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.
If science were able to define supernatural, or if intelligent design fit the generally accepted definition, then you might have a point. As it stands, the words "natural" and "supernatural" are philosophical, and intelligent design has been observed on a wide scale, i.e. it is not supernatural or unobservable in the least.
The historic devolpment of the genome has only been observed on a limited scale. A similar structure does not necessairly mean one entity is historically derived from another. That's what I mean by circumstantial evidence.
Is the periodic table of elements circumstantial (or supernatural for that amtter)? Is their consistent expression of order and purpose? These things point toward intelligent design, which theory comprehends far more than a two-hundred-year attempt to concoct renditions of history that may or may not be in accord with objective reality.
How she get on plane with the LIQUID???
I thought these were BANNED??!
(So much MORE reason to have fully bodily cavity searches now!)
OOps!
We'd better inform THESE guys QUICK!!!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550799/posts
amen!
Refute what?
The great biologist and theologian Ann Coulter is supposed to be on this show, or so I read somewhere yesterday.
Will they use Google® or a concordance?
"By further reflecting that the clearest evidence would be requisite to make any sane man believe in the miracles by which Christianity is supported,—and that the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become,—that the men at that time were ignorant and credulous to a degree almost incomprehensible by us,—that the Gospels cannot be proven to have been written simultaneously with the events,—that they differ in many important details, far too important, as it seemed to me to be admitted as the usual inaccuracies of eye witnesses;—by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least novelty or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation. The fact that many fake religions have spread over large portions of the earth like wildfire had some weight with me. But I was very unwilling to give up my belief; I feel sure of this, for I can remember often and often inventing day-dreams of old letters between distinguished Romans, and manuscripts being discovered at Pompeii or elsewhere, which confirmed in the most striking manner all that was written in the Gospels. But I found it more and more difficult, with free scope given to my imagination, to invent evidence which would suffice to convince me. Thus disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct."
( Charles Darwin in his Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Dover Publications, 1992, p. 62. )
Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
"I think that generally (& more & more as I grow older), but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind."
( Quoted from Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin: The Life of a Tormented Evolutionist, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991, p. 636. )
But we TOLD you there was NO link before!!!
You are being STUPID!!!!
--EvoDude (not EVER a Nazi!)
That is a falsehood. The decay rates of radionuclides are measured, not calculated. There is no reference to any assumed time scale.
And then the Rev. Billy Bob healed the cat and it flew away.
HOOAH! YEC SPOTREP
there are three linkjs posted here.
ONE, the link to the original article that started this
and 2 separate links of this same subject about 1 year apart
Go back to post 1 and start over, then actually comment on what was posted.
Or, just leave. The attacks are juvenile
"If science were able to define supernatural, or if intelligent design fit the generally accepted definition, then you might have a point. As it stands, the words 'natural' and 'supernatural' are philosophical, and intelligent design has been observed on a wide scale, i.e. it is not supernatural or unobservable in the least."
And... ID expressly holds itself to be a non-natural phenomena. No amount of waffling changes that. And no, CSI has not been seen and has been shown to be mathematically and biologically unsound.
"The historic devolpment of the genome has only been observed on a limited scale. A similar structure does not necessairly mean one entity is historically derived from another. That's what I mean by circumstantial evidence."
The common design argument? I already dealt with this:
Explain:
A) Identical ERV insertions at identical sites in humans and chimps
B) That 98.5% of our genome consists of pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses
If you label that "common design," you're essentially saying that the Designer is an idiot.
"Is the periodic table of elements circumstantial (or supernatural for that amtter)? Is their consistent expression of order and purpose? These things point toward intelligent design, which theory comprehends far more than a two-hundred-year attempt to concoct renditions of history that may or may not be in accord with objective reality."
Non-sequitur. None of that even logically follows. I think you're leaving ID and entering arguments for God.
Who's there to inform? Chimps and Humans share common ancestors that speciated circa 5 MYA.
So, he left Christianity. What does that have to do with the so-called influence of Darwinian evolution upon Hitler's fascist regime? The premise is not only logically errant, but it's also wrong.
Why would that be when intelligent design can be directly observed in many cases? You still have not answered either how science can define the difference between natural and supernatural, and why intelligent design must be supernatural. Do you consider all human implements to be supernatural since they are intelligently designed? Of course not. So why is some other arrangement of matter performing specific functions considered "supernatural?" Is it just because the designer is not directly manifest and present to testify of involvement in the design process?
. . . you're essentially saying that the Designer is an idiot.
Let's see you design and build a living, self-replicating object, and then we can discuss who the real idiot is. Oh, and be sure to avoid using intelligence or design in the process.
I already addressed this and you keep repeating yourself - CSI has not been seen and has been shown to be both mathematically and biologically unsound.
Let's see you design and build a living, self-replicating object, and then we can discuss who the real idiot is. Oh, and be sure to avoid using intelligence or design in the process.
Amazingly, enough, we already have. Evolutionary algorithms? Of course, you skipped my point on ERVs and noncoding DNA, and pseudogenes. This indicates an unintelligent Designer, not an intelligent one.
That is because you keep asserting that complex, specified information (CSI) has not been "seen." An absurd proposition on the face of it, considering you know how to read. Or is that supernatural, too?
"Festival of the Fossilized Cat" placemarker
In Dembski's book, he uses an f(x) = x function to show how it cannot gain information. But, that isn't a model of evolution because that isn't how evolution works. Evolution increases variation through mutations, recombination, duplication, gene flow, genetic drift, and gene shuffling and then converges via selection. As this is the basis of his book, the entire point collapses.
Erik Tellgren meticulously deconstructed Dembski's law here along with Tom Schneider.
Anyway, complex biochemical pathways have evolved - without intelligent intervention. (B.G. Hall (1982). "Evolution of a regulated operon in the laboratory", Genetics (journal), 101(3-4):335-44.)
You can read more here.
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.