Why Evolution is True (2)

[createdtoworship]

The works of Darwin were clearly banned. "Darwinism" is a dishonest creationist word. Since the creationists did not really come out of the woodwork until the 1970's they did not exist during Hitler's time.

they were clearly NOT banned: of all the works of darwin, none were cited below:

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm

Origin of the species, is not on the list, what is is primitive darwinism (monism)

from your link number 6# on the list of banned books

"6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H�ckel)."

 

[Loudmouth]

once again you refuse to address the university information I present.

Where in that "university information" does it discuss the part of the theory of evolution that says we should kill Jews?

Also social newtonism doesn't exist, so your analogy is blatantly false.

They both shouldn't exist, and for the same reasons. The theory of evolution supports Social Darwinism as much as the theory of gravity supports throwing Jews off of tall buildings. IOW, it doesn't support it at all.

It appears that you are the father of deception, continually deceiving posters. Why is that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Origin of the species, is not on the list, what is is primitive darwinism (monism)

from your link number 6# on the list of banned books

"6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H�ckel)."

Where in the book "Origin of Species" does it say that we should kill Jews?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am going to be stealing that phrase in the future. Not exactly stealing, here is something in exchange. A phrase that I ran into that describes the posts of certain members here. For example when dad waxes about his different state past it is Deja Moo all over again. In other words you have seen that bovine end product before.

You could use Social Kochism, the scientific principle that we should infect minorities with Anthrax.

Or Social Heisenbergism, the "scientific" theory that we should drop fission bombs on Asians.

 

[Subduction Zone]

they were clearly NOT banned: of all the works of darwin, none were cited below:

http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm]When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939

Origin of the species, is not on the list, what is is primitive darwinism (monism)

from your link number 6# on the list of banned books

"6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (H�ckel)."

Your link does not work. But my link says that his work is on the list. You can't get any more "primitive" in Darwinism than the original book where the theory of evolution was first laid out.

Why can't you understand that simple fact? Is it because it goes against your prejudices?

 

[justlookinla]

Your link does not work. But my link says that his work is on the list. You can't get any more "primitive" in Darwinism than the original book where the theory of evolution was first laid out.

That little work of fiction hasn't been used for quite a while now. That's why there's neo-darwinism and neo-neo-darwinism....or whatever the latest guesses and suppositions are by the religion of Scienceism.

 

[Loudmouth]

That little work of fiction hasn't been used for quite a while now. That's why there's neo-darwinism and neo-neo-darwinism....or whatever the latest guesses and suppositions are by the religion of Scienceism.

What is fiction? Show us the fiction. Or are you such a small person that you cast allegations without anything to back them up?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That little work of fiction hasn't been used for quite a while now. That's why there's neo-darwinism and neo-neo-darwinism....or whatever the latest guesses and suppositions are by the religion of Scienceism.

No, Darwin's theory is still used. His work has been improved upon, but he was correct on the basics.

Your complaint is like that of a beginning physics student that has just discovered Einstein's application of relativity to gravity. You might argue that since Newton was wrong no one uses his Law of Gravity any longer, and of course you would be wrong. The trip to the Moon and back was done using Newtonian physics. Relativity was not needed or used at all.

 

[justlookinla]

What is fiction? Show us the fiction. Or are you such a small person that you cast allegations without anything to back them up?

If it wasn't fiction, it wouldn't be discarded in favor of neo and neo-neo and neo-neo-neo Darwinism.

For example, why don't you use the book as proof for the guesses and suppositions of Darwinian evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

If it wasn't fiction, it wouldn't be discarded in favor of neo and neo-neo and neo-neo-neo Darwinism.

For example, why don't you use the book as proof for the guesses and suppositions of Darwinian evolution?

Show us the fiction. Show us, or admit that you were lying.

 

[justlookinla]

Show us the fiction. Show us, or admit that you were lying.

I've given the reason it's fiction. It's an old, discarded 'holy' book of the atheistic creationists who now use more enlightened, temporarily true, writ in their embracing Godless evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've given the reason it's fiction. It's an old, discarded 'holy' book of the atheistic creationists who now use more enlightened, temporarily true, writ in their embracing Godless evolution.

Those aren't reasons. Those are lies.

Try again.

 

[justlookinla]

Those aren't reasons. Those are lies.

Try again.

They're facts. Show me one school which uses Darwin's book to teach evolution in their classroom. They don't. They use the latest 'truths' of evolution presented in the latest publications.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've given the reason it's fiction. It's an old, discarded 'holy' book of the atheistic creationists who now use more enlightened, temporarily true, writ in their embracing Godless evolution.

Again that is not true. You have been corrected many times on this.

Why does everyone have to remind you that Christians are supposed to be honest?

 

[Loudmouth]

They're facts.

Then present facts, not opinions and lies.

Show me one school which uses Darwin's book to teach evolution in their classroom. They don't. They use the latest 'truths' of evolution presented in the latest publications.

My school did, at the university level. I read "Origin of Species" as a freshman as part of my Zoology course. It is still a great example of explaining the emergence of different taxonomic groups in the fossil record, biogeography, and the nested hierarchy, all of which were important themes in my Zoology course.

Also, theories don't have "truths". Yet another dishonest tactic that you attempt to use.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They're facts. Show me one school which uses Darwin's book to teach evolution in their classroom. They don't. They use the latest 'truths' of evolution presented in the latest publications.

Of course the theory has been improved upon since it was first published. That shows it is not a holy book. His basic ideas are still used science classes, especially in the classes you will see in public schools. The fine tweaking of the theory is usually not covered until college level biology.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course the theory has been improved upon since it was first published. That shows it is not a holy book. His basic ideas are still used science classes, especially in the classes you will see in public schools. The fine tweaking of the theory is usually not covered until college level biology.

When someone is accused of writing "fiction" in this context, they are being accused of inventing facts. That is much different than proposing hypotheses that were later shown to be wrong, or not completely accurate.

 

[dad]

Certainly not any theories from so called science. You heard it here folks! By the way, I assume you believe you share an ancestor with the potato too?

 

[dad]

What is fiction? Show us the fiction.

What is NOT fiction in Darwin's old nonsense?

 

[Loudmouth]

Certainly not any theories from so called science. You heard it here folks! By the way, I assume you believe you share an ancestor with the potato too?

What part of "universal common ancestor" is so difficult for people to grasp?

All life shares a common ancestor. Besides, potatos are eukaryotes. Humans are eukaryotes. Our common ancestor was a eukaryote. That is just eukaryotes evolving from eukaryotes, all within the eukaryote kind. That is microevolution, isn't it?