Posted on 08/19/2006 6:39:43 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Show links Darwin, Hitler ideologies Holocaust was fallout of evolution theory, says new production
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: August 19, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Charles Darwin should share with Hitler the blame for the 11 million or more lives lost in the Holocaust, a new television special explains. And, the program says, the more than 45 million American lives lost to abortion also can be blamed on that famous founder of evolutionary theory.
The results of Darwin’s theories
"This show basically is about the social effects of Darwinism, and shows this idea, which is scientifically bankrupt, has probably been responsible for more bloodshed than anything else in the history of humanity," Jerry Newcomb, one of two co-producers, told WorldNetDaily.
No duh! Why does an atheist believe in the existence of Noah? Why does an atheist believe the story of Job?
But I am glad you did mention the Christians... you are obsessed with hating them... they are just your politically correct proxy for hating their progenitors, the Jews...
Nice projection, there, troll.
I neither excused nor minimized anything. Luther's antisemitism is as sickening as it is puzzling. It has baffled his biographers for centuries. But, it was nonetheless quite real.
That you got any other impression from my post must have been an oversight on your part or an incompletely written post on my part.
Because he's useful?
Lighten up, Francis.
You're right. My bad.
My excuse: I just woke up from an afternoon nap. :0)
You were crushed in 263. Dante has a lot more patience for childish antics than I do.
Again... Luther's pamphlet on the Jews was published in 1543, only three years before Luther died. And, yes. Luther was always well disposed to Jews who CONVERTED to Christianity. As you note Luther's was a purely RELIGIOUS antisemtism, whereas the Nazis' was a RACIAL, and largely secular, antisemitism. (Nazis classified, and murdered, converts just like any other Jew.)
You needn't have pointed this out to me if you'd read my most recent reply to Race Bannon upthread, where I made exactly the same point, if in a different context.
ping
Ah, the contingency argument (which breaks down when it gets to quantum physics of course) but, no, it doesn't work like that. There is no evidence to suggest that gravitation is under the influence of non-natural intelligency agencies which are necessarily unfalsifiable. This is the problem that Greek scientists made; it's not enough to have logic, you have to out and actually look.
Ichneumon has beautifully dealt with it already:
" For a shorter approach, let's look at your claim that: "everything is contingent upon something else" (known in philosophy as the "PSR", or "principle of sufficient reason"). Question: How did you manage to examine "everything" in order to determine the truth of your assertion? Oh, right, you didn't.
This reminds me of a translation I read of an essay by an ancient philosopher, I think it may have been Aristotle. He was wrestling with the question of whether matter was infinitely divisible, or whether there was a miminum unit beyond which matter could not be divided without losing its properties (i.e, atoms).
As he saw it, he ran into a logical problem either way. If matter was infinitely divisible, then upon what did the physical properties of a material (i.e. color, density, hardness, etc.) rest? One would never be able to "peel open" a particle of a material to find what made it tick, you'd just find more of the material no matter how deep you looked, with nothing to provide its properties.
Conversely, if you reached a point where you found a minimal unit of the material (e.g. an atom), how did *its* internal workings produce the familiar physical properties of the material which it formed? Lacking any modern understanding of elementary particles, electromagnetic forces, quantum effects, etc., he finally arrived at a plausible explanation, which sounds good, reasonable -- and wrong.
He suggested that when an object gets hot, for example, it hurts to touch it because the heat makes the atoms pointy and likely to prick your fingers. Wrong.
He suggested that if the material was green in color, it was because the atom contained an elemental "greenness" within itself. Wrong again.
And so on. What led him astray was the presumption (plausible but wrong) that things at the atomic (and sub-atomic) level had to work in ways similar to our experience at human-sized levels. Wrong. Instead, for the most part they work by very different "rules" entirely, and the human-level properties we're familiar with (e.g. color, texture, hardness, etc.) are made up of *emergent properties* formed by configurations or interactions at levels *above* the atomic level, and do not exist at all (or in the same form) at the atomic level itself. If you look "deep" enough, most of the rules change entirely.
...and similarly for extremes of temperature (weird things happen near absolute zero, and also at temperatures high enough to cause breakdowns in the laws of physics), velocity (e.g. Relativity), etc. etc.
And why, exactly, should it be any different for causality itself? Causality is pretty standard behavior at human-level scales, but is hardly guaranteed to hold true at various extreme conditions of size, time, or energy, etc. In fact, many quantum experiments already look pretty bizarre from a standpoint of classical causality. We may already be exploring the fringes of where causality as we know it no longer applies.
So getting back to your point -- just what basis do you have for your belief that causality holds universally, for all things, under all conditions? For all we know, just as time itself was created by the Big Bang, causality itself may have been -- the trigger of the Big Bang may have occurred outside of our familiar causality, or by another form of it entirely."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003273/posts?page=297#297
WAY more patience.
Answer here!
Why have the Jews been plagued by adversity and oppression? (David was not the first king of Israel, Jeroboam was the first.)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
And why did those who believe in Genesis create the Divine Right of Kings?
The old pagan ways were revived...
Marxism is the next evolution beyond monarchy and feudalism.
THE EVOLUTIONISTS ARE ON EDUCATIONAL WELFARE!
[The Marxist will lie, saying society evolved from feudalism to capitalism and then to socialism. It is their Stalinistic cover-up that hides any association with the National Socialists and even with the Soviet Socialists.]
Anyone who knows about Luther knows he often used the most vile, explosive and even obscene language in his writings. His language was often foul and designed to provoke a fervent response.
Let's not forget that Luther also urged the massacre of rebelling peasants, after first egging them on.
Luther was a man of his time, and his time was violent and intolerant. Still, we are men of our time, and we name churches after him. Odd that we do so after such a thoroughly nasty man.
Because he's useful?
That's about the only possible explanation I can come up with. But I doubt Coulter would want to have her picture taken with him and let the world know she did.
Saul, actually. The rest of your idiocy isn't worth my time.
Absolutely. One of the most odd chapters in his life. His explosive screed against the rebels, urging execution, etc, was a good example of his obscene, vitriolic prose. To be fair, although he had initially urged the peasants on, he never advised violence and was appaled at the savagery of their rebellion, urging an equally savage response by the nobility.
You think there is some politically correct Gestapo here on FreeRepublic??? You have been trolling in the fecal swamp of D.U. too much...
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.