Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

MandM · Oct 31, 2007

Reps to the first atheist who can name the New World Order organization that ALL of the top tier candidates in both parties belong to.

It is not that hard.

But it does show that these atheists do not know the FIRST THING about the way the world really works.

FishFace · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
I appreciate those who have made points regarding the difference between Darwinism and Social Darwinism.

While in theory there may be a difference, in reality they seem to always go together hand in hand. Wherever Darwinism shows up, Social Darwinism is sure to follow.

Bovine excrement. I was taught evolution, (not "Darwinism" but never mind) in Biology, but Social Darwinism was taught only in history.

Darwin himself and his family were massively into "social Darwinism".......just watch the film in the original post.

That's very nice. Why should we care? What's the logic here - Darwin was a nasty man, therefore he was wrong? Ad hominem at its least subtle.

FishFace · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
Reps to the first atheist who can name the New World Order organization that ALL of the top tier candidates in both parties belong to.

It is not that hard.

But it does show that these atheists do not know the FIRST THING about the way the world really works.

Could it not mean we just don't agree with your nutcase conspiracy?

MandM · Oct 31, 2007

FishFace said:
Could it not mean we just don't agree with your nutcase conspiracy?

That all the top tier candidates belong to this organization that I am talking about is an easily verified fact.

That fact that you cannot instantly name that organization shows that you really do not know much about the world.

Go look it up.

GoSeminoles! · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
That all the top tier candidates belong to this organization that I am talking about is an easily verified fact.

That fact that you cannot instantly name that organization shows that you really do not know much about the world.

Go look it up.

Council on Foreign Relations. I am well-steeped in this genre of conspiracy theories, especially those pertaining to the Federal Reserve. Once again, you've demonstrated that you will let any old crap into your brain. You just confirm my stereotype of the typical creationist wackjob.

MandM · Oct 31, 2007

GoSeminoles! said:
Council on Foreign Relations. I am well-steeped in this genre of conspiracy theories, especially those pertaining to the Federal Reserve. Once again, you've demonstrated that you will let any old crap into your brain. You just confirm my stereotype of the typical creationist wackjob.

Reps as promised.

Do you know who owns the federal reserve?

That's right.....it is a privately owned organization.

And I hope you see the truth and find the Lord soon GoSeminoles.

GoSeminoles! · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
Reps as promised.

Do you know who owns the federal reserve?

That's right.....it is a privately owned organization.

And I hope you see the truth and find the Lord soon GoSeminoles.

Get bent.

MandM · Oct 31, 2007

GoSeminoles! said:
Get bent.

Blessings and peace to you today.

I hope someday to see you come to know the Lord and to be working side by side with me to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ.

May today be a great day for you.

And-U-Say · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
No I am not a troll.

Yes, this evidence is too much for you to handle so you will likely run away.

It is time to face the TRUTH.

An odd claim, seeing as you have run away from all of your posts.

Loudmouth · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
While in theory there may be a difference, in reality they seem to always go together hand in hand. Wherever Darwinism shows up, Social Darwinism is sure to follow.

It is a matter of FACT that the theory of evolution and Social Darwinism are two separate entities.

I know hundreds of biologists that accept the theory of evolution and I do not know of one who accepts Social Darwinism.

As for those on this thread who question whether the New World Order exists:

That reminds me. Who's bringing the kittens for the next BBQ? I'm bringing the potato salad.

GoSeminoles! · Oct 31, 2007

Loudmouth said:
That reminds me. Who's bringing the kittens for the next BBQ? I'm bringing the potato salad.

No kittens. Babies. We're going to roast babies at the next evilutionist bbq.

MandM · Oct 31, 2007

Loudmouth said:
It is a matter of FACT that the theory of evolution and Social Darwinism are two separate entities.

I know hundreds of biologists that accept the theory of evolution and I do not know of one who accepts Social Darwinism.

That reminds me. Who's bringing the kittens for the next BBQ? I'm bringing the potato salad.

No it is not a "FACT" that the two are separate. Darwin himself was a believer in both. Social Darwinism naturally follows from the theory of evolution.

In fact, I'll bet among the atheists here there is a higher percentage that believe in the following then you will find in the general population:

-Abortion
-Sterilization
-Mercy Killing (Assisted Suicide)
-Population Control
-Population Reduction

In fact, there is a whole new "breeding is bad" movement that is gaining ground out there right now, and I'll bet there are people on this very forum who will argue that having too many kids is a bad thing or even a crime against the environment.

Loudmouth · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
No it is not a "FACT" that the two are separate. Darwin himself was a believer in both.

Both? I thought they were one in the same?

Social Darwinism naturally follows from the theory of evolution.

It can't. The two are separated by Hume's Guillotine.

In fact, I'll bet among the atheists . . .

Here you make another big mistake. Atheism is not evolution and evolution is not atheism. Even more, Social Darwinism is not atheism and atheism is not Social Darwinism.

In fact, there is a whole new "breeding is bad" movement that is gaining ground out there right now, and I'll bet there are people on this very forum who will argue that having too many kids is a bad thing or even a crime against the environment.

Bzzzz. Wrong again. Again, Hume's Guillotine (the is/ought problem) separates evolution from moral judgements.

Skaloop · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
Social Darwinism naturally follows from the theory of evolution.

Except the vast majority of people who accept the theory of evolution don't accept social darwinism, so you're wrong in your assertion.

In fact, I'll bet among the atheists here there is a higher percentage that believe in the following then you will find in the general population:

-Abortion
-Sterilization
-Mercy Killing (Assisted Suicide)
-Population Control
-Population Reduction

Not only is atheism not evolution, but the things you listed are not aspects of social darwinism. While many atheists may be pro-choice in terms of abortion, I've heard from very few, if any, who would advocate aborting all black foetuses or all mentally disabled foetuses for the "betterment" of the species. And that's what social darwinism is; it isn't abortion, it's abortion because of specific traits arbitrarily deemed less worthy. It isn't sterilization (which I wouldn't support anyway), it's sterilization of trait-specific groups that are arbitrarily deemed unworthy.

Population control measures are not social darwinism.

stevencarrwork · Oct 31, 2007

Hitler certainly was a creationist.

From Hitler's Tischgespraeche , 1942 'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'

I shall translate Hitler's words, as recorded by the stenographer.

'From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the very beginning what he is today.

A glance in Nature shows us , that changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals. But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an ape-like condition to what he is' (now)

And-U-Say · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
No it is not a "FACT" that the two are separate. Darwin himself was a believer in both. Social Darwinism naturally follows from the theory of evolution.

<snipped for sanity>

"Prophet Tom Deckard (perfect 32 year track record)"

Tom Deckard? The one that said there would be devastating earthquakes and an atomic explosion in the US in 1993 and we are still waiting? That Tom Deckard? A perfect Track Record meaning perfectly wrong? That one?

RichardT · Oct 31, 2007

Lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

-- Albert Einstein

stevencarrwork · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
Historically this onslaught finds its starting pointing in the essay –"Principle of Population" written in 1798 by Thomas Malthus.

It is only polite to give the guy his proper name.

That would be the REVEREND Thomal Malthus.

MoonLancer · Oct 31, 2007

RichardT said:
Lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.

-- Albert Einstein

which church do you speak of? Rome/Vatican did nothing.

Do you think Einstein would agree seeing how the church acts today? btw, this seems like a borderline fallacy. an appeal to authority i think. If you agree with Einstein in what he has said here, do you respect his science as well what with him thinking the earth revolved around the sun along with the rest of the planets... If you met Einstein do you think he would agree with your stance on science? So why use him and quote him in the way your doing, if you really have no respect for his work... unless you somehow know Einstein and respect him as a person... or is it because he agrees with you in the here and now and that its convenient? Is it you think we respect him and thus you think we will agree with everything he says because of his authority in his field? You should know that that doesn't work on free thinking people.

MoonLancer · Oct 31, 2007

MandM said:
-Abortion
-Sterilization
-Mercy Killing (Assisted Suicide)
-Population Control
-Population Reduction

Your silly. This goes against evolution. If one was to take evolution and convert it to a theology one would Let populations destroy themselves so the strong survive. they would not give food to the poor. they would let population sore giving the greatest genetic diversity. The ones who die would but unfit and undesirable and the ones that survive would be fit.

I am curious though, Why is increasing a population past the ability for the country to support such a population a good thing?

what do you find objectionable about keeping a population withing a prosperous limit? do you know what happens to groups of living organisms when their population increases beyond the limits of the land to support it?

on the abortion issue, your taking away natural selection because no child would be given a chance to prove that their genetics is superior. So thats really a silly thing so say is evolutionist...

Sterilization takes away genetic diversity so i dont see how that could be evolutionist...

Mercy killing is just the human thing to do. or do you like torturing those who live with eternal pain?
I'm glad Schiavos pain and suffering ended. you realize her brain had rotted in her skull for years and years and it was only the machine keeping her alive? Why would you want her to live such a pathetic existence that she had no hope to escape? If their is any justice in the world, whatever spiritual essence existed in her living body left long ago and was at peace long before she became a political tool.

Darwinism = Eugenics And Racism

MandM

Guest

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

MandM

Guest

GoSeminoles!

Guest

MandM

Guest

GoSeminoles!

Guest

MandM

Guest

Veteran

Contributor

GoSeminoles!

Guest

MandM

Guest

Contributor

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Regular Member

Veteran

Contributor

Regular Member

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency