Creationist Fatally Stabs Evolutionist
The life of a Scottish backpacker and Evolutionist was cut short by an English Fundamentalist Christian Creationist. The Creationist took a stab at dissecting the evolutionists argument earlier in the evening, however, failed by his rapier wit, the Creationist decided to drive his point home the only way he could. Evolutionists everywhere should be more cautious as the the debate is getting dicier as time goes on.
LinkA bizarre row about evolution versus creationism led to an English backpacker fatally stabbing a Scottish backpacker during a fruit-picking trip to earn money for their travels.
Alexander York, 33, from Essex, was sentenced to a maximum of five years in jail yesterday for the manslaughter of Rudi Boa, 28, a biomedical student from Inverness.
27 comments:
Evolutionists, gear up and man your weapons!
(JH)
Does a shawm count as a weapon?
Yes, absolutely,
its a little known fact that shawm fighting was used as the model for the light saber fights in the first star wars movie. The noise they make as they are swiftly swung in an arc was the inspiration. You can put an eye out with those things.
This is disgusting. The scum got off with a lesser manslaughter conviction instead of the obvious 2nd degree murder conviction he should have received - all because he was a "a person of good character", in other words a Christian.
Man your weapons indeed.
Look at the bright side, nightmare. Perhaps the Evolutionist repented of his sins just before he died. After all, witnessing with a knife in your hand is very convincing- Christians used it to great effect on Saracens and Native Americans: "convert or die!"
lee- there actually is a sixteenth-century account of a tussle where one musician aimed a blow at the bandmaster's son's head with his bass shawm. Not only that, but supposedly the shakuhachi, that lovely ethereal Japanese flute, is also deliberately made with a heavy chunk of bamboo root stock at the lower end, in order to afford some protection for the Zen monks who carried it around in the lawless wilderness.
Of course, there is more to this story, as you are well aware.
The creationists says the evolutionist attacked him. They were both drunk, and there is no unbiased witness.
Thats why he got off fairly light.
It may well have been self defense, but the story sounds better presented as you present it.
And besides, practitioners of evolutionarily based theories, Dialectical Materialists (Marx famously said that evolution provides the scientific basis for the class theory) have killed millions of creationists.
Hi andrew,
Thats why I provided the link so people can read for themselves.
The fact remains there is a christian in jail for murder for ironically backing scripture, and there are at least 5000 children that have suffered since 1998 at the hands of christians who are convinced they are witches. In case you missed my other article, here is the news link
The red herring or distraction you provide about dialectical materialists makes me feel better about that, like it evens things out. So whats the score now? Are the atheists ahead or are we playing catch up to christians? You guys are a tough act to follow let me tell you! I'm polishing up my shawm right now, getting it ready for a harsh blow!
And besides, practitioners of evolutionarily based theories, Dialectical Materialists (Marx famously said that evolution provides the scientific basis for the class theory) have killed millions of creationists.
Dialectical Materialism is not based on evolution; neither is eugeneics or any kind of racism. Science says what is, not what ought to be. Don't be stupid.
And if the self-defense theory had been accepted, he would have gotten off completely. He didn't, so the court must have found that it was NOT self-defense. The judge, in his own words, gave out a lighter sentence for murder because the murderer was a "good person."
Other than that, how was the show Mrs. Lincoln?
Lee, in answer to your question about the score, the atheists are WAY ahead!
100 Million dead at the hands of practitioners of atheistic philosophies in the 20th century alone.
And Marx was the one who said evolution provides the scientific basis for his class theory.
So don't blame me!
Bahahahahahahaaaa!!!
andrew,
puhleeeeese!
This body count is silly, but in any case, if we get rid of religion, the world would be a better place because there'd be one less reason to kill, or drive nails in childrens heads, or stab drinking buddies.
wommmmm, wommmmm. Thats the sound of me swinging my shawm around in case you pop up behind my back.
Hmmm, and the jails are full of Christians I take it?
One so-called Christian takes matters into his own hands, thoroughly provoked in his imperfect humanity, and an indictment is handed down on all of Christianity. What conclusion should we draw from your inference? All Christians are bad? Evil? I'm sure that violates some logic rule you'll conveniently forget.
I see the Inquisition and corresponding Witch trials continue to haunt the godless. It is a comfortable retreat I would suppose; helps drown out the noise eminating from the gulags.
Well first of all this really proves nothing. Ok, there are bad Christians. So? Second, what is the proposal, that atheism would bring about a world free of these things. Im sorry but that sort of rhetoric just wont fly. Both sides, atheists and Christians (and everyone else) have been responsible for evil acts throughout history and that is the bottom line. (Nightmare the fact that most persons in Britain are not Christians really seems to destroy your entire point that a person who is Christian would get off freely... not that there was any point to the comment anyhow. Im glad however that you can do a legal analysis on the basis of a news article.
As for the story itself, it's trivial, at best. Bar fights -- even fatal bar fights -- can break out over anything at all. There was a famous one in Brooklyn in the 30s between a Dodger and a Giant fan, and I'm sure someone has been killed defending the honor and beauty of Ginger over MaryAnne.
I find it fascinating as well to see how everyone jumped to the idea that the victim, because he believed in evolution, was an atheist. In fact, there are probably substantially more theistic evolutionists than atheistic ones, simply because there are more theists, and because Creationists are a substantial minority -- even among Christians -- only in the United States. This may have been a 'Christian-Christian' battle.
I can't agree with Nightmare. It was only manslaughter, as are most bar fatalities. (And as far as I know, judges in Australia would hardly cut someone some slack because he was a Christian. Christianity simply doesn't pull a lot of weight there.)
And one final comment. Shygetz, don't you find it fascinating when Christians point to the 'evils evolution caused' -- and of course you are right, evolution is no more responsible for Marx's ideas than quantum mechanics is responsible for the idiocy Deepak Chopra claims for it -- they never seem to mention the evils that Herbert Spencer's 'Social Darwinism' and it's celebration of the evils of unrestrained capitalism caused. (Okay, there is some dispute as to how important Spencer's work was in causing the evils, rather it served as a defense for them.)
And there were plenty of victims of THAT misuse of Darwin as well, but somehow many of the evangelicals don't find that a reason to condemn evolution. Maybe because their preachers still preach the political gospel of the Republicans.
There are bad atheists and bad christians.
can we infer that crime is equally distributed across categories? But there are more christians than atheists.
so if it is equally distributed among categories, but christians are supposed to have an advantage in morality, that doesn't compute!
I guess it doesn't make a difference. Is white collar crime as bad as the other crimes?
I guess this is just another instance where if it doesn't make a differnence to be a christian, why be one?
Not sure why my first comment didn't show up, but instead of retyping I'm just going to comment on this:
"The judge, in his own words, gave out a lighter sentence for murder because the murderer was a "good person.""
Incorrect. The jury handed the judge a manslaughter sentence. The jury decided that it was not murder. The judge sentenced accordingly.
Lee thinks the atheist body count is silly.
Interesting, and sick, comment.
100 MILLION dead isn't silly.
Reminds me of a quote by a committed atheist..."One death is a tradgedy, a million deaths are a statistic." Joe Stalin
sniff, sniff, does something smell fishy?
Hi Andrew,
anyway...
reading comprehension is something we all need to work on.
Here's a link where you can go to work on it.
And here is link to something you can ask santa for that should help.
Pass Key to the LSAT
Works for me, it might work for you.
Chris said...
Hmmm, and the jails are full of Christians I take it?
Yeah, that 74% (ish) of the total US prison population is Christian is completely insignificant huh?
http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html#dichotomy
"Catholic 39.164%
Protestant 35.008%"
The next biggest group is Muslim, but they don't even come close.
One so-called Christian takes matters into his own hands,
"So-called"? Didn't read the story did you? The reason he killed the other guy is because of his beliefs as a creationist Christian! Sure, he was drunk at the time, sure it started as a bar fight - but the core reason for the killing was the murder's beliefs.
I see the Inquisition and corresponding Witch trials continue to haunt the godless.
Yes, and we'd very much like to prevent a repeat of such a [sarcasm]golden[/sarcasm] age of Christian religious dominance in the political world. Just as much as we don't want to see another repeat of Stalin's atrocities.
GordonBlood said...
(Nightmare the fact that most persons in Britain are not Christians really seems to destroy your entire point that a person who is Christian would get off freely...
Trying doing 10 seconds of research before making unfounded claims next time (hint - there's this thing called the internet, it's a great resource, with search engines and other useful stuff). Might help make you at least sound credible.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293
"More than seven out of ten people said that their religion was Christian (72 per cent)."
Mr. Nightmare,
In a subsequent post we explore the fruitage of the spirit. It will be instructive for you because based on those fine qualities as enumerated in the Bible, if applied to the overwhelming numbers of professed Christians in todays prisons, I'd think it safe to say that very few would actually fit the bill.
If you would argue that the fruitages such as love, peace, gentleness, goodness, faithfulness, long suffering, et al are ascriptive characteristics of criminals then I do believe there is no hope for any of us.
Peace to you Mr. Nightmare,
Chris
Chris,
First of all, there's no need to call me Mr. I make no claims to professionalism or any sort of formality (even the sarcastic kind that the term is sometimes used as, which I am fairly certain is the manner you are using it in - not that I care). Nightmare (or jerk etc) is fine.
Secondly, the fruit of the Spirit is (as shown in the next article and subsequent debate) not a reliable method of determining who is xian and who is not. This is even admitted by xians (salvation vs sanctification). So, salvation, ie profession of faith, is the only reliable indicator of who is and who is not a xian it would seem. To claim anything else would certainly seem to merely be subjective wish fulfillment.
Nightmare,
The only true measure of anyone (Christian or otherwise) is what they do, not what they say. Hypocrites are everywhere. People say a great many things about what they are. It is my contention that if a person were truly loving, kind, temperate, faithful, good, long suffering, he would not likely be in prison. So the statistic you quote about prison populations is misleading. I would guess as well that if you polled the prison population about their guilt or innocence, that 90% would claim the latter. Doesn't make it true.
Peace,
Chris
Hi Chris,
It is my contention that if a person were truly loving, kind, temperate, faithful, good, long suffering, he would not likely be in prison. So the statistic you quote about prison populations is misleading.
Lets analyze this claim.
P: It is my contention that if a person were truly loving, kind, temperate, faithful, good, long suffering, he would not likely be in prison.
C: So the statistic you quote about prison populations is misleading.
thats it? you conclude based on your belief? Are you an expert?
This is a fallacy from two angles.
1. Argument from ignorance
2. Hasty Conclusion (Too little data)
But then thats what belief is all about right? Confirmation Bias? Making yourself feel better by concluding things not supported by evidence? If you look at the stats and do a little extrapolation and logical inference, if most people are christian in an area, and criminal behavior occurs evenly accross categories of people, then it follows that most criminals will be christians. Now if you want to sample global data, the numbers would change, and reflect the categorical make up of the sample of course. But what this really tells us is that there is no perceptible difference between the christain and the non-christian. That was the point of the article. The fruit of the spirit passage is a logical fallacy, approved of by God.
oops, its not the point of this article. The point of this article was as a data point for the following fruit of the spirit article, and as a lame excuse to think up a bunch of puns.
Didn't read the story did you? The reason he killed the other guy is because of his beliefs as a creationist Christian! Sure, he was drunk at the time, sure it started as a bar fight - but the core reason for the killing was the murder's beliefs.
I just wanted to comment on this real quick. Nightmare, I highly doubt that the Creationist Christian killed because of his Creationism or his Chrisitianity for that matter.
There is nothing inherently sadistic about Creationism. The belief in Creationism does not have any dogma that says, "Kill Evolutionists". That's rather silly.
He killed the guy because he was an angry drunk with blood lust. That's all.
If we were to conclude that his Creationism is the sole reason for the murder then it would appear that every Creationist would be similar.
Chris said...
The only true measure of anyone (Christian or otherwise) is what they do, not what they say.
This I can agree on totally Chris. Have a merry Xmas!
M said...
If we were to conclude that his Creationism is the sole reason for the murder then it would appear that every Creationist would be similar.
I agree that it wasn't the sole reason for the killing - the vitriol of the argument and the drunkeness were likely equally if not moreso to blame. But the core trigger of the situation was the argument over beliefs. That removed, it may not have turned out the same way.
In any case, merry Xmas!
Chris, you just invoked the beloved "No True Scotsman" fallacy. From now on, you are never allowed to claim that this is a Christian nation, or that Christianity is probably true due to the large number of converts, etc. You have just claimed that there are very, very few true Christians, and unless we have perfect knowledge of a person's life we cannot know if they are a true Christian or not. So, your list of confirmed True Christians currently in existence maxes out at one--yourself (and even that might be a little hasty).
Andrew spewed: And Marx was the one who said evolution provides the scientific basis for his class theory.
So don't blame me!
Bahahahahahahaaaa!!!
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, published in 1848.
On the Origin of Species by Mean of Natural Selection by Charles Darwin; published in 1859.
So you're telling me that Marx could see 11 years into the future to read Darwin's work and found his own ideas? What a visionary!
Facts--helping expose liars and fools for millenia.
I agree that it wasn't the sole reason for the killing - the vitriol of the argument and the drunkeness were likely equally if not moreso to blame. But the core trigger of the situation was the argument over beliefs. That removed, it may not have turned out the same way.
You're simply assuming that the subject of the argument is related to the outcome, based on zero evidence that it is so, and much contrary evidence. Here's the contrary evidence: every barfight that's ever turned violent that wasn't about creationism/evolution. Here's more: every discussion about creationism/evolution that didn't turn violent.
The jury decided that he didn't intend to kill him, he just struck out and wasn't aware of what the consequences (the man's death) would be, so the jury (not the judge) decided it was manslaughter, not murder. This is just a barfight gone bad, and now you're abusing it for your ideological agenda. I'm not willing to go along with that just because I happen to be on the same side of the argument as you.
Post a Comment