Re: West Virginia creationism

On 5/20/24 4:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 5/20/24 10:49 AM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 5/19/24 3:27 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

On 5/18/24 8:41 PM, Ron Dean wrote:

Chris Thompson wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:

Ernest Major wrote:

On 14/05/2024 01:58, Chris Thompson wrote:

Ernest Major wrote:

On 13/05/2024 15:19, Chris Thompson wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:

Chris Thompson wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:

Chris Thompson wrote:

Ron Dean wrote:
>
major snip
>

 >
The Slave-holding South. Southerners bought slaves from the North. What about the Northern Slave Merchants and Manufacturers who built ships for the cargo for the slave trading North. This is rarely mentioned in history. And of course, history is written by the victors.
Not to mention the real cause of the US Civil War was tariffs imposed on the South. Lincoln had no objection to slavery. In fact slavery as a issue did not exist until 2 years after the start of the war. It was raised by Lincoln only after Great Brittan showed an interested in entering into the war on the side of the South. Slavery was then made a moral issue, which deterred Britten, which earlier had outlawed slave trading.
>

>
Well we can add US history to the lengthy-but-ever-expanding list of topics about which you blather sans knowledge.
>
The founders knew that slavery would eventually have to be abolished. But they also know that if they tried to do so immediately after gaining independence from Britain there would be no hope of forming a single nation. That didn't stop them from fighting about slavery (and viciously at times) in the Constitutional Convention of 1787- rather a fair bit of time before the 1858 point in time you assert (idiotically) people all of a sudden became concerned with slavery. And at that Convention a resolution was passed that the international slave trade would be banned in the US in 1800.
>
You also apparently slept through the part in class when the Missouri Compromise was discussed. That was in 1820, and the result was Missouri coming into the US as a slave state and Maine as a free state.
>
We probably should also mention the Compromise of 1850, brokered between Henry Clay and Stephen Douglas (do those names sound at all familiar?). This group of laws included, shamefully, the Fugitive Slave Act, which would do much to inflame tensions between north and south.
>
But the two compromises also led pretty much directly to the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) which precipitated the disaster now called "Bleeding Kansas." Maybe you've heard of John Brown, and the Pottawatomie Massacre and the raid on Harper's Ferry? No? Not surprising if you think no one cared about slavery until two years before the Civil War.
>
And tariffs were the cause of the Civil War? Even for you, that's unmitigated, steaming fetid fecal matter. It. Was. Slavery.
Not. Tariffs.
Not. States'. Rights.
Slavery.
Read the individual states' articles of secession. They're all available. Without fail, they all inform us that the reason they are seceding is slavery.
Read the reports of the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens- the Vice President of the CSA. Slavery is the cornerstone of their ideology; it is the reason for the war; it is the inherent inferiority of Black people ("the Negro") that relegates them to their lot as slaves.
>
You're wrong about everything.
And this revisionist crap about the cause of the Civil War is especially disgusting. Stop it.
>

Not that I don't find the fact that slavery is repugnant, unjustified and inhuman: I absolutely do.
But again there's enough guilt to go around. The Northern states originally were also involved with
slavery, a fact not mentioned by you and rarely iealsewhere. Northerners were the slavers that built slave ships and manufactured goods for trading and Northern merchants traded with native people for slaves. It was not Southern farmers going to Africa for invading the continent for slaves, but they bought slaves from the northern merchant. In fact my ggggrandfather (3) gfathers was a slave.  This also applies to most African- Americans. My 14 year old gggmother was raped, and he was hung. Heard this from my grandmother. Not that I'm proud of this part of my ancestory. But I have had life, which otherwise I would not have had.
>
My mother was from Germany, married my father,  stationed in Germany after WWII. So, had it not been for slavery I would not have had life, nor life in the US. Would my father and mother ever have met except for WWII - not likely.   The point is we don't always have control over the events that happened, and often tragedies that happen can have positive outcomes for some of us.
<
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
 >
https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war.html
 >
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history

>
90% of what you wrote has nothing to do with the topic. I for one don't believe much of anything you wrote about your family history, and even if it's true, I don't care.
>
Your first reference was written by a pair of financial advisers. Couldn't you have at least made an effort to find even a shitty apologist historian to support your disgusting racist bullshit? As for your second reference, here's a passage from near the end (did you read anything besides the title? Your scholarship is matched evenly with your honesty- both are in the sewer):
>
"For the northern government’s diplomatic objectives, as Cobden and Bright continuously reminded Sumner, the Morrill Tariff had been a shortsighted strategic blunder. It unintentionally alienated an otherwise natural anti-slavery ally for what could, at best, be described as short term economic favors to a few politically connected firms and industrialists. The Confederacy eagerly exploited this misstep in its unsuccessful quest for diplomatic recognition, yet in doing so also elevated the tariff cause from its role as an ancillary secessionist grievance to a centerpiece of Lost Cause historiography."
>
That last bit about "Lost Cause historiography"? They are pointing right at you (and the racist scum who wrote your first shitty reference).
 You're still wrong about everything, and you're a liar, and you're a racist and an apologist for slavers.

 >
You are so typical of people who cannot discredit an argument, they sink to slander, false accusations, liable, malice, back stabbing and character assassination. You did this without an shred
of evidence to back up your charges and accusations. This no doubt is you projecting you absence of character onto me. I'll have nothing more to do with you, a false accuser!

>
Spare me your faux outrage.
You claimed no one cared about slavery until two years after the Civil War started. I brought up the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, and Bleeding Kansas- all years before the start of the Civil War. You claimed that tariffs were the primary cause of the Civil War. I brought up the Articles of Secession of every one of the rebel states, all of which list slavery as the reason they seceded. I also brought up the Cornerstone Speech by the vice-president of the CSA, in which he clearly states the same thing.
>
That you refuse to acknowledge evidence does not mean it does not exist. That you continue to roll out your Lost Cause bullshit and deny slavery caused the Civil War is the typical apologetic crap of racist revisionists. It would seem obvious to the casual observer that you are the once with no evidence, and you are going into your little anger routine (again) to cover it up. You are dishonest, you refuse to address arguments that prove you wrong (and you're still wrong about everything) and the garbage you spew is racist revisionist sewage.
>
But by all means, have nothing else to do with me. I would be wondering what horrible thing I'd done if you had a good opinion of me.
>
Chris
snip
>

 From the previous century
>
Josiah Wedgewood (Darwin's grandfather) manufactured the abolitionist "am I not a man and a brother" medallion in 1787.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedgwood_anti-slavery_medallion
>
"The Slave's Lament", commonly attributed to Robert Burns, was published in 1792.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slave%27s_Lament
>

>
Now we are likely to hear about the English participation in the slave trade for all those years. Never mind they banned slavery years before the US- it's still obviously ALL THEIR FAULT- just as Dean trotted out the fact that slavery was at one time legal in northern states, too. A more pathetic example of tu quoque is difficult to find.

>

>
Chris
>

>
Going back to the 11th Century
>
"A social reformer, Wulfstan struggled to bridge the gap between the old and new regimes, and to alleviate the suffering of the poor. He was a strong opponent of the slave trade, and together with Lanfranc, was mainly responsible for ending the trade from Bristol." (WikiPedia)
>

This Guy, Chis read meaning into my comments that I never intended, never thought and never meant!
>

>
And yet you never recanted your errors. You claimed tariffs were the cause of the Civil War.

 >
  I was never taught that tariffs were the cause of the US Civil War. I had always accepted that slavery was the primary cause of the US Civil War. I did a search of the net and what I found was that unfair tariffs imposed on the South was the cause of the war between the states. I was surprised by this!
There are several sources for this claim: None less than Britannica, Wikepediam Smithsonian magazine:
https://www.britannica.com/video/245851/Tariff-of-1828
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff_in_United_States_history
https://www.marottaonmoney.com/protective-tariffs-the-primary-cause-of-the-civil-war/
https://northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/tariffs-founding-era-to-american-civil-war/
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/history-american-shifting-position-tariffs-180968775/https://philmagness.com/2017/05/on-tariffs-and-the-american-civil-war/

>
1st link is to a video I refuse to watch.
2nd link does not make the claim.
3rd link makes the claim but doesn't support it, with good reason since it can't be supported.
4th link doesn't make the claim.
5th link doesn't make the claim.
>
I think you just googled "tariff" and "civil war" without reading the results.
>

The Cornerstone speech and the Articles of

Secession of all of the rebel states prove you wrong.

Do you think that slavery was the only cause? I can believe that slavery definately was a cause, but slavery had existed in the South for 240+ years before the start of the civil war. So, there must have been other factors which sparked the war. I know there were people in the North and indeed the South. I learned that a small percentage of Southerners were slave holders.

>
Neither claim is relevant. It wasn't the mere existence of slavery that was the cause of the war. It was the election of Lincoln, perceived in the south (rightly) as a threat to slavery. That is, slavery wasn't the cause, per se, it was the desire of the south to preserve slavery that was the cause. And while a small percentage of southerners were slaveholders, they were the ones in charge. And slaveholders made up a much higher percentage of the Confederate government and army than of the general (white) population.
>
You need to stop digging.
>

You are right! I don't know why I got involved with this topic.The truth is, I've never lost any sleep over the US civil War or it's cause. But my curiosity was aroused when I learned that slavery in the US was in practice for 240 years before the start of the civil war. So, it seemed obvious that something besides slavery that had to _spark_ the war.  It was the election of Lincoln as President. But then I learned about Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, editor and publisher of the New York Tribune newspaper.
>
  https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-horace-greeley/

>
If I'm right, why are you still digging?
>

The spew you

asserted is typical- no, stereotypical- of racist Lost Cause

>

This  falsely implies that stating the obvious is being racist. I stated my personal view on this earlier, "Not that I don't find the fact that slavery was repugnant, unjustified and inhuman: I absolutely do."

>
All very nice, but you appear to have fallen for the "Lost Cause" myth. Can you explain why?
>

As I wrote, I haven't lost any sleep over this issue. IOW I do _not_ care. It was just that what I came across surprised me, and I just posted what I found. I did not expected to be seated personally in the middle of the conflict, but I was. But the letter that Lincoln wrote to Horace Greeley, the editor of a New York newspaper that I referred to was ignored. I wonder why! Was it because _the_ _preservation_of_the_Union_ was listed, by Lincoln as his paramount objective, not slavery. Here's the cite again!
>
  https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/letter-to-horace-greeley/

>
You just keep digging. The South fought the war for the preservation of slavery. The North originally fought the war for hte preservation of the Union, but it started turning into a war against slavery quite early. The Emancipation Proclamation was certainly a public turning point, but it was by no means the beginning. If there was a beginning, it would perhaps be the founding of the Republican Party. But that of course wasn't the start of abolitionism.
>
Nothing whatsoever to do with tariffs, though.
>

e>>> apologists trying to whitewash the south's reprehensible behavior.

And you never rejected it.

This is a deliberate ball-faced lie, I wrote _nothing_ for the purpose of whitewashing the South's institution of slavery. Reprehensible behavior should be applied to both the North and the South.
The North because of the slave trade merchants, that sent ships to Africa and traded for slaves which they brought back and sold  to the South for profit. The South for buying slaves from Northern slave merchants. Both the North and the South behavior was reprehensible - both were wrong! I condemn the practice of both the slavers and those who purchased slaves from the slavers.

>
Slave traders were from both the northern and southern states. But the legal transatlantic slave trade ended in 1808, and by the time of the war slavery was illegal in all the northern states. You can't equate the culpability, and it's another argument used for the "Lost Cause". So I have to ask why you're doing all that.
>

The _only_ reason is because somehow I have been planted into this issue and then challenged: I don't know why this happened. For no specific reason I posted what I found on the net. But I never had any dogs in this fight.

>
That's exceedingly disingenuous. You were attacked for a very silly claim you made, which you then tried to support using three irrelevant sources and one "Lost Cause" one. This would quickly go away if you stopped doubling down on your original mistake.

 >
  I think Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley is the final chapter in this episode. This I think, is the final chapter of this episode.
   https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

Still digging? Amazing.

By the way, your arguments and claims here are every bit as sound as your creationist arguments. It's a useful comparison.

 >
In my view,  it's _Origins_ that's the weakest part of naturalism. Beginning with the universe itself The Universe exist because it had a beginning. So, according to the laws of physics every effect has a cause, so there is no answer as to what was the first cause that brought about the big bang - the beginning of the universe?  You cannot appeal to nature for the origin of naturalism, so how and from where do you get nature? Living organisms are observed all around us, but how did unguided, random, mindless naturalism originate life? No answer only educated guesses, suppositions and theories.  If there was no directing mind, but random, aimless, purposeless chaotic natural processes how exactly did order arise from chaos? The laws and constants of physics can be
expressed by mathematics to an exact degree, why should this be possible if there was no guiding   intelligence?

As I said, your ability to reason about evolution strongly resembles your ability to reason about the Civil War.

For billions of years only single cell living organisms existed, but suddenly (geological speaking) most of the modern phylum appears in the fossil record mainly the Cambrian and very few in any in later periods. There is no known mechanism that explains the origin of these organisms. The fact remains there is a massive amount of specific information (instructions) that's infused in DNA code, which is the very basis upon which all life is founded, yet the origin of this specific information is not known. The edit and repair mechanisms in DNA, designed to assure high fidelity in the information in DNA, its origin is not _known_. Yet, specific information is observed coming from intelligence and only intelligence, other than life, there is no other source known for specific information.

Why didn't all the phyla that originated in the Cambrian go extinct within a few million years, due to genetic deterioration?

If the late S.J. Gould and Niles Eldredge are to be trusted, most species appear abruptly in the fossil record remain in stasis (unchanged) during their tenure on the planet then disappear from the record. This is from observation, so what about the species that gradual change that supposedly can be traced through successive layers of strata to earlier ancestors, but this gradual change can not be observed.  So, where is the evolutionary change especially considering the "living fossils" that are observed with static bodies which are the same of very similar to ancient ancestors that lived millions even 100s of millions of years in the past as observed from ancient fossil? These are just a few of the weaknesses I have observe and are aware of.

If you could try to state these weaknesses in some coherent way, I would try to explain why they aren't.