Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
- Samuel J. Holmes, Human Genetics, 1936, chapter 25."
I understand that you wish to discredit the science of evolution by linking it to the political eugenics movement. But Darwin's theory only attempted to explain what happend in the past, not to recommend future behavior.
And here is what other eugenicists said in 1921 were the origins of their movement. Note they did not include either Darwin or evolution:
Not to practice it, to justify it.
Sorry, just don’t have enough faith to believe in Darwinism. Did for a while but the holes were just too big. Especially that ape to man routine although Disney did make a nice little movie explaining it. God make more sense and far more plausible.
Pray for W, America and Our Troops
But long before the word "evolution" became current, farmers had practiced animal husbantry on their livestock, and aristocrats strove constantly to improve their own "breeding."
They didn't need Darwin to tell them how.
The process of vaccination was discovered by Edward Jenner in 1796, who acted upon his observation that milkmaids who caught the cowpox virus did not catch smallpox. He is often credited as the first doctor to introduce and study the smallpox vaccine.
Some commonly used modern vaccines have their origin in cell lines that were originally developed from an aborted fetus.
Therefore Edward Jenner is part of the culture of death. (..and just why was he “observing” the milkmaids – must of have been a pervert to boot).
ecomcon: Not to practice it, to justify it."
Nonsense. There was always some justification. The word "evolution" was just another in a long sad history.
You will often find among Creationists that they also have other equally invalid beliefs not supported by any evidence, including...
Geocentricism (and you probably thought you were being sarcastic)
HIV-AIDS denial
Islamic jihad = terrorists denial
belief in UFO’s.
Humans living contemporaneously with dinosaurs.
and others equally as amusing.
Actually, "Creationism" is no less scientific than "evolution," when you pare them down to their most basic elements.
The fact that you call "the theory of evolution" science is a good illustration of why this is so. Evolution -- regardless of whether or not it is factually correct -- suffers from the same inherent flaw as "global warming." Neither theory can really be tested in a manner that is conducive to the scientific method -- i.e., in a controlled environment, with results that can be disseminated to others and replicated by others.
With the exception of some limited cases involving simple micro-organisms that reproduce very quickly and can be observed/documented in a laboratory environment, most of what comprises "the theory of evolution" these days will always be just a theory because it simply can't be adequately tested.
I'd say you obviously have no clue what the word "science" means, as opposed to "religion" or "faith." Did you cut class that day?
“Evos= commies”
Pardon me, it is called athiestic communism. Athiestic communism slams shut the door on God.
Further, explain symbiosis. There is a little white bird whose only food is the funk in crocodile teeth. The crocs rest with their jaws open and the birds act as dental hygenists. Croc does not eat the bird. If the bird does not clean crocs teeth, croc dies of nasty infection. Croc funk is the birds sole food. What are the odds that this bird and the croc who are so dependent upon one another evolved at the same exact moment in time? There are insects that only pollinate specific plants. What are the odds of specific insects evolving at the same exact time as specific flowers? The earth is jam packed full of tight symbiotic relationships. Coincidences in zillions of evolutionary paths are bad math.
See my post #71 above. You too obviously have no clue what the word "science" means. You guys really ought to go back to school and lean something, so you're not constantly embarrassing yourselves with stupidities.
Virtually all of science is theory, based on evidence. That includes the theory of evolution.
"Creationism" is not a theory, and it's not based on ANY physical evidence. At best, it might be a hypothesis, which can never be proved scientifically.
But in truth, "creationism" is not even a scientific hypothesis. It's just an assertion based on religious or philosophical belief. It's not science.
Personally, I believe that God created the heavens, the earth and all its creatures. Science only tries to explain how He did it.
There are approximately 200 varieties of bacteria in your body, without which you could not live. Interesting stuff.
That's amazing, but not as amazing as the fact that your legs are exactly long enough to reach the ground.
You don't understand, Joe. Creationism is based upon a lack of evidence. It's the lack of evidence that proves it's true.
Sadly, I have to get on the road now, so I'll miss the rest of this discussion in which all this confusion will be resolved.
But of course we are talking about hundreds of millions of years of evolution, with small changes possible in every generation.
The long term process by which insects and flowers adapt themselves to each other, or birds to crocodiles, seems to me extraordinarily simple to visualize & explain. Those that adapted survived, those which didn't adapt died off.
All the 200 necessary varieties of bacteria in my body is further proof that there is a Master Engineer. No flukes.
My legs are long enough to reach the ground and I am symetrical. Further proof that there is a Master Artist and Artist.
Sparta.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.