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.
Myself, I see the creeping cultural Marxism as a bigger threat than the Islamofascists...
Get the evolutionists off of educational welfare, it is another damn socialist program...
If you were paying attention you might have noticed that many of us on the "evolution" side of these threads are defending science from religious-based attacks and distortions.
That is a lot different than "bashing the religious folks."
What we are reacting to are statements like the following which are scientifically inaccurate or incorrect (these are only a few of many examples):
See the difference?
You didn't bother to look at who posted the thread to begin with, hence your inability to control it yourself is what bothers you... (You are like the RINOs who think gun owners are out of control.)
There is no politically correct Gestapo on FreeRepublic, now matter how much you hope for it... (hey, this is a "conservative" forum, in case you didn't see the mission statement).
This is the sort of thing I was talking about.
What does that have to do with my post (#342)?
So Hitler had never heard of Luther nor read him?
Funny thing, Race, but I've been perusing the works of Hans F.K. Günther and so far, even looking in the likliest places, I can't find even one mention of either Darwin or evolution. (I found only one very passing reference to the evolution of language, but that concerning recent European languages.) But then a relative disinterest in evolution would be and was typical of Nordic Theory, and of Nazi biology generally.
GO BACK AND READ YOUR OWN POST FOR THE ANSWER...
The whole premise is a fallacy.
You cannot build upon a fallacy.
Not entirely accurate.
Are you an evo or an anti-evo?
Hardly. Reassertions of an unsubstantiated nature do not make for a refutation. As you and your cheerleaders are so fond of saying, "Saying it is so does not make it so." In no way has intelligent design been scientifically shown to be supernatural. Nor has the connection between intelligent design and intelligibility been scientifically challenged in the slightest.
Furthermore, the very existence of chemicals that behave according to laws is ample evidence of intelligent design. For reasons only a brainwashed philosopher would understand, you and your cheerleaders continually mistake the results of intelligent design for intelligent intervention at every point. Who's being childish here? I thought you knew better. Even a child knows a shovel doesn't have brains but is organized to perform a specific function and hence might be a product of intelligent design.
It's not that you do not have patience, but that you do not have substance to your arguments. Hence the liberal spouting forth of ad hominem on your part.
GO BACK AND READ YOUR OWN POST FOR THE ANSWER...
I have reread the post (#342). It was in response to a statement you made:
They are the ones here bashing the religious folks...My response was that we are not bashing religious folks, but bad science:
If you were paying attention you might have noticed that many of us on the "evolution" side of these threads are defending science from religious-based attacks and distortions.That is a lot different than "bashing the religious folks."
What we are reacting to are statements like the following which are scientifically inaccurate or incorrect (these are only a few of many examples):
See the difference?
- Evolution is only a theory
- Evolution has not been proved
- Were you there?
- Evolution is a religion
- Macroevolution has never been observed
- Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy
- All hominid fossils are fully human or fully ape
- Transitional fossils are lacking
- Carbon dating gives inaccurate results (one of my personal favorites)
- There is not enough moon dust for an old universe
Unless you are suggesting that religious folks should have free rein to utter any inaccurate and unsupported version of science they want just because they are religious, I do not see your point.
Who is "we," are you the self-appointed spokesman for all arm chair scientists?
Genesis is not the basis for all human morality or even the idea of anti-homosexuality.
What does that have to do with the substance of my original post (#342)?
I'm not attacking the Bible, in fact, I don't care who believes it. Just leave science alone.
If one is going to arrive at conclusion that particle matter and its attributes are not a product of intelligent design, then he will have to explain why so much particle matter happens to retain its consistencies and perform purposefully. Of course there have been, and will be, incorrect assumptions and conclusions along the way. This in no way negates or militates against intelligent design, nor does it make intelligent sdesign a mystical, superstitious, religious, or unscientific notion.
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.