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.
"Subduing the Earth?"
I have watched the defenders of Creation/ID on these threads do nothing but (Ahem!) *make misstatements* about science for about the last seven years. Design is sought by burying the evidence for the actual findings of science.
This isn't one of the Ann Coulter threads, but I'll quote a little from a web review simply because it speaks for me on this very subject.
But adding insult to injury for Coulter are the circumstances of how the paleontologists Shubin, Daeschler et al. happened upon that "odd-looking" Tiktaalik. It wasn't dumb luck, or happenstance. It was part of a field project specifically undertaken to hunt for a predicted intermediate. That is because by now there were so many benchmarks available (as we saw above in Clark's 2005 survey) that paleontologists were able to home in on specific deposits that fit the bill for likely locales to have preserved animals that were already expected on evolutionary grounds to have existed.Secondary Addiction Part II: Ann Coulter on EvolutionWhich brings us to an intriguing question. Just how come these "Darwiniacs" are so good at second-guessing the Designer and figuring out where the next "fish with feet" -- oh, pardon me, "odd-looking fish with weird appendages" -- would be found? Isn't it just a teensy bit curious that paleontologists are able to pull this prediction trick off? As we'll see in another later installment of Till Coulter's Merry Pranks (regarding the reptile-mammal transition) this isn't the only time evolutionists have anticipated the handiwork of the Designer. So if natural evolution isn't the cause for the origin of these hitherto unknown animals, why is it that evolutionists alone are able to anticipate their existence? How come the Design set aren't the ones figuring any of this out?
Then again, consider what would be at stake to test out a theory of Designer Diversity. First they would have to actually come up with one -- tackling all those data they have paid no attention to. But worse still, the testing of that would not involve toasting the death of Darwin at a Discovery Institute seminar. It would require some long circuitous plane reservations and a far-from-chic dress code. Can you just imagine Ann Coulter, teemed with Behe, Berlinski and Dembski, hightailing it off to a desolate Canadian rock outcropping, where the weather is so bad that digging can only be done there for a few summer months? Having personally experienced the joys of extracting a forklift stuck in loose gravel on a cold snowy night, I can sympathize with the pluck of field paleontologists who put their science on the line in a way no antievolutionist ever dares.
Just as you can usually tell which side in a civil war is doing the most massacring by seeing who is fleeing and who is chasing, you can tell who the real scientists are by who actually does the work. And when it comes to paleontology, there is only one set of players, and they aren't the people who complain about "Darwiniacs."
There's only one set of people doing the work. It isn't the people who wish most of the work done already had never been done.
You're really not answering my question. I don't think I have these dark or bad thoughts you speak of, but maybe you could be more specific about their nature, and I could give you a firm yes or no.
And while I can't remember a time when I wasn't aware we evolved from apes, but I can assure you my consanguinity with Bonzo seldom figures in my ethical calculus.
Not just unconvincing, but unfalsifiable. Any and every biological entity known to man could be crammed into a supposed evolutionary tree, with no way to test whether the connections have any basis in history.
How can creationism be falsified?
Remember, if it's science, it can be falsified.
You claimed the definition of "science" includes "creation" and I provided a link to 29 definitions on the web, none of which included either "creation" or "creationism" (google "define:science").
I am not redefining a word because I disagree with what it includes. You clearly are trying to do so.
By the way, creation "scientists" are not scientists because they do not follow the scientific method. They are apologists (defenders of religion).
As I have already explained, the leaders of the ID movement (Johnson, Meyer, Demski, Behe, et al.) have already defined the Designer to be a non-natural intelligent agency.Um... so... the Intelligent Designer is a natural person. Like an alien. OK. So this alien being or beings created matter (which spontaneously organizes itself into configurations that do specific functions all the time - see for example, stars). But this alien being or beings aren't supernatural.That is a mistake on their part. Intelligent design is a natural occurrence. If it were not, we would call it a miracle every time someone (i.e. an intelligent designer) writes a word or sentence.
Allllllllllrighty then.
It is the development of populations, not just one lifeform. And none of the lifeforms will have half a body.
Since it simply doesn't, you guys just conjecture what are transitionals which by there structure one could say is or is not transitional.
I still don't know what you expect a transitional to look like. If you think "transitional" means half mammal, half lizard, you are mistaken.
Very unconvincing and along with the mounting evidence for ID and creationism, not believable.
What "mounting evidence"?
It seems the biggest beef with intelligent design as science is that it "cannot be falsified" when in fact the disintegration of particle matter would falsify it altogether. How does one falsify conjectural reconstructions of history?
Evilutionists don't like TRUTH and they don't like what they REALLY are.
You are a product of evolution...
"You are a product of evolution..."
Nope!
Not me. God created me.
I didn't "evolve" like you - LOL!!!!
Don't bother with that one - he's spouting the same -er...- "erroneous impressions" he gibbered about two weeks ago, despite having in the interim been soundly corrected.
welcome to my dialoge with him, circa two weeks ago.
don't bother.
it can't be debated with.
it can't be reasoned with.
it doesn't know logic, or research, or shame.
and it absolutely will not stop
EVER
when on stage on a thread.
And you don't like to debate, you'd rather attack.
And the sun rises, and the sun sets.
While the evolutionists on the thread are correct to refute "guilt-by-association", Nazi policies in the 30's and 40's are a very logical unpacking of Darwinian doctrine consistently applied.
Only Aryan science. The Jewish sciences of relativity and quantum theory were suppressed, which had something to do with the fact that the Nazis didn't produce an A-bomb.
Evolutionists are sinners just like you and me. Evolution is simply a rock behind which to hide from the light of the Sun (truth). We are no better than them - just the utterly unworthy recipients of grace.
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.