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.
This appears to be an attempt to rewrite the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as the Protocols of the Elders of Darwin. I see no good intent in either one.
"Speciation has been directly observed, but within limits. In no way has science directly observed a speciation that extends over a billion year history from simple to more complex biological entities. An amoeba-to-man history can only be the product of speculation and extrapolation. This is not a fallacious argument as you assert."
Sure we have: the fossil record. You realize if we observed this type of "hyper"-evolution, evolutionary theory would be falsified, right?
Of course, the fossil record isn't the only thing: comparative genomics, molecular phylogenies, and morphological/embryological phylogenies all provide overwhelmingly strong support for common descent.
Wait'll next year! No, wait! We'll probably have to be content with indirect evidence for this one within our own lifetimes.
Doesn't prove it didn't happen, though. Just means we don't live very long as individuals compared to the big scheme of things. We can be receptive to the evidence of things beyond our own brief moment or we can stay stupid.
Real science is about prying open the secrets of the universe by whatever means necessary. Creation/ID is about staying stupid.
You have a distorted idea of what constitutes a transitional. It is an organism with features of both earlier and later organisms.
In fossil man, the transitionals are all completed life forms; that is what is expected. But they have features of both earlier and later fossils.
By a strict definition, all organisms are transitional.
(If you want to fight against the theory of evolution, ignore the creationist websites and study science.)
The modern interpretation of the First Amendment (according to the liberaltarians) says government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, government must never consider issues of morality and right and wrong...
LOL! Completely illogical.
Legal rights have nothing to do with morality. We aren't discussing the rights of government.
yes, I am serious and so are many very reputable scientists. I think you are a bit confused but don't realize it. And your numbers of scientists who believe toe are very dubious; you simply don't know that. It makes your side sound more reputable though. Here's a list of of doctorate scientists who are creationists. There are so many others that aren't on any list. I think if you were able to poll all of the worlds scientists the numbers would be startling as to the numbers who don't believe toe. The facts simply don't support it. It sounds to me like you have a negative outlook towards a possible God and that's driving your intellect. I'm not saying that I am at peace with Him...I am not but the evidence does point to Him.http://www.icr.org/research/index/research_biosci/
Where did I make a personal attack?
Show it, or admit your slander.
No. Creation/ID, like science, is about seeking order, function, purpose, design, and all that attends to subduing the earth.
I knew it would get a response. And I knew it would be empty.
Yeah, writing your opponent's questions off as "wishful assertions" instead of actually debating them is really valid there...
And you will post the same refuted stuff the next time, and wave off the "wishful assertions."
It is patently obvious as well that all wheels have a common ancestor, but no intelligent designer. /s
How are the numbers dubious? Gallup is a respected organization known for their accurate surveys.
"Here's a list of of doctorate scientists who are creationists."
A title doesn't change the arguments they've made. Considering how many scientists *are* Ph.Ds, I don't think that a doctorate is as impressive in academia.
"The facts simply don't support it. It sounds to me like you have a negative outlook towards a possible God and that's driving your intellect."
The facts do support it:
- Identical ERV insertions in multiple identical sites in humans and chimps
- Confirmed prediction of chromosomal fusion in #2 chromosome of humans
- Confirmed prediction of oxygen isotope type in Rodhocetus and cetacean fossils matching with istope types in living dolphin and whale descendants
- Confirmed observances of speciation throughout the world
- 98% identical match in genome in chimps and humans...
And the list goes on. What creationists do however to "refute" that is the same tactic conspiracy theorists use - dazzle and distrsct you with reams of text.
"a negative outlook towards a possible God and that's driving your intellect."
You know what's funny? I think denying that God worked through evolution is worse than saying that he didn't. You know why? Otherwise, you construe him to be unintelligent for making 98.5% of our entire 3.2 billion nucleotide base genome consist of noncoding DNA, pseudogenes, and ERVs.
I'd rather think that God is creative; not your typical everyday god who poofs things into existence.
LOL! I accept ToE and follow a very strict moral code. Try again.
Means nothing.
Religion, be it creationism or Islam, can override other considerations. In this case, religious belief overrides scientific training and methods; creation science ceases to be science because it ignores the scientific method.
Science follows the data wherever they lead; creation science distorts the data to reach a preconceived answer (and to confirm revelation, scripture, etc.).
Example: the global flood. That idea was abandoned by geologists decades before Darwin (and they were all creationists at that time). But you still see creationist websites going to all manner of distortions of science in futile efforts to bend the data enough to support a global flood.
But, wheels aren't a) living b) they don't mutate, nor are subject to duplication, recombination, nor gene flow and c) are not subject to natural selection. The argument is a non-sequitur.
Did you expect transitionals to be some weird half-forms?
You have a limited understanding of evolution which is nonsensical considering how many times you show up on these threads. You should have learned something by now.
Does that make wheels more complex, or less complex, than a biological entity?
Complexity is a subjective issue. You'd have to define a precise, objective description of it to make such qualitative considerations.
yes, although the definition of science doesn't say creationism in it, it is obviously part of the scientific field. Please read the defintion more open minded. You guys cannot redefine a word because you disagree with what it includes. Come on now...And the many creation scientists that are very much in this debate certainly are very real.
They don't like it when you rub their noses in it. They're going to call you bad things!
of course the fossil record would show the slow developement of one life form into another over the millions of years that toe calls for. Since it simply doesn't, you guys just conjecture what are transitionals which by there structure one could say is or is not transitional. Very unconvincing and along with the mounting evidence for ID and creationism, not believable. If it were convincing, no reputable scientist would see it as false. And so many do...not just peons like me.
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.