Fairytale?

[BigDug]

The only fact here is that the article I provided was never read by anyone in this thread, therefore noone is qualified to comment about it. Aron-RA, if you think about actually making a case, try to quote the article next time, because as it is, there is no evidence that you have even read it. Or if you did, you didn't even understand it.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Hold on. I need to go buy a new Irony-Meter.

The problem with irony-meters is that they're not fool proof.

 

[Loudmouth]

That would be an assertion that you would like to claim as a fact.

I do claim it as fact. Try and prove me wrong. Show me where the theory of evolution suggests that humans should commit genocide. Show it to me.

indeed, those would be good things to determine, but until he admits his clear avoidance of facts in the points I addressed,

Your "facts" include the incorrect comparison of eugenics and Darwinism. Eugenics existed before Darwin ever published "Origin of Species".

I did read your article and the main thesis of the article is wrong. No theory, including evolution, is capable of being promoted as a moral code. This is called the Naturalistic Fallacy. It is the argument that whatever is natural is good. That is, in nature the least fit produce fewer offspring therefore it is "good" to do away with the less fit.

The fallacious argument is also runs into the is-ought problem.

In meta-ethics, the is-ought problem was raised by David Hume (Scottish philosopher and historian, 1711–1776), who noted that many writers make claims about what ought to be on the basis of statements about what is. But there seems to be a big difference between descriptive statements (about what is) and prescriptive statements (about what ought to be).​

The theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. The theory of evolution can no more tell us what we ought to do than atomic theory. You might as well claim that Truman elevated Atomic theory to a moral code allowing him to use nuclear bombs on Japan. Just because Uranium participates in a chain reaction does not mean that we ought to make this chain reaction happen.

But once again, the quotations he made may or may not be true statements,

This is a question of fact, not opinion.

Weikarts book did all these things, and did not rely on the speeches of a madman to verify itslef. Weikart's book is undisputed in academia, and is one example of history being presented in a true, referenced, researched way.

What did it do? Illustrate how madmen extended a scientific theory beyond what it was designed to do?

 

[Loudmouth]

The only fact here is that the article I provided was never read by anyone in this thread, therefore noone is qualified to comment about it. Aron-RA, if you think about actually making a case, try to quote the article next time, because as it is, there is no evidence that you have even read it. Or if you did, you didn't even understand it.

I did read it. It was a load of bunk. Anytime someone conflates Eugenics with Darwinism you can throw it out.

 

[TheOutsider]

The problem with irony-meters is that they're not fool proof.

The problem with trying to make something fool-proof is that they come making better and better fools.

 

[atomweaver]

The only fact here is that the article I provided was never read by anyone in this thread, therefore noone is qualified to comment about it. Aron-RA, if you think about actually making a case, try to quote the article next time, because as it is, there is no evidence that you have even read it. Or if you did, you didn't even understand it.

If there is something within that link that supports the idea that Hitler utilized concepts of biological evolution (not Social Darwinism) to support his pogrom, please do quote it yourself...
Your Weikart link is mostly about eugenics, along with occasional unevidenced comments about how the ideas of evolution were applied by Hitler to politics and society (but then, that's not biological evo, anyways). He references two biographies, one by Hermann, one by Kershaw, but fails to quote either authors with anything definitevely related to evolution at all.
Weikart tries in several sections to hand-wave away Hitler's own religious quotes (the one's Aron-Ra provided you), but fails to offer anything substantive (ie. evidence) in their place to support his assertions about Hitlers real motivations, other than his own musings, all the while conflating eugenic with social Darwinism with "Darwinian ethics" (a term he created, but which is not defined in your link).

Was that what you wanted?

 

[BigDug]

I did read it. It was a load of bunk. Anytime someone conflates Eugenics with Darwinism you can throw it out.

You did not read it, if you did then quote where it supposedly mixes eugenics with Darwinism. Or you could just be content that your just another liar in this thread and go play with your irony meter.

I do claim it as fact. Try and prove me wrong. Show me where the theory of evolution suggests that humans should commit genocide. Show it to me.

thats a strawman, nobody ever said that

Your "facts" include the incorrect comparison of eugenics and Darwinism.

another lie. quote where I ever made such a comparison.

see you dont mind making up stuff, but when asked to quote anything out of the article, or any of my own statements you cannot do so.

I did read your article and the main thesis of the article is wrong.

another lie, quote where the article made such a thesis, show that you even know what a thesis is.

When asked for specifics the evolutionist runs away screaming. You love to give long lists of falsehoods, but when asked about them you are curiously silent.

No theory, including evolution, is capable of being promoted as a moral code. This is called the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Really? By what logic?

What did it do? Illustrate how madmen extended a scientific theory beyond what it was designed to do?

Obviously you wouldnt know, because obviously you didnt read the article. If I quizzed you all, none of you would get more than a 10% on the quiz, why? You didn't read the material.

The theory of evolution is descriptive, not prescriptive. The theory of evolution can no more tell us what we ought to do than atomic theory.

How do you figure?

You might as well claim that Truman elevated Atomic theory to a moral code allowing him to use nuclear bombs on Japan. Just because Uranium participates in a chain reaction does not mean that we ought to make this chain reaction happen.

comparing apples with oranges.

You have your opinions, and you have the majority of people to agree with you. You can even have a great party laughing at me with your irony meter joke, but what you dont have is the truth, and you dont have anything more than your own opinion.

Which brings us back to the OP. Anyone with any kind of critical thinking skills can read this thread and know exactly why evolution is a fairy tale because you have demonstrated it experimentally. You have no ability to differentiate between the your own opinion and reality.

Give me some proof, give me some evidence, show me something, anything which proves that you even read the article, then I can at least believe that you have even an inkling of what the point is. Until then, there is no proof that you read the article, therefore any points you might have about it are useless.

 

[BigDug]

If there is something within that link that supports the idea that Hitler utilized concepts of biological evolution (not Social Darwinism) to support his pogrom, please do quote it yourself...
Your Weikart link is mostly about eugenics, along with occasional unevidenced comments about how the ideas of evolution were applied by Hitler to politics and society (but then, that's not biological evo, anyways). He references two biographies, one by Hermann, one by Kershaw, but fails to quote either authors with anything definitevely related to evolution at all.
Weikart tries in several sections to hand-wave away Hitler's own religious quotes (the one's Aron-Ra provided you), but fails to offer anything substantive (ie. evidence) in their place to support his assertions about Hitlers real motivations, other than his own musings, all the while conflating eugenic with social Darwinism with "Darwinian ethics" (a term he created, but which is not defined in your link).

Was that what you wanted?

No. What I want is you to quote something that you read in the article, so that I and everyone can see what your talking about, then I want you to state why, after the quote you feel that whatever assertion you have is true, based upon the material. Then your statement will have some validity, other than that, with no specific references, there is no proof that you did little more than a cursory look at the material.

And thats not just what 'I' want, thats what any thinking person would want.

And then it would actually be nice if someone remembered what it is we are exactly debating here, but that seems to be too much to ask.

The issue under debate is subjectivity and opinion. It is my assertion that while Aron-Ra has some strong points, they are largely just opinion, in contrast, Aron-Ra has said that nothing he has said is opinion, and that every comment he has made is backed up by fact. So don't lose sight of the point.

 

[BigDug]

The problem with trying to make something fool-proof is that they come making better and better fools.

The problem with irony-meters is that they're not fool proof.
The problem with trying to make something fool-proof is that they come making better and better fools.

I guess that means your calling me a fool. Are you getting a big laugh out of that? And yes it does bother me that you don't have enough respect for me that you would laugh at me.

 

[TheOutsider]

I guess that means your calling me a fool. Are you getting a big laugh out of that? And yes it does bother me that you don't have enough respect for me that you would laugh at me.

What I was trying to point out is that there have been hundreds of pieces of objective evidence that shows that evolution is a scientific fact, yet you still call it a fairy tale. And then you have the gall to accuse other of not being able to "differentiate between fact and opinion". You have absolutely no room to call others biased.

 

[Inan3]

There's no need to believe "in" evolution since it is a demonstrable fact which can be tested for so that our knowledge of it can be measured for accuracy objectively.

That may not be a fairy tale but it is unproved fiction. It is a myth that is propagated as the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

You did not read it, if you did then quote where it supposedly mixes eugenics with Darwinism.

"My own research into the impact of Darwinian ethics on German thought in the pre-Nazi era and its ultimate influence on Hitler's ideology . . ."

The use of "Darwinian ethics" implies a connection between the theory (what is) and morality (what ought to be). Weikart does this throughout the article, pretending that one can move comfortably from the theory of evolution (Darwinism) to eugenics/moral code.

"Secondly, since Hitler believed that nothing exists beyond nature, he tried to find his purpose in life in obeying the iron laws of nature. Darwinian biology was especially significant in this regard, as he tried to apply its lessons to politics and society."

"Darwinism--especially forms of it often disparagingly called Social Darwinism today--taught him that life is a constant struggle for existence leading to biological progress. Hitler embraced eugenics and racial extermination of allegedly inferior races as means to improve the human species and foster progress."

"Finally, while spurning traditional moral standards, Hitler exalted evolution itself to the status of a moral absolute--everything that advances evolution is morally good and everything that hinders it is immoral."

Or you could just be content that your just another liar in this thread and go play with your irony meter.

Then show me how one can solve the is-ought problem with regard to morality and evolution. If it can't be done then Hitler could not have used Darwinism.

another lie. quote where I ever made such a comparison.

"A book I read by the name of From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" by Richard Weikart an expert of German history shows a clear path from Darwin to Auschwitz. "--BigDug

Really? By what logic?

Are you arguing that you can turn a scientific theory into a moral code?

comparing apples with oranges.

Both Weikart and yourself are confusing ethics with scientific theories. Those are the apples and oranges.

Which brings us back to the OP. Anyone with any kind of critical thinking skills can read this thread and know exactly why evolution is a fairy tale because you have demonstrated it experimentally.

Evolution is a fairy tale because it can be demonstrated through experimentation? Really?

 

[Lilandra]

. Not only that, but all religions commonly accepted as such have a series of traits in common; thus religion can be accurately defined as a doctrine of ritual traditions, ceremonies, mythology, and associated dogma of a faith-based belief system which includes the idea that some element of ‘self’ (be it a soul, consciousness, or memories, etc.) may, in some sense, continue beyond the death of the physical being. This is indicative of religion because these traits apply to all religions and only to religion. However none of them apply to evolution, and I doubt very much that you could produce any justification for your claim that evolution is a religion, because that would not be a matter of opinion. It is an objectively-determinable fact that evolution is not a religion.

Okay, so all this time I shouldn't have been reading Origin of Species as the inerrant Word of Darwin?

Oh wait, there is that shrine to Darwin in my house that I keep a candle burning for every day. No, shouldn't be doing that,

And then there were the pilgrimages to the Galapagos on Darwin's Birthday. How could I have been so deluded by my faith in evolutionism?

Wow I am so glad someone set me straight.
(totally not serious alert)

 

[Aron-Ra]

That would be an assertion that you would like to claim as a fact.

indeed, those would be good things to determine, but until he admits his clear avoidance of facts in the points I addressed, I am certainly not obligated to answer what little substantive points he might have actually had.

You know you can't answer them. So you have to flee from them.

Now, for the 4th time, what "facts" do you think I'm avoiding?

What point is it to talk about real facts with someone who can't understand the difference between his opinions and facts?

Good point. Why is anyone wasting thier time talking to you?

But once again, the quotations he made may or may not be true statements, he would need references to back them up, he would also need to determine if Hitler himself was telling the truth. Or perhaps, he believe everything Hitler said? Then also he would need to show ALL of Hitler's speeches, and he would need to show them in context.

If a man repeats many times that he is a devoted Christian and that Jesus is his savior, and he says that in his speeches and books and private letters, I may not necessarily believe him. But until or unless he contradicts that sentiment, I would be a liar if I stated flat out that such a man is actually an atheist.

Weikarts book did all these things, and did not rely on the speeches of a madman to verify itslef. Weikart's book is undisputed in academia, and is one example of history being presented in a true, referenced, researched way.

It avoided the facts, by your own admission, and makesd demonstrably false assertions based on biased opinion only.

So are they opinions or facts? That remains to be seen,

You still don't know?! And yet you accuse me of not being able to tell?!

but since Aron-Ra cannot seem to see where his own interpretation veers from fact,

I would if you could show me. Of it you cannot show me, then show someone else. If you can convince that person, then have them show me for you. Of course you won't do that either because you know you have nothing to show.

I am not going to waste my time trying to look at the presence or absence of actual facts with him.

In other words, you want your opinions to be fact, but you already they're not, and that what you believe is unsupportable and indefensible. So you try to project all your own faults onto me. Its like the pot calling the silverware black. But really its just that you can't admit when you're wrong.

 

[Aron-Ra]

There's no need to believe "in" evolution since it is a demonstrable fact which can be tested for so that our knowledge of it can be measured for accuracy objectively.

That may not be a fairy tale but it is unproved fiction. It is a myth that is propagated as the truth.

It is a demonstrable fact which can be tested for so that our knowledge of it can be measured for accuracy objectively.

 

[Aron-Ra]

The only fact here is that the article I provided was never read by anyone in this thread, therefore noone is qualified to comment about it. Aron-RA, if you think about actually making a case, try to quote the article next time, because as it is, there is no evidence that you have even read it. Or if you did, you didn't even understand it.

How do you think I was able to list all those things your author said? And yes, I obviously understood it better than you did.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I have no interest in discussing anything with people who cannot differentiate between fact and opinion. Sorry, Aran-RA of whatever your name is, it is clear that you cannot understand simple things, and that your opinions have clouded your head therefore I cant offer you any help. Of course, because your overly opinionated, and cannot concede as a matter of pride, it is really doubtful that your going to learn anything from anyone, neither is there any help available for you. Clearly your agenda is to promote your own already well established opinions, and you have no real desire to learn anything. Undoubtedly you will feel vindicated in thinking that noone could possible answer your points, and therefore further bury yourself in your own delusions. In other words, if you constantly cling to error, noone can ever teach you anything. In my opinion therefore, you are a walking flame war waiting to happen, and I feel bad for anyone who would want to attempt to disagree with you. The only kinds of argumentation that is even possible with you would be delegated to a kind of glorified "Is it" -> "Is not" type of exchange whcih would be fruitless for anyone. I honestly have no idea what you might gain from such a world view except for perhaps a feeling of satisfaction you might get from feeling that noone has properly answered you when in reality, noone wants to try to answer someone who cannot admit he is wrong. So once again feel free to walk away thinking you are right, however I imagine that most people can recognize your bigotry, predudice, and willing ignorance.

This is the lamest excuse I've ever seen. As the follow-up comments indicate, its obvious to everyone that you're talking about yourself here, not me. And there's no way you can't know that.

Hey Shroeder, after reading this guy's comments, do you now understand why I said what I did about creationists?

 

[Schroeder]

This is the lamest excuse I've ever seen. As the follow-up comments indicate, its obvious to everyone that you're talking about yourself here, not me. And there's no way you can't know that.

Hey Shroeder, after reading this guy's comments, do you now understand why I said what I did about creationists?

i dont no aron-ra its sounds like what you would say to me. SO my opinion is not important.

 

[Schroeder]

No, it doesn't "prove" that, nor could it. It is interesting though that we have so many references wherein these people even privately state their religious convictions, and yet you cannot cite even one thing said by any of them which implies anything you allege. It is also interesting that you can assert everything you believe with no reason given for any of it. It is even more interesting that when you're shown all the reasons why that can't be so, you dismiss them all as if they don't count somehow. But they do. All the nazis said they believed in creation, and I would bet that not one among them said -anything- about evolution. So your assertions are not only unjustified, they are wrong.

I will have to look and see. i am not a historian of hitler and the riech. I doubt it much and there actions proved they were NOT christians. i would think EVEN you would agree with this. no matter what they said. YOu said you knew more of scripture then me so you should know they werent.

No there isn't.
Yes, some of them do.

I have to be exact on everything i right dont I. yes some nut creationist may, but not ALL which is what you keep saying ALL ......

Yes, Hitler explained exactly that.

he did in a way but he did not give details of killing all the jews and others he deemed unworthy or less human doing experiments on them.

The Christian Identity are not the KKK, but they are Christian -because they rever the Bible, declare Christ as their savior and adhere to every tenet of the Nicene Creed. How do you define what a Christian is?

Christ said you would no them by there LOVE. so it would be NOT what they say they believe but HOW THEY ACT. not that hard you know. But it keeps you from lumping us all into a group. its a lot easier to judge one in a gropup then individually. thats to much work.

Having done that my whole life, I'm wondering what it would take to get you to do the same?

your amusing.

The very term, "Aryan nation" was based largely on Hindu mythology, another religious reference. Occultism and religious fascination ruled the Third Reich. None of them knew anything about evolution at all, and there is no indication from any source anywhere to imply that any of them were motivated by evolution in any way. All of that was just another baseless assertion made by creationists trying to associate evolution with anything evil.

Well they were christians though if they were actual christians they would have nothing to do with such ideas. I guess i was right it is HOW you act not what you say you are. Its nice to have a group to lay all yourproblems on or all the lies of the world on. you make it sound as if they were trying to rule the world. NOPE that would be the left wing liberals and one worlders. And there getting closer every day.

Martin Luther didn't just found Protestant Christianity; he founded the creationism movement too. He was the first to promote the idea that anything and everything could be dismissed from consideration simply by saying "That doesn't prove anything." And that, so far, has been your whole strategy.

Like i said i care less of him. he did some good and bad. i follow Christ. YOu just assume not understand this and lump me in with a group.

I'm a systematist. That's what systematists do.
No need. Ya'll always do that for me.

still a funny guy.

You're all of the one and the same spirit, yet I cannot consider you such. You're contradicting yourself again.
So can she be "saved" and be an evolutionist at the same time? Yes or no?

YES. how does this help you prove anything. I am not perfect i have issues so what. If i am wrong about GOd creating in seven days he wont kick me out and i dont think he will kick one out if they feel he did it through evolution.

Yes it is, and your saying it is "hardly" so is just another demonstration of the hatred in yourself which you will not see. The hatred in me is not seen because it isn't there. It is only in your own mind.

I think your in a fairy tale if you think the world is a nice place. WORLD as in the beliefs and ideas the atmosphere. NOT the planet and its natural life as in the trees animals ect. that i would say is wonderful and amazing.

Wrong again. I write these things because you automatically assume that it and everything else must be wrong if it disagrees with whatever you would rather believe. You've blinded your reason just as Martin Luther said you should.

well of course i am wrong i believe i was right only once or twice with you. your a master at twisting things and words and such. you would be a good propogandist

What are you doing right now, and for the last few years?
No I can't. Lacking faith, rationalists don't have that ability.
I'm the one promoting critical analysis, duh. But I couldn't care less what you believe. I've only ever been interested in why you believe it.

Well i dont think you could understand WHY i believe it. since you dont believe in FAITH. And my faith isnt based on nothing, its based on experiences which i CANNOT prove to you or show evidence of becasue it happened in the passed and at times did not deal with anything physical or material. which is why you ask such loaded guestion you know cant be answered, just to try and make us seem ignorant or wrong.

 

[Schroeder]

Prove it. Because I say he didn't know squat about evolution and didn't believe it, and was only following religious incentives, and I've already shown ample evidence of that. What can you show to prove otherwise?

i will look if i get the time, but his incentive was HATE not religion.