, there were only a few thousand. hardly the millions claimed by torah. if u do some research on this you'll see for yourself. but be careful, what you learn may trouble you. i mean this sincerely. if you don't want to deal with that possibility. don't pursue it. however, i don't think u should be claiming archaeo. evidence proves the torah when the truth ,which is available for all to see, says the exact opposite.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 12, 2009 at 10:14 PM
Did everyone miss Mr Rosenberg's crass attempt to belittle Chabad by using a provocative headline?
Chag Hageulah is of course used by Chabadniks to describe a particular day when someone was freed from prison. I am not sure, but I think it was the Baal HaTanya. Rosenberg knows this very well and purposely planted those words to dilute what once probably was dear to him.
Mr Rosenberg's continual tirade aimed at besmirching at the expense of accuracy and good intentions, is seemingly ever present and detracts from those good articles that he does post (such as the one's identifying molesters).
Posted by: Isaac Balbin | February 13, 2009 at 12:57 AM
I think ah-pee-chorus sees what he wants to see and interprets it as he wants to interpret it. That is fine for him, I guess. What are you ah-pee-chorus - a secular/atheist? a deist? a unitarian?
I am a man of faith, notwithstanding what deniers of Toras Emes may think of that.
Your arguments regarding mormons, gypsies, and especially homosexuals are so unintelligent it is laughable. The Mormons are threatened all the time, and it is a miracle they are still around....NOT! Homosexuals are created everyday, how the heck can they be eliminated? It is a ridiculous argument. By the way, I am not Chas v'chalila implying that gays should be eliminated, just proving why ah-pee-chorus's examples are ridiculous. We, the Jews, on the other hand, are threatened in every generation by nations far more numerous and powerful, and yet we survive and in fact thrive. Anyone who denies the miracle in this is the one who denies the obvious. Anyone who finds no difference between the historical miracle of the Jews and the history of the Mormons is on another planet.
Posted by: itchiemayer | February 13, 2009 at 09:16 AM
Anyone who finds no difference between the historical miracle of the Jews and the history of the Mormons is on another planet.
Jews are from Mars. Mormons are from Venus.
Posted by: Yochanan Lavie | February 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM
The dating of Moon rock from the Apollo crew that was about 6000 years old was recently profiled on the Dispatches programme of Britain's Channel 4. It is also included in science textbooks used at Christian schools while censored out of most other texts.
The atheists over at the Dawkins website went completely BESERK after the show and spent days shouting all kinds of insults at one school showcased in the show and racking their brains trying to refute the finding, often using pathetically flamboyant Shakespearian verse.
APC should feel at home with that angry, nasty bunch. Or does he already post there?
Posted by: Archie Bunker | February 13, 2009 at 01:37 PM
What nation cannot make a claim that they are always under some kind of attack? They all can, and do! It's the basis of the "Us vs. Them" mentality that causes so much hatred and grief in the world.
Posted by: ML | February 13, 2009 at 02:01 PM
itchie , it is your arguments which are lacking in intellectual honesty. if jews were the biggest religion, you could claim that proves we are true religion, and yet despite fact that we are so few and had 6 million killed in one shot, you cite that as proof. so you created an argument where you win either way. my point regarding mormons you clearly missed. i was pointing out how they could claim their incredible growth in spite of the hatred other christians have to them, must prove they are gods religion. cockroaches survive too, are they gods chosen animal? its a ridiculous point .
interesting that u say homosexuals are created, which i agree with, in that they are born that way,its not a choice. and yet your omnibenevolent god wants u to put them to death. i'll try to see which god cockroaches worship and claim him as the real god.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 13, 2009 at 02:30 PM
ML : you're exactly correct. if someone uses that as a basis for belief, their brainwashing has been highly effective.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 13, 2009 at 02:36 PM
its curious , archie , that this was seen in christian textbooks. kind of like their "scientific" claims of intelligent design, which can't withstand the smallest bit of scrutiny. thats why it will appear nowhere else. or is this one more big conspiracy? its not healthy or honest to see conspiracy in everything that doesnt fit your required set of beliefs. think for yourself occasionaly. or is that assur.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 13, 2009 at 02:42 PM
and the dawkins crowd are neither angry nor nasty. but it must seem that way when they make you look silly. but archie , you do a fine job of that yourself in almost every post u make.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 13, 2009 at 02:47 PM
ah-pee-chorus - you take pride in being a heretic. So be it. You are the one who misses the point, and twists and distorts logic. I have not seen where christians are bombing Mormon temples in Utah. I didn't miss your point, it was just ridiculous. Yes, I do believe homosexuality is not always a choice, although sometimes it is. Some people are born with that tendency. It isn't assur to be a homosexual, it is assur to practice homosexuality. Is it fair to those people? We are all tested, and that is one of their tests. I have other tests. It is fair, because Hashem would not do something which is unfair.
Posted by: itchiemayer | February 13, 2009 at 03:00 PM
great answer, itchie , you find something which is plainly objectively unfair , and rather than admitting the obvious , that either god didn't write the torah, doesn't exist, or is unfair, you instead claim the exact opposite, with the unsubstantiated declaration thet god is fair and so this is fair. but that is precisely what we are trying to determine.
lets say 2 people play 100 games of pool and person A wins each one. what would you think of me if i claimed player B is better,why, because i know player B is better and the game results must be misinterpereted or hidden from our view.
Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | February 13, 2009 at 06:32 PM