Fairytale?

[Loudmouth]

when do chemicals evolve.

They don't. Only populations of organisms evolve.

Or where did the first organic chemicals come from.

From chemical reactions, apparently. We can find organic chemicals in everything from meteors to space dust.

 

[Schroeder]

OK, but you could find this easy enough yourself.

"A Jew is for me an object of disgust. I feel like vomiting when I see one. Christ could not possibly have been a Jew. It is not necessary to prove that scientifically – it is a fact."
--Joseph Goebbels

"God gave the saviour to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he was sent to us by God to save Germany."
--Hermann Goering [speaking of Hitler]

And more specific references from Adolf Hitler himself:

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
[speaking privately, quoted in the diary of SS Adjutant Gerhard Engel, October 1941]

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work."
[Reichstag speech, 1936]

"The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge."
[Mein Kampf]

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
[Mein Kampf]

"Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the Reich as they call it."
[Mein Kampf]

Think about that one for a while, and think about where America is heading.

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith … we need believing people."
[from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant, 26 April 1933]

Wow that sounds familiar, don't it? Like I heard it again recently.

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognised these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."
[My New Order]

"The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfil God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.
[Mein Kampf]

"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude. The various substitutes have not proved so successful from the standpoint of results that they could be regarded as a useful replacement for previous religious creeds. But if religious doctrine and faith are really to embrace the broad masses, the unconditional authority of the content of this faith is the foundation of all efficacy."
[Mein Kampf]

I could go on, but I trust I've made my point.

Now could you find me anything Hitler or any other nazi ever said about evolution?

thats funny. which proves saying something doesnt prove he is something. theres something in the bible in james 2 that speaks of this. you cant say you have faith(or believe) and then not show it. it just proves your a liar. You never proved they were creationist. creatinist dont teach such things. creationism is just the scientific view point not a social viewpoint. He was trying to PERSUADE the masses. you dont do that by telling them what you really want to do.

They weren't trying to "prove" creationism. They never even questioned it. It was for them as much an assumed conclusion as it is for you. What they did to the jews was based on a creationist mythology which is still being purpetrated by Christian nazis and terrorists still today.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]"The Christian Identity Movement was identified as a right-wing terrorist group. This group's ideology combines religious concepts with elements of racism. Jews, blacks and other nonwhites are regarded as unequal to the white race. According to this Identity group, Jews are the children of Satan and the enemies of God. The Identity message is one of racial hatred behind the guise of religion."[/SIZE][/FONT]​

the KKK. not christian again its NOT what they say they are. IT IS how they show. what they show PROVES what they are. BUT that would make you have to think about it and reason through the false ideas.

No he wasn't. He didn't even know what a "gene pool" was. He bred purebred dobermans, and believed in "pure" bloodlines. This is a religious idea which flies against evolution. Evolutionists understand that the mut is the mightiest species specifically because it has the advantage of a larger gene pool, where purebreds are subject to sickly defects.

He probably didnt but it didnt keep him from trying to make a arian nation or race of people.

They did. Unfortunately many religions did and do teach many forms of prejudice. Hitler was raised with a hatred of Jews instilled in him from his lessons in Catholocism as a schoolboy. Protestant Christians were the same. Hitler cited rev. Martin Luther as the inspiration behind many of his attrocities against the Jews.

"If I had to baptise a Jew, I would take him to the bridge of the Elbe, hang a stone around his neck and push him over with the words 'I baptise thee in the name of Abraham'."
--Martin Luther; The Jews and thier Lies

Martin Luther was a creationist too!

Martin luther didnt know what a creationist was. And i do not come from martin luther never cared ONE IODA what he spoke of. i am from Christ hince the term christian. FROM CHRIST. Why do you lump us all into groups. maybe becasue it makes it easier to put us in a bad light. heaven forbid one judge individually. Christians are individuals. we are only a group in that the SPIRIT of Christ is in all of us. The ONE and same SPirit.

I would think that one fact alone aught to do it. As Carl Sagan said; "It underscores our responsability to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the only home we've ever known."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pfwY2TNehw
Its not a "dogmatic view", nor can it be precisely because it is deliberately opposed to dogma and the assumption of authority, at least from the atheist perspective. But of course atheists are a minority even among evolutionists. You keep [deliberately?] forgetting about the many many many Christian evolutionists who assume some other purpose than evidence alone can indicate. From Gluady's perspective, for example, God manipulated the circumstances of time and events such that humans emerged as social animals, dependant on each other to make sacrifices of ourselves on one another's behalf. Humans emerged as the dominant species on this world not because we were smarter than anything else. But because we would martyr like nothing else. We will surrender our time, our goods, our pleasures, and even our lives in service of fellows in need.

we all have our one opinions i dont judge one on that. I never said she was saved or a christians. BUT one can be a christian by name and do all the christian stuff and not be truelly saved. NOt that she is such.

what human society is from a secular standpoint too, except that we see religion trying to destroy that. Look at yourself, for example. You've been conditioned to execrate any keyword relating to the evolutionary position, and you've been trained to hate non-believers simply because they don't believe. You despise us for our attributes, and what you claim as an attribute yourself is in fact your greatest flaw and weakness, and the thing that makes you so easily manipulated; your faith.

the only hate i see is from you. your words show this. The world is hardly graciouse or nice. Its amazing how you write these things on the MERE fact that i dont assume the theory correct. IT has NO baring on how i live my life what so ever. And if i was a true christian i would love my enemy. which i do. i have not a problem with you whatso ever. besides your arrogant attitude. you can believe what you wish. Your true side always comes out. you seem more upset at what i believe then i am at what you believe in. your the one throwing out the critical words.

 

[BigDug]

This thread is all over the place, but I will step in here to address Godwin's law and throw my 2 cents in about Hitler. 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.

This is a very good book, full of well researched insight and referenced data. You need to read this book if you want to have a definitive look at the relationship between Hitler, Darwin, and the Jews.

Also Hitler was not a Christian, he did believe heavily in destiny(Vorsehung), so I would not say he was not a religious man. But if you really want to be more of an authority, I would highly recommend the reading of this book: "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" by Richard Weikart

http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/index.html

This article is also very good:http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/hitler-evil.htm

 

[TheOutsider]

Hilter was equally influenced by Catholicism, Ariosophy/paganism, the Thule Society, Hinduism, Norse religions, Nationalism, cult of personality, anti-Semitism, and, yes, social Dariwnism. To blame WWII and the Holocaust on any one of these things is foolish and intellectually dishonest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_religious_beliefs

Doesn't really matter since this is all "argument from consequences".

 

[Split Rock]

This thread is all over the place, but I will step in here to address Godwin's law and throw my 2 cents in about Hitler. 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.

This is a very good book, full of well researched insight and referenced data. You need to read this book if you want to have a definitive look at the relationship between Hitler, Darwin, and the Jews.

Also Hitler was not a Christian, he did believe heavily in destiny(Vorsehung), so I would not say he was not a religious man. But if you really want to be more of an authority, I would highly recommend the reading of this book: "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" by Richard Weikart

http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/index.html

This article is also very good:http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/hitler-evil.htm

Another appeal to authority. If Richard Weikart says so, it must be true, because he is an "expert of German history." Tell me, does he claim that Hitler would not have attempted to annihilate the Jews if Darwin had not written On the Origin of Species?

 

[Loudmouth]

This thread is all over the place, but I will step in here to address Godwin's law and throw my 2 cents in about Hitler. 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.

This is a very good book, full of well researched insight and referenced data. You need to read this book if you want to have a definitive look at the relationship between Hitler, Darwin, and the Jews.

Darwin spent a lot of time contrasting natural selection and artifical selection. What Hitler practiced was artificial selection, much like animal husbandry which had been practiced for thousands of years beforehand with domestic animals. If Hitler really did accept Darwin's thesis, and he also really believed that Jews were inferior, then he would have left them alone. Afterall, the theory of evolution states quite clearly that the less fit are outnumbered over time.

But it is clear that Hitler's true motivation was pure racism. He blamed the communists, socialists, and Jews for the decline of Germany. This stemmed from Germany's loss of WW I. If anything, Hitler used a distortion of Darwin's theory to support his own biases and racism.

Also Hitler was not a Christian, he did believe heavily in destiny(Vorsehung), so I would not say he was not a religious man. But if you really want to be more of an authority, I would highly recommend the reading of this book: "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" by Richard Weikart

http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/index.html

This article is also very good:http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/hitler-evil.htm

[/quote]

A historian should know his logical fallacies, such as the Naturalistic fallacy. Scientific theories do not tell us what we should do, they only tell us how nature functions. Anyone who takes a scientific theory and uses it for a rationale for genocide has commited this fallacy.

 

[Aron-Ra]

thats funny. which proves saying something doesnt prove he is something.

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.

theres something in the bible in james 2 that speaks of this.

No there isn't.

you cant say you have faith(or believe) and then not show it. it just proves your a liar. You never proved they were creationist. creatinist dont teach such things.

Yes, some of them do.

creationism is just the scientific view point not a social viewpoint. He was trying to PERSUADE the masses. you dont do that by telling them what you really want to do.

Yes, Hitler explained exactly that.

the KKK. not christian again its NOT what they say they are. IT IS how they show.

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?

what they show PROVES what they are. BUT that would make you have to think about it and reason through the false ideas.

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

No he wasn't. He didn't even know what a "gene pool" was. He bred purebred dobermans, and believed in "pure" bloodlines. This is a religious idea which flies against evolution. Evolutionists understand that the mut is the mightiest species specifically because it has the advantage of a larger gene pool, where purebreds are subject to sickly defects.

He probably didnt but it didnt keep him from trying to make a arian nation or race of people.

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.

Martin luther didnt know what a creationist was. And i do not come from martin luther never cared ONE IODA what he spoke of.

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.

i am from Christ hince the term christian. FROM CHRIST. Why do you lump us all into groups.

I'm a systematist. That's what systematists do.

maybe becasue it makes it easier to put us in a bad light.

No need. Ya'll always do that for me.

heaven forbid one judge individually. Christians are individuals. we are only a group in that the SPIRIT of Christ is in all of us. The ONE and same SPirit.

You're all of the one and the same spirit, yet I cannot consider you such. You're contradicting yourself again.

we all have our one opinions i dont judge one on that. I never said she was saved or a christians. BUT one can be a christian by name and do all the christian stuff and not be truelly saved. NOt that she is such.

So can she be "saved" and be an evolutionist at the same time? Yes or no?

the only hate i see is from you. your words show this. The world is hardly graciouse or nice.

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.

Its amazing how you write these things on the MERE fact that i dont assume the theory correct.

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.

IT has NO baring on how i live my life what so ever.

What are you doing right now, and for the last few years?

And if i was a true christian i would love my enemy. which i do. i have not a problem with you whatso ever. besides your arrogant attitude. you can believe what you wish.

No I can't. Lacking faith, rationalists don't have that ability.

Your true side always comes out. you seem more upset at what i believe then i am at what you believe in. your the one throwing out the critical words.

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.

 

[Aron-Ra]

This thread is all over the place, but I will step in here to address Godwin's law and throw my 2 cents in about Hitler. 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.

Yet, while we can all find numerous comments made by each of the nazis both publicly and privately affirming their beliefs in various religious notions including "creation", no one can seem to come up with anything any of the nazis ever said about evolution.

This is a very good book, full of well researched insight and referenced data. You need to read this book if you want to have a definitive look at the relationship between Hitler, Darwin, and the Jews.

Aah yes, "the book sez so", the favorite argument of the creationist. But does it give any reason to believe this?

Also Hitler was not a Christian, he did believe heavily in destiny(Vorsehung), so I would not say he was not a religious man. But if you really want to be more of an authority, I would highly recommend the reading of this book: "From Darwin to Hitler:Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" by Richard Weikart

Again, your author ignores all of this, but there are numerous references in every book, speech, or private notes Hitler ever wrote affirming his belief in the Christian god and the Catholic denomination specifically. Can you show me anything Hitler ever said anywhere to indicate otherwise?

This article is also very good:http://web.csustan.edu/History/Facul...itler-evil.htm

This article makes the same mistakes that all creationist arguments make. Rather than mention evolution as it really is, it is mislabeled as "Darwinism" and presented as though it were a religious philosophy to be "believed in". Not only that, but it describes "Darwinism" as necessarily atheist, almost nihilist, and equates it to "the strongest survive". It even implies that there are different kinds of biology other than "Darwinian" biology -which this article again equates to atheism, which it then describes as uncaring, cruel, unethical, merciless struggle. All of these emotional pleas are classic creationist propaganda and not remotely correct on any point. But the article goes even further by describing 'social Darwinism' as a "form of" "Darwinism", (which to that author means 'evolutionist'). Mind you, "social Darwinism" is another concept entirely. It was coined by other authors to describe political concepts which both predate and directly contradict Darwin's actual work, and is not related to anything Darwin ever proposed or promoted. So the article you said was "quite good" is worthless and deliberately deceitful nonsense.

 

[BigDug]

Another appeal to authority. If Richard Weikart says so, it must be true, because he is an "expert of German history." Tell me, does he claim that Hitler would not have attempted to annihilate the Jews if Darwin had not written On the Origin of Species?

I wasn't making an appeal to anything, I was just being friendly and helpful in advising a great book that might help the discussion, and would definitely give a greater understanding of Hitler and Darwinism.

Richard Weikart is indeed an expert of German history, and if anybody took the time to read his well documented, well referenced work they would agree. I was in no way saying that because he is an expert then it must be true, but given the nature of your question I'm sure you didn't bother to read the excerpt I provided.

Also, your question is nonsensical on many levels, I certainly wouldn't be able to speculate what kinds of changes in history we would see if Darwin hadn't written his book. I don't know anybody who could answer such a question.

 

[BigDug]

This article makes the same mistakes that all creationist arguments make. Rather than mention evolution as it really is, it is mislabeled as "Darwinism" and presented as though it were a religious philosophy to be "believed in". Not only that, but it describes "Darwinism" as necessarily atheist, almost nihilist, and equates it to "the strongest survive". It even implies that there are different kinds of biology other than "Darwinian" biology -which this article again equates to atheism, which it then describes as uncaring, cruel, unethical, merciless struggle. All of these emotional pleas are classic creationist propaganda and not remotely correct on any point. But the article goes even further by describing 'social Darwinism' as a "form of" "Darwinism", (which to that author means 'evolutionist'). Mind you, "social Darwinism" is another concept entirely. It was coined by other authors to describe political concepts which both predate and directly contradict Darwin's actual work, and is not related to anything Darwin ever proposed or promoted. So the article you said was "quite good" is worthless and deliberately deceitful nonsense.

If you want to have such an opinion that is fine, however I can't see any actual basis to much of it, as you don't seem to mind just spouting off rhetoric without providing any sort of reasoning at all. But as I said to split_rock, I made no appeal to any authority, I stated the fact that Richard Weikart is indeed a German history authority, I also recommended a great book which is full of data which anyone can benefit from, that is, of course of you like facts such as I do. If you want to spend your time with rhetoric-filled opinion then I really can't help you, as a matter of fact, noone can.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

This thread is all over the place, but I will step in here to address Godwin's law and throw my 2 cents in about Hitler. 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.

This is a very good book, full of well researched insight and referenced data. You need to read this book if you want to have a definitive look at the relationship between Hitler, Darwin, and the Jews.

Also Hitler was not a Christian, he did believe heavily in destiny(Vorsehung), so I would not say he was not a religious man. But if you really want to be more of an authority, I would highly recommend the reading of this book: "From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany" by Richard Weikart

http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/index.html

This article is also very good:http://web.csustan.edu/History/Faculty/Weikart/hitler-evil.htm

Even assuming this was all true and the ToE is directly connected to racism and genocide, what does this prove? It would be still be the correct explanation for the diversification of life.

Particle physics might encourage pedophilia, but that does not prove particle physics wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

Also, your question is nonsensical on many levels, I certainly wouldn't be able to speculate what kinds of changes in history we would see if Darwin hadn't written his book. I don't know anybody who could answer such a question.

Yet your implication was that "Darwinism" led to the Holocaust.. correct?

 

[BigDug]

Yet your implication was that "Darwinism" led to the Holocaust.. correct?

I am not implying anything, I am outright stating the fact of a direct connection of causation between darwinism and the holocaust, there are no implications. However I didnt say it was the ONLY path to the holocaust, its an important distinction. ..Still has nothing to do with your question, I have no idea what would occur in human history if Darwin's book had been written, I have no idea what would happen in human history if one stoplight in one city didn't work, I have no idea what would happen if one person woke up one hour later than history shows that they did, so therefore I would not waste my time speculating. Your talking about a hypothetical question the depths of which would be beyond comprehension, there are just too many options.

Even assuming this was all true and the ToE is directly connected to racism and genocide, what does this prove?

Should be obvious.

It would be still be the correct explanation for the diversification of life.

No. Thats your opinion, the ToE doesn't offer a correct explanation of anything since it is a tautology and nothing more. That would be my opinion. Thats why we are here debating.

Particle physics might encourage pedophilia, but that does not prove particle physics wrong.

Your comparing apples with oranges, it is irrational to believe that particle physics would encourage pedophilia.

 

[Loudmouth]

I am not implying anything, I am outright stating the fact of a direct connection of causation between darwinism and the holocaust, there are no implications.

How did darwinism cause the holocaust?

Your comparing apples with oranges, it is irrational to believe that particle physics would encourage pedophilia.

It is equally irrational to believe that the theory of evolution encourages genocide.

 

[Aron-Ra]

If you want to have such an opinion that is fine,

Its not an opinion. I stated a sequence of facts which are all easily verifiable, and all of which your author misrepresented. We can confirm this. So my "opinion" is not a factor.

however I can't see any actual basis to much of it, as you don't seem to mind just spouting off rhetoric without providing any sort of reasoning at all.

Cite one instance where you think that happened. Because I backed everything I said, but your author did not.

But as I said to split_rock, I made no appeal to any authority, I stated the fact that Richard Weikart is indeed a German history authority,

You're contradicting yourself again. Your authority was a creationist operating under an extreme bias against anything he saw as a threat to his Bibliolatry.

I also recommended a great book which is full of data which anyone can benefit from,

No, you cited propaganda full of emotional pleas and assertions which are demonstrably false.

that is, of course of you like facts such as I do.

No, I do not like the "facts" that you do. I prefer facts which are actually factual, and defensibly correct.

If you want to spend your time with rhetoric-filled opinion then I really can't help you, as a matter of fact, noone can.

That's not what I'm doing. That's what you're doing! That's all your article was!

 

[Split Rock]

I am not implying anything, I am outright stating the fact of a direct connection of causation between darwinism and the holocaust, there are no implications.

That answers my question.

However I didnt say it was the ONLY path to the holocaust, its an important distinction.

OK. I guess there is always a small probability of arriving at a similar conclusion via a different path. However, it is unlikely.

..Still has nothing to do with your question, I have no idea what would occur in human history if Darwin's book had been written, I have no idea what would happen in human history if one stoplight in one city didn't work, I have no idea what would happen if one person woke up one hour later than history shows that they did, so therefore I would not waste my time speculating. Your talking about a hypothetical question the depths of which would be beyond comprehension, there are just too many options.

There is no speculation involved. If, as you claim, Darwin's research led directly to the Holocaust, then it is responsible for it. Speculation would involve suggesting that the Holocaust might still have occurred in the absence of its original cause.

In any case, you and the "German History Expert" are both wrong.

 

[Split Rock]

the ToE doesn't offer a correct explanation of anything since it is a tautology and nothing more.

I would love to see you prove this. Maybe a new thread would be a good idea.

 

[BigDug]

Its not an opinion. I stated a sequence of facts which are all easily verifiable, and all of which your author misrepresented. We can confirm this. So my "opinion" is not a factor.

Really!? Now I suppose your gonna help me figure out what an opinion is? I saw several points in your little expose, yet none of them were accompanied with any sort of reference to an authority other than your own perspective. Of course, perhaps you did have such backup, but for one reason or another I expected them to actually be in the summary you provided.

Cite one instance where you think that happened. Because I backed everything I said, but your author did not.

How about I just start with the first piece of uncorroborated nonsense I foundwhich happened to be the first sentence you printed)

This article makes the same mistakes that all creationist arguments make.

All creationists arguments? This word 'all' itself absolutely smacks with the kind of extreme over exaggeration which only accompanies the lowest of emotional states. All arguments about what? About Hitler? All creationists? Even the panspermia guys? Even the Muslims? I guess the biggest thing is the lack of tact in trying to catagorize 'all creationist' into some type of box which I don't believe that you can possibly know. It is a bigotry and prejudice .

You're contradicting yourself again. Your authority was a creationist operating under an extreme bias against anything he saw as a threat to his Bibliolatry.

your not listening. I make no appeal to Richard Weikart as an authority, I DO make an appeal to the facts and references he cited in his very thoughtful and largely undisputed(except by you) book about German history.

As a separate issue, I do recognize Richard Weikart as an expert of German history.

I'm afraid your going to get the two things confused again, but thats ok.

No, you cited propaganda full of emotional pleas and assertions which are demonstrably false.

This is another unreferenced claim, what emotional pleas are you talking about?

No, I do not like the "facts" that you do. I prefer facts which are actually factual, and defensibly correct.
That's not what I'm doing. That's what you're doing! That's all your article was!

No, what IM doing is responding to what now appears to be intentional misunderstandings to my original offer of a reference as a gesture of good will in the interest of intellectual development.

Given that I already had to clarify that Weikart's and my own position is that Darwinism has 'led' to the gas chambers of Auschwitz, and was not the leading factor, I can assume that I am either not being believed, or I am not being understood.

Having said all that let me at least add that there were some good points of debate in your expose, and I don't want to discount them at all, so I would appreciate your clarification on the following aspect:

Rather than mention evolution as it really is, it is mislabeled as "Darwinism" and presented as though it were a religious philosophy to be "believed in

Your making two points here and your tying them together, but let me address them as if they were one,( you may correct this if you want as I hardly can dictate to you or any other person how you must phrase things and I don't claim to know what you meant to say). So let me say simply that there is a group of people who agree with you and there is certainly a group of people who do not. The reason why I have described this point to be 'mere' opinion is because it is just that, completely subjective. I can say that evolution is merely a religious philosophy, and I can say that evolution should be termed Darwinism it is just a matter of opinion. I think that you'll find in this case however that the term Darwinism fits Weikart's book better because he systematically traces the history of ideas from scientists to scientists from Darwin to Hitler's culture of death. Evolution, as it is known today would be very much differentiated between evolution as it was in the time period which Weikart chronicles. (late 19th to early and mid twentieth century) So given that evolution now, and evolution then are very different animals, and given that historians generally use last names to describe the history of ideas(as opposed to the history of events) usually use last names. Also I think your making fundamental mistakes in your careless catagorizations of creationists. Number one, Weikart never, EVER makes any assertion whatsoever about his affinity for creation OR evolution, so it is not known if he is even a creationist to begin with, though I think that he probably is, number two you are confusing the use of the term Darwinist coined by Intelligent Design advocates with the term used by historians.

But in the final analysis, no matter if the term "Darwinism" is appropriate for the ideas present in the book and whether evolution itself is a religious belief are both matters of opinion.

I certainly believe that evolution is merely a religious belief which in fact needs more faith to believe than Christianity, but I would always preclude that belief as an opinion, as yet undetermined by science. I certainly respect my opinion, as I do the opinions of others, but I have no problem differentiating between opinion and scientific fact.

 

[BigDug]

I would love to see you prove this. Maybe a new thread would be a good idea.

Oh, you wanted me to prove that evolution is a tautology in one thread? Oh thats brilliant,...its also typical of the ridiculous ideas of some of the evolutionists on this board.

 

[BigDug]

Originally Posted by BigDug
I am not implying anything, I am outright stating the fact of a direct connection of causation between darwinism and the holocaust, there are no implications.
That answers my question.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDug
However I didnt say it was the ONLY path to the holocaust, its an important distinction.

OK. I guess there is always a small probability of arriving at a similar conclusion via a different path. However, it is unlikely.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BigDug
..Still has nothing to do with your question, I have no idea what would occur in human history if Darwin's book had been written, I have no idea what would happen in human history if one stoplight in one city didn't work, I have no idea what would happen if one person woke up one hour later than history shows that they did, so therefore I would not waste my time speculating. Your talking about a hypothetical question the depths of which would be beyond comprehension, there are just too many options.

There is no speculation involved. If, as you claim, Darwin's research led directly to the Holocaust, then it is responsible for it. Speculation would involve suggesting that the Holocaust might still have occurred in the absence of its original cause.

In any case, you and the "German History Expert" are both wrong..

I hope you didn't expect me to respond to any of this, its just ridiculous. It appears as if you haven't exerted any mental effort at all in formulating this post. I'm sorry, but I'm just not up for this today, maybe another day with you, really.