Why Evolution is True (2)

[dad]

The other post with the link that has quotes that we share more genetic similarity with cats,

"A Human and a grain of rice may not, at first glance, look like cousins."

National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com

"Humans share 50% of our DNA with a banana."

Humans share 50% DNA with bananas: The fascinating facts about the scientific world around us - Mirror Online

Do you think you are half banana!!?



OK kids here is what science actually teaches.. 'You are the result of worms having sex, and have a common ancestor with a banana!'

.

 

[Subduction Zone]

gradyll, you need to get somebody to interpret that chart for you that has proper credentials. You keep going to a forum where some anonymous person that no one knows has made a supposed analysis for percentages. Since that is the only place I have seen such numbers I have to dispute it.

Second your article about "Do pigs share 98% of human genes" article tells you what you are doing wrong. There are several different ways of comparing similarities and unless you know that you are comparing apples to apples your figures are not reliable.

Also comparing cat similarity to man to cat similarity to chimpanzees seems very suspicious to me. The whole thing reeks of deja moo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You should talk?

I use sources that at least have links to peer reviewed articles. He does not.

And you, are in no position to speak at all.

 

[createdtoworship]

greydyll, this is the post where you failed to rebut the video.

Try again. Get some valid sources.

see my last post, I made it pink so you can see the link

 

[Subduction Zone]

"A Human and a grain of rice may not, at first glance, look like cousins."

National Geographic Magazine - NGM.com

"Humans share 50% of our DNA with a banana."

Humans share 50% DNA with bananas: The fascinating facts about the scientific world around us - Mirror Online

Do you think you are half banana!!?

Using strawman arguments is a form of lying. The article did not even imply that people are half banana. We share half of our DNA with a banana which shows that we are extremely distant relatives.

 

[createdtoworship]

I have to run right now, but Darwin's works were on the banned list in Nazi Germany, it is on this page:

When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939

Look more carefully at that banned book list. It says nothing about _Origin of Species_. Rather it bans philosophical works about monism and “primitive Darwinism,” not Darwinism per se. Definitely not the Darwinism Hitler adhered to.

 

[dad]

I use sources that at least have links to peer reviewed articles. He does not.

Baloney. Your peers are not our peers! They are disciples of ignorance.

And you, are in no position to speak at all.

I speak on the Highest Authority.

 

[dad]

Using strawman arguments is a form of lying. The article did not even imply that people are half banana. We share half of our DNA with a banana which shows that we are extremely distant relatives.

I never said the article implied we were. I asked the poster if he thought he was an put a smiley. Work on humor and comprehension. I see you admit here that you feel you are relatives with the banana!!?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Look more carefully at that banned book list. It says nothing about _Origin of Species_. Rather it bans philosophical works about monism and “primitive Darwinism,” not Darwinism per se. Definitely not the Darwinism Hitler adhered to.

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.

 

[dad]

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.

Creation believers have always existed. There was just less need in the past to address the lies of falsely called science.

 

[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.

I clearly rebutted your claim, and still here it is not yet addressed by you.

 

[createdtoworship]

When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
See #6

The US Holocaust Museum in DC also has a list of banned books that includes Darwin's. I have no idea if there is a link for that online but if you're in the DC area go look for yourself. The Jewish Museum of Berlin has an exhibition on banned books and includes Darwin's work as well. The Nazi's also banned Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Jewish Museum Berlin - Special Exhibition: Bambi and the Theory of Relativity. Books on the Nazi Pyre.

Should all books that were influential to Hitler be banned, or should we simply realize that it was Hitler who committed his atrocities and his reading materials were not culpable?
Hitler's Bedtime Reading - The Daily Beast

Look more carefully at that banned book list. It says nothing about _Origin of Species_. Rather it bans philosophical works about monism and “primitive Darwinism,” not Darwinism per se. Definitely not the Darwinism Hitler adhered to as he didn't adhere to monism.

now if you have more questions, I will provide a link from my source at Stan State History Dept. rebutting this topic even moreso.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I clearly rebutted your claim, and still here it is not yet addressed by you.

No, you didn't. At best Hitler believed in "social Darwinism" which is not based upon Darwin's theory of evolution. It is a misunderstanding of evolution. The actual works of Darwin were banned. You did not read that list well enough.

From the link that I supplied:

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

"Primitive Darwinism" would be the works of Darwin himself. You can't get more primitive than the work of the original author.

Now I do admit that "Darwinism" was not a creationist invention. I was wrong there. I was correct on the rest of my claim.

 

[dad]

"Primitive Darwinism" would be the works of Darwin himself. You can't get more primitive than the work of the original author.
...

Darwin was no more the author of evolution than some men were authors of Scripture, I suggest. They were inspired..just not by the same spirit.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Look more carefully at that banned book list. It says nothing about _Origin of Species_. Rather it bans philosophical works about monism and “primitive Darwinism,” not Darwinism per se. Definitely not the Darwinism Hitler adhered to as he didn't adhere to monism.

now if you have more questions, I will provide a link from my source at Stan State History Dept. rebutting this topic even moreso.

I just want to comment that Social Darwinism is like evolution's evil ignorant cousin. It is the product of people trying to apply evolution in ways the theory wasn't meant to be, with disastrous results.

 

[createdtoworship]

No, you didn't. At best Hitler believed in "social Darwinism" which is not based upon Darwin's theory of evolution. It is a misunderstanding of evolution. The actual works of Darwin were banned. You did not read that list well enough.

From the link that I supplied:

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

"Primitive Darwinism" would be the works of Darwin himself. You can't get more primitive than the work of the original author.

Now I do admit that "Darwinism" was not a creationist invention. I was wrong there. I was correct on the rest of my claim.

well I contacted stan state history department and they agreed with me.

they provided this link:

(granted this is a person IN the department, not the Deparment itself)

http://www.csustan.edu/sites/defaul.../Weikart/Darwinism-in-Nazi-Racial-Thought.pdf

quote from above link:
"A much stronger piece of evidence that Richards and others have brought forward
to contest the view that Nazis were Darwinists is a list of categories of forbidden books
published in the periodical Die Bücherei in 1935.67 This list, compiled for libraries
in Saxony, included several categories of works that should be banned, including:
“Works of worldview or biological character whose content is the superficial scientific
enlightenment of a primitive Darwinism and monism (Haeckel and those emulating
him, as well as Ostwald).”68 Richards insists that this evidence seals his case that the
Nazis rejected Darwinism.69 But does it? First of all, most historians recognize that the
Nazi system was polycratic and Nazis often disagreed among themselves. Thus a Saxon
official issuing a banned book list is important, but not decisive, evidence; it must be
weighed in light of other evidence. Secondly, this statement does not ban Darwinism
per se, but “primitive Darwinism and monism.” Many Nazis rejected Haeckel’s
and Ostwald’s monism, not because it contained evolutionary theory, but because
Haeckel’s Monist League, especially in the 1920s and early 1930s, had tilted toward
socialism, pacifism, feminism, and other doctrines contrary to the Nazi worldview.70"

perhaps this would be of help to you.

There is another book being written as we speak the manuscript is complete, by the same author above, regarding Hitlers anti Christianity. It's called "the religion of hitler" He didn't give me any quotes from it, but I did fairly well simply quoting the Bible regarding Hitlers evils and how He most likely left his faith as a Roman Catholic, and "Christianity" when He fell away. There are many antagonistic quotes of Hitler regarding Christianity in the Book, soon to be released.

so you would be wrong there again.
Thanks for the Comment

 

[Subduction Zone]

well I contacted stan state history department and they agreed with me.

they provided this link:

(granted this is a person IN the department, not the Deparment itself)

http://www.csustan.edu/sites/defaul.../Weikart/Darwinism-in-Nazi-Racial-Thought.pdf

quote from above link:
"A much stronger piece of evidence that Richards and others have brought forward
to contest the view that Nazis were Darwinists is a list of categories of forbidden books
published in the periodical Die Bücherei in 1935.67 This list, compiled for libraries
in Saxony, included several categories of works that should be banned, including:
“Works of worldview or biological character whose content is the superficial scientific
enlightenment of a primitive Darwinism and monism (Haeckel and those emulating
him, as well as Ostwald).”68 Richards insists that this evidence seals his case that the
Nazis rejected Darwinism.69 But does it? First of all, most historians recognize that the
Nazi system was polycratic and Nazis often disagreed among themselves. Thus a Saxon
official issuing a banned book list is important, but not decisive, evidence; it must be
weighed in light of other evidence. Secondly, this statement does not ban Darwinism
per se, but “primitive Darwinism and monism.” Many Nazis rejected Haeckel’s
and Ostwald’s monism, not because it contained evolutionary theory, but because
Haeckel’s Monist League, especially in the 1920s and early 1930s, had tilted toward
socialism, pacifism, feminism, and other doctrines contrary to the Nazi worldview.70"

perhaps this would be of help to you.

There is another book being written as we speak the manuscript is complete, by the same author above, regarding Hitlers anti Christianity. It's called "the religion of hitler" He didn't give me any quotes from it, but I did fairly well simply quoting the Bible regarding Hitlers evils and how He most likely left his faith as a Roman Catholic, and "Christianity" when He fell away. There are many antagonistic quotes of Hitler regarding Christianity in the Book, soon to be released.

so you would be wrong there again.
Thanks for the Comment

Sorry, that was too weak. One crackpot professor from a small school is hardly an expert. And Hitler never disavowed his Christian beliefs. Why do you think he was so anti-Jewish? He was merely emulating an early protestant, you may have heard of him. His name was Martin Luther.

You have no evidence that Hitler supported evolution. Social Darwinism is not evolution, it is only evolution according to the ignorant, creationists for example. And the works of Darwin were banned. Until you have something stronger than the weak tea that you have been serving you really did not have much of a claim to be debunked, and I debunked it.

Try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Darwin was no more the author of evolution than some men were authors of Scripture, I suggest. They were inspired..just not by the same spirit.

Pay attention dad, no one claimed that. Darwin was the originator of the theory of evolution. Evolution was accepted by quite a few before Darwin published his theory. He merely explained it well enough so that it became globally accepted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And one more article:

Hitler and evolution - RationalWiki

Basically there is no evidence of Hitler accepting the theory of evolution. He had his own twisted ideas on breeding. They were not based on evolutionary beliefs.

 

[createdtoworship]

And one more article:

Hitler and evolution - RationalWiki

Basically there is no evidence of Hitler accepting the theory of evolution. He had his own twisted ideas on breeding. They were not based on evolutionary beliefs.

if you read the links I address and address the facts present, then we can have an honest discussion. I will send this link to the History Dept. But for the most part He will simply send that link again, you know. The one you didnt' read:

http://www.csustan.edu/sites/defaul.../Weikart/Darwinism-in-Nazi-Racial-Thought.pdf

it addressed your point about the list

I addressed the point about Hitlers Christianity (false)

and now another link, that basically states the same 2-3 issues we already refuted.

geesh