Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwinism the root of the culture of death: expert
LifeSiteNews ^ | 2/17/12 | Kathleen Gilbert

Posted on 02/17/2012 4:17:50 PM PST by wagglebee

WASHINGTON, February 17, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) - What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “father of the sexual revolution” Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?

All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldn’t be ignored.

Hugh Owen of the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation told an audience on Capitol Hill before the March for Life last month that the philosophical consequences of Darwinism has “totally destroyed many parts of our society.”

Owen pointed to Dr. Josef Mengele, who infamously experimented on Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler himself, and other Nazi leaders as devotees of Darwinism who saw Nazism and the extermination of peoples as nothing more than a way “to advance evolution.” Darwinism was also the “foundation” of Communist ideology in Russia through Vladimir Lenin, said Owen, who showed a photograph of the only decorative item found on Lenin’s desk: an ape sitting on a pile of books, including Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” and looking at a skull.

“Lenin sat at this desk and looked at this sculpture as he authorized the murder of millions of his fellow countrymen, because they stood in the way of evolutionary progress,” Owen said. He also said accounts from communist China report that the first lesson used by the new regime to indoctrinate religious Chinese citizens was “always the same: Darwin.”

In America, the fruit of Darwinism simply took the form of eugenics, the belief that the human race could be improved by controlling the breeding of a population.

Owen said that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a prominent eugenicist, promoted contraception on the principles of evolution. “She saw contraception as the sacrament of evolution, because with contraception we get rid of the less fit and we allow only the fit to breed,” he said. Sanger is well-known to have supported the spread of “birth control,” a term she coined, as “the process of weeding out the unfit.”

Alfred Kinsey, whose “experiments” in pedophilia, sadomasochism, and homosexuality opened wide the doors to sexual anarchy in the 20th century, also concluded from Darwinist principles that sexual deviations in humans were no more inappropriate than those found in the animal kingdom. Before beginning his sexual experiments, Kinsey, also a eugenicist, was a zoologist and author of a prominent biology textboook that promoted evolution.

Owen, a Roman Catholic, strongly rejected the notion that Christianity and the Biblical creation account could be reconciled with Darwinism. He recounted the story of his own father, who he said was brought up a devout Christian before losing his faith when exposed to Darwinism in college. He was to become the first ever Secretary General of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

“The trajectory that led from Leeds and Manchester University to becoming Secretary General of one of the most evil organizations that’s ever existed on the face of the earth started with evolution,” said Owen.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: abortion; communism; cultureofdeath; darwinism; deatheaters; eugenics; fascism; gagdadbob; lifehate; moralabsolutes; onecosmosblog; prolife
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-669 next last
To: trisham

I am sure that making such an argument was the furthest thing from your mind!

Assuredly!

;)


101 posted on 02/20/2012 3:51:17 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; Lesforlife; EternalVigilance; ...
Is “Darwinism” eugenics any different than “Lamarkianism” eugenics?

Yes, the Darwins were eugenicists, Lamarck wasn't.

Eugenics existed as a pattern of thought long before Darwin formulated his theory - many people assumed that humans could be selectively bred for desired traits and that undesirable traits should be eliminated.

Perhaps, but they didn't conspire to prevent the "undesirables" from reproducing.

Darwin's theory gave a veneer of scientific respectability to the field that was undeserved - but they glommed onto anyone with the NAME of Darwin to try to prop up this association.

The Eugenics Society was FOUNDED by a Darwin.

So still no evidence that Stalin ever recommended someone read Darwin. Yet you base SO MUCH of your argument on that little bit of fluff.

The basis of everything I've written on this thread is Darwinian eugenics, NOT evolution.

But, go ahead and look here:

Darwin-Stalin Connection

The FACTS are that Hitler was a Creationist who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was in the image of God - and that the Soviet Communists rejected Darwin's theory in favor of a Lamarkian mechanism.

Yet Hitler's evil legacy is pure eugenics, unless of course you can find where Lamarck suggested killing and sterilizing the disabled and exterminating entire races.

Lies about historic facts do not advance the Creationist argument.

Go back and read through the thread, my ONLY comments about Creationism is to state that there is more to Darwinism than evolutionary theory.

When Creationists make these arguments it shows just how desperate they are that they have to make up lies just to make an illogical argument of guilt by association and an appeal to consequences.

You have yet to establish that ANYONE on here lied.

102 posted on 02/20/2012 3:51:38 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The “Darwins”? So Darwin has to answer for all the acts of his descendants who carried his name?

Ever hear of the Spartans? They certainly conspired to prevent undesirables from reproducing.

Wow, once suspect source citing World Nutt Daily! Consider me entirely unconvinced by this one anecdotal account in the face of a Soviet POLICY of imprisoning those who taught Darwin's theory.

Eugenics is not Darwin's theory. Belief in eugenics predates Darwin. Most who accept Darwin's theory correctly reject eugenics because it is idiotic. Acceptance of Darwin's theory is not a necessity for advocating eugenics.

Moreover, even if this article didn't have to LIE to attempt to make its point - its “point” boils down to an illogical guilt by association and an appeal to consequences.

103 posted on 02/20/2012 3:58:22 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Is that your version of a sense of humour?

To what religion, if any, do you belong?

104 posted on 02/20/2012 4:01:20 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: narses
You may speak for yourself. In my opinion, all too often scientists do, in fact, treat science as dogmatic belief. Try and get a medical doctor - a scientist by training, to consider alternative medical care, even as basic as aspirin instead of acetaminophen or St. Johns Wort instead of prozac. Another example, the current "Global Warming" hysteria has been fed by scientists who have converted belief into falsification of evidence.

I would ask you, how many scientists do you, personally, know? How much of the scientific/medical literature have you read? On what basis do you make the pronouncement that the majority of scientists treat science as "dogmatic belief"? I would propose that unless you surround yourself with scientists and are very well versed in the scientific literature, you do not have *any* kind of insight into how we (scientists) think or believe.

If you have unsuccessfully tried to get an MD to agree to some "alternative" treatment, did you entertain the possibility that the MD in question has a professional obligation to not provide treatments whose efficacy has not been thoroughly investigated by the research community? There are any number of reasons an MD might not go along with "alternative" treatments--for instance, they may be aware that St. Johns Wort has not undergone rigorous, controlled testing, and they do not know whether chemicals in the herb might interfere with other drugs you are taking, or exacerbate your condition. It is simply irresponsible to prescribe therapies that aren't supported by good, research-based evidence. (This isn't to say you can't find an MD to go along with "alternative medicine." Many MDs do put profit above medical ethics.)

Now, for the Global Warming hypothesis. With this issue, unfortunately, leftists who have always wanted to control every aspect of our lives saw a perfect opportunity to try to do so. It was the perfect issue for them, because it allows them to mask their lust for ultimate power over other people's lives as being concern over the future of our planet, the only planet we know of that can support life. The ability of climate scientists to get funding does not depend on any global warming hypothesis, since there are any number of scientific reasons to fund their research (better prediction of hurricanes, better understanding of thunderstorms, etc.). Unfortunately, leftist politicians decided to direct funding towards "global warming" and away from other worthy areas of research, to the extent that almost any request for funding contains some catch-phrase about how it ties in to "global warming".

What the global warming fiasco illustrates is that freedom-hating leftists have an unbounded ability to twist any scientific subject into something that serves their agenda. It is *not* a condemnation of science or the scientific method.

105 posted on 02/20/2012 4:07:46 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

Not, there is valid science and pseudo science serving a political idealogy. The very term Darwinian Evolution is meaningless. Darwin was the most famous of several 19th century scientists who came up with what eventually became the theory of evolution. Survival of the fittest does not mean the survival of the normative best which assumes a value judgement science can not make. Those organisms survive that adapt to their environment at a point in time. The saber tooth cat was an amazing killing machine but it couldn’t survive the end of the ice age. The possum survived and thrived. Which animal is normatively better? More beautiful? More fearsome?

My values cause me to evaluate eugenics as “bad”. Science has nothing to do with that judgement. Nuclear physics could be the science that allows Iran to destroy Israel. Certainly science won’t cause the destruction but the use of science could enable the Mullahs to follow the dictates of their religion. I guess you might label that “Einsteinian Physics”?


106 posted on 02/20/2012 4:19:32 PM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Once again, there is no religion of Darwinism.

As I said already, a religion is a system of beliefs. Regardless of what anyone claims, the belief system which governs a persons life IS their religion.

Then, how do you define "beliefs"?

When I walk outside on a sunny day and see a blue sky, I don't have to "believe" the sky is blue; I can see that it is blue. I do not consider that knowledge based on evidence constitutes a belief system. Likewise, with the science of biology, I do not have to "believe" the evidence of evolution, because I can examine that evidence and see for myself that it supports the theory. A theory is a little more complicated, in that it is the unifying explanation of many observations that ties them together within a coherent framework. I do not consider that acceptance of a theory constitutes a belief system, either. Beliefs, to me, are those things for which we do not or cannot have direct evidence. Thus, to me, the theory of evolution is not a matter of belief.

Darwinist eugenicists have murdered well over a billion people in the last century, if that's not a threat I don't know what is.

Again, this is an attempt to discredit a scientific theory by attaching the acts of evil people to the theory. As allmendream pointed out, the Soviet Union, one of the most murderous regimes of the last century, did NOT accept evidence-based biology. They tried to impose "socialist" biology (Lysenkoism), which, as a working scientific model, did not and could not work. Because of the evidentiary nature of scientific investigation, it is impossible to advance science using any model that is not based in evidence. That would include the "creation science" that so many creationists so often promote; trying to use "creation science" as a basis for the formulation of hypotheses would quickly cause scientific discovery to grind to a halt, just like Lysenkoism did in the USSR.

For the most part, I will leave out refuting point by point the many statements you made based in the false premise that there are "followers" of Darwin, which is itself a result of the creationist invention of the fictional religion of Darwinism. I will, however, ask where the historical evidence that the mass murderers of the last century used the theory of evolution as justification for their pogroms? And by "historical evidence", I do *not* mean "evidence" produced by creationists which cannot be verified to exist outside of creationist writings.

One last point. Those of us who make science our careers do not worship science, any more than musicians worship music or accountants worship ledgers.

As I said earlier, EVERYONE worships SOMETHING. That thing may be God or science or Satan or the intellect or whatever. Though YOU may not worship science, there are plenty who do.

I have yet to meet anyone who worships science as if it were a religion. Since most people I know are scientists (not surprising, considering my profession), I think that I have a fairly good idea of the range of belief systems that exist among scientists.

107 posted on 02/20/2012 5:31:30 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Darwin just dumps God down the old rathole of memory altogether. Thus: Darwin's evolutionary theory cannot even begin to address issues like the origin of Life or consciousness.

What I want to know is this: If Darwin's theory cannot deal with origin problems, then what, really, can it have to say to us about "biology?"

The theory of evolution as formulated by Darwin, by others predating Darwin (Darwin's theory was not the first), or as it is currently understood, does not address the origin of life or nature of consciousness. It strictly deals with how biological organisms developed into such a large variety of forms, and how they continue to change forms (or evolve). It is very good for studying biology. It's not much good for anything else.

The only theory I know of that tries to explain the origin (of everything) is the Big Bang Theory. It doesn't address the origin of life, either.

Plus the other thing that is maddening about it is the theory itself seems to fall almost entirely outside the scope of the scientific method. It is more a historical science (described through a philosophical nominalist filter) than an experimental one....

The theory of evolution very much drives experimental science. I cannot imagine even trying to formulate a working hypothesis if I did not take into consideration various elements of the ToE. I do not think my work would be possible without it.

108 posted on 02/20/2012 5:51:42 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

“I would ask you, how many scientists do you, personally, know?”

Many.

“How much of the scientific/medical literature have you read? “

A fair amount

“On what basis do you make the pronouncement that the majority of scientists treat science as “dogmatic belief”?”

Really? You misquote me and create a strawman and want to be taken seriously? ROTFLMAO! Try reading what I wrote rather than what you believe I wrote, then get back to me.

As for doctors and their odd (and unscientific) beliefs, read http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-case-of-john-lykoudis-revisited-crank-or-visionary/ and then, if you have any integrity at all, get back to me with your apologies. (Yes, plural.)


109 posted on 02/20/2012 7:28:19 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Do not make this thread "about" individual Freepers. That is also a form of "making it personal."

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

110 posted on 02/20/2012 8:09:37 PM PST by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

{{{CRICKETS}}}


111 posted on 02/20/2012 8:48:34 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

Comment #112 Removed by Moderator

To: exDemMom; Alamo-Girl; wagglebee
I cannot imagine even trying to formulate a working hypothesis if I did not take into consideration various elements of the ToE. I do not think my work would be possible without it.

WHAT various elements of ToE?

When you say "ToE" to me, I instantly think: Theory of Everything (the physicists are going for that). But what you evidently intended was: Theory of Evolution.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with theories of evolution.

I just think Darwin's totally STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN: It classifies man as nothing other than a "clever animal" with "adaptive skill..."

I strongly doubt that is how the Creator thinks about His Creation, individual man somehow being its epitome....

Any questions???

113 posted on 02/20/2012 9:14:48 PM PST by betty boop (We are led to believe a lie when we see with, and not through the eye. — William Blake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
I just think Darwin's totally STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN: It classifies man as nothing other than a "clever animal" with "adaptive skill..."

Indeed. Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

114 posted on 02/20/2012 9:34:45 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; wagglebee

amd: At the CORE of Darwin’s theory is that there are variations within a population and variations that will arise within a population, and that those variations that lead to favorable reproductive outcomes will predominate in subsequent generations.

Spirited: Darwin’s theory is a house built on quicksand. It presupposes that life magically emerged from primordial water that either spontaneously created itself from nothing or has always existed.

What does Darwin’s theory have in common with the very ancient Babylonian Enuma Elish? Darwin’s primordial waters and the watery chaos (the void)of the Enuma Elish are one and the same thing, that is the one-substance out of which life and all things emerged/evolved and are parts of.

Darwinism is nothing more than tired old paganism (nature worship) reinvented and revamped for modernists such as yourself. It is utterly vain to attribute life to non-life.


115 posted on 02/21/2012 1:47:18 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

People have been self-selecting for millenia.

Big difference in having the intelligentsia do the selecting for you.


116 posted on 02/21/2012 1:54:06 AM PST by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: metmom; allmendream; wagglebee

“You’re hatred of creationism is blinding you to objective, rational thought on the matter”

Spirited: Is it creationists he hates or is it really the case that his hatred and fear of the living Creator is transferred onto the only individuals within reach?

Hatred makes one both irrational and blind to the fact that irrational thoughts lead to insensible utterances.


117 posted on 02/21/2012 1:55:32 AM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Do not make this thread “about” individual Freepers. That is also a form of “making it personal.”
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.


118 posted on 02/21/2012 7:06:38 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

Do not make this thread “about” individual Freepers. That is also a form of “making it personal.”
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.


119 posted on 02/21/2012 7:08:41 AM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

{{{CRICKETS}}}
{{{CRICKETS}}}


120 posted on 02/21/2012 7:23:08 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; trisham; Religion Moderator
Do not make this thread “about” individual Freepers. That is also a form of “making it personal.”

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

To the best of my knowledge, asking a person what their religious beliefs are has never been a violation of the RF rules.

There have been plenty of personal attacks on this thread, but trisham's post isn't one of them.

Out of curiosity, WHY are you so reluctant to reveal your religious beliefs? You've said that people who believe the first few chapters of Genesis are "ignorant," so what exactly do you believe?

121 posted on 02/21/2012 10:24:44 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; trisham; DJ MacWoW; little jeremiah; Coleus; narses; Lesforlife; EternalVigilance; ...
The “Darwins”? So Darwin has to answer for all the acts of his descendants who carried his name?

Darwinism is about more than just what Charles Darwin wrote.

Eugenics is not Darwin's theory. Belief in eugenics predates Darwin. Most who accept Darwin's theory correctly reject eugenics because it is idiotic. Acceptance of Darwin's theory is not a necessity for advocating eugenics.

Once more, the DARWIN FAMILY founded the eugenics movement and were leaders of it for nearly a century.

As for your oft-repeated, yet unsubstantiated, claim that the Nazis rejected Darwinism, you might want to read this (I have included a few key passages for your convenience:

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense.

___________________

During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception [of immigration] are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."

Hitler proudly told his comrades just how closely he followed the progress of the American eugenics movement. "I have studied with great interest," he told a fellow Nazi, "the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock."

Hitler even wrote a fan letter to American eugenic leader Madison Grant calling his race-based eugenics book, The Passing of the Great Race his "bible."

___________________

During the Reich's early years, eugenicists across America welcomed Hitler's plans as the logical fulfillment of their own decades of research and effort. California eugenicists republished Nazi propaganda for American consumption. They also arranged for Nazi scientific exhibits, such as an August 1934 display at the L.A. County Museum, for the annual meeting of the American Public Health Association.

In 1934, as Germany's sterilizations were accelerating beyond 5,000 per month, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe upon returning from Germany ebulliently bragged to a key colleague, "You will be interested to know, that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought.…I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people."

___________________

At the time of Rockefeller's endowment, Otmar Freiherr von Verschuer, a hero in American eugenics circles, functioned as a head of the Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics. Rockefeller funding of that Institute continued both directly and through other research conduits during Verschuer's early tenure. In 1935, Verschuer left the Institute to form a rival eugenics facility in Frankfurt that was much heralded in the American eugenic press. Research on twins in the Third Reich exploded, backed up by government decrees. Verschuer wrote in Der Erbarzt, a eugenic doctor's journal he edited, that Germany's war would yield a "total solution to the Jewish problem."

Verschuer had a long-time assistant. His name was Josef Mengele. On May 30, 1943, Mengele arrived at Auschwitz. Verschuer notified the German Research Society, "My assistant, Dr. Josef Mengele (M.D., Ph.D.) joined me in this branch of research. He is presently employed as Hauptsturmführer [captain] and camp physician in the Auschwitz concentration camp. Anthropological testing of the most diverse racial groups in this concentration camp is being carried out with permission of the SS Reichsführer [Himmler]."

___________________

After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity--an act of genocide. Germans were tried and they cited the California statutes in their defense. To no avail. They were found guilty.

However, Mengele's boss Verschuer escaped prosecution. Verschuer re-established his connections with California eugenicists who had gone underground and renamed their crusade "human genetics." Typical was an exchange July 25, 1946 when Popenoe wrote Verschuer, "It was indeed a pleasure to hear from you again. I have been very anxious about my colleagues in Germany…. I suppose sterilization has been discontinued in Germany?" Popenoe offered tidbits about various American eugenic luminaries and then sent various eugenic publications. In a separate package, Popenoe sent some cocoa, coffee and other goodies.

Moreover, even if this article didn't have to LIE to attempt to make its point - its “point” boils down to an illogical guilt by association and an appeal to consequences.

It's not "guilt by association." The Darwin family developed eugenics, the "elites" loved it, many nations started eugenic sterilization programs and Germany started killing those he deemed "unfit." The Nazis didn't somehow "distort" eugenic theory, they simply took it to the logical conclusion.

122 posted on 02/21/2012 10:53:44 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Thanks, wagglebee. I also did some reading yesterday. Much appears to have been missing from my education regarding Darwin and eugenics. I suspect that is not terribly unusual.


123 posted on 02/21/2012 11:18:00 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; spirited irish; trisham; wagglebee

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!

Who died and left you RM?

And you think YOUR admonition carries any weight?

Fess up. You’re always professing to be a Christian, especially implying that you’re Catholic, and yet never answer the question even in a general sense.


124 posted on 02/21/2012 12:32:14 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Why are you always attempting to make this about me and my religious beliefs?

I have directly stated several times that I am a nondenominational Christian, and certainly not a Catholic.

You may be confused because every time you make your idiotic ‘acceptance of evolution = atheism’ argument I point out that the Pope accepts evolution.

But then again you don't even think the Pope is Christian.

That right there is amusing!

125 posted on 02/21/2012 1:08:23 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; trisham
Why are you always attempting to make this about me and my religious beliefs?

Perhaps because religious Christians and Jews don't denounce Genesis as "ignorant."

You may be confused because every time you make your idiotic ‘acceptance of evolution = atheism’ argument I point out that the Pope accepts evolution.

Just about everyone accepts certain aspects of the theory of evolution.

Are horses and zebras related? Almost certainly.

Do animals have natural defenses to adapt to certain climates? Of course they do.

Did mankind "evolve" from a sea-dwelling amoeba? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

126 posted on 02/21/2012 1:18:58 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Ah yes, the inherent contradiction at the heart of the Creationist delusion.

They accept evolution when they need to explain how we got all modern terrestrial species from those few that could fit on a boat - at a speed and with a power far beyond that proposed by evolutionary biology.

Yet they claim to not accept evolution - despite when they need it, accepting it at many hundreds of times the observed rate.

You find nothing objectionable about Zebras and Horses being related, but find it an impossibility that humans and chimps could be related by common descent?

Are you aware that the genetic difference between a Horse and a Zebra is much greater than the genetic difference between a human and a chimpanzee?

How is it that such a large change is perfectly reasonable over a very short time period - but much less of a genetic change is absolutely impossible even after six or seven million years?

Can you explain to me how you explain that to yourself?

That should be amusing!


127 posted on 02/21/2012 1:24:54 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; wagglebee; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; trisham
You may be confused because every time you make your idiotic ‘acceptance of evolution = atheism’ argument I point out that the Pope accepts evolution.

So, if you're not Catholic, why appeal to the pope? Not to mention that I would find it unlikely that he'd ascribe to YOUR narrow, rigid definition of evolution and denial of the reality of Genesis.

But then again you don't even think the Pope is Christian.

Where'd I say that? Provide a link to the quote, please, since you claim to be a scientist and acknowledge the necessity of backing up your statements.

128 posted on 02/21/2012 1:29:54 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Will you say “The Pope is a Christian”?

I somehow doubt you will.

When I pointed out long ago that the majority of Christians throughout history were Catholic you asked how I KNEW they were actually Christians!

Why appeal to the Pope? As an example of a man of faith, a Biblical scholar par excellence, who accepts the scientific theory of evolution - that man descended from non human living forms - and that the Earth is far more than just a few thousand years old. You see I am not blinded by sectarian hate and attempt to deny the Christianity of any who disagree with me.

You on the other hand....

129 posted on 02/21/2012 1:34:29 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; trisham
Ah yes, the inherent contradiction at the heart of the Creationist delusion.

The inherent contradiction is that this thread was NEVER about evolution.

Trolls who are uncomfortable addressing the truth about Darwinism have tried to make it about evolution.

It's rather ironic the way the left idolizes certain people, people like FDR, the Kennedys, Castro, Marx and Darwin are beyond reproach in their eyes.

130 posted on 02/21/2012 1:42:18 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; trisham
As an example of a man of faith, a Biblical scholar par excellence, who accepts the scientific theory of evolution - that man descended from non human living forms

Please provide a VERIFIABLE QUOTE where ANY POPE has made this statement.

Or are you just making it up?

131 posted on 02/21/2012 1:45:33 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

More guilt by association drivel.

Afraid to answer the question then I must conclude.

You decry Darwin, but use his theory when necessary, say you don’t believe in evolution, but think it happens when it happens at many times the observed rate, and you think a large genetic difference can be accomplished in a short time, but a much smaller genetic difference is impossible even after seven million years!

And you cannot explain your own contradictions!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!


132 posted on 02/21/2012 1:46:41 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; allmendream

This might be interesting.


133 posted on 02/21/2012 1:49:33 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Pope Pius XII introduced the phrase and concept of the acceptability of belief that humans came from “pre existing and living matter”, Pope John Paul expounded upon this by saying ....

“The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other in itself constitutes a significant argument in favor of the theory [of evolution].”

“if the origin of the human body is sought in living matter which existed before it, the spiritual soul is directly created by God”

Do you really not know?!?!!?

You have been here for years arguing this and you are THIS blissfully unaware?

It takes all kinds I suppose.

134 posted on 02/21/2012 1:54:14 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; trisham
More guilt by association drivel.

Do you use this to defend Hitler?

Afraid to answer the question then I must conclude.

Feel free to conclude whatever you want.

You decry Darwin, but use his theory when necessary, say you don’t believe in evolution,

I haven't used his theory. I've opined that certainly some of his observations were valid.

And you cannot explain your own contradictions!

I'm not aware of any contradictions by me.

135 posted on 02/21/2012 1:57:04 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Pope Benedict XVI said....

while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the Pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”


136 posted on 02/21/2012 1:59:11 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
They accept evolution when they need to explain how we got all modern terrestrial species from those few that could fit on a boat

Is this your ignorance of the position of those you are arguing against or a demonstration of intentional dishonesty?

Do you even realize that you are conflating and equivocating the term "evolution" denoting "change", and saying that the same observation of change demonstrates "descent from common ancestry"?

Can you honestly not see a difference? Or perhaps intellectual honesty not a big concern...

137 posted on 02/21/2012 2:02:53 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; trisham
Pope Pius XII introduced the phrase and concept of the acceptability of belief that humans came from “pre existing and living matter”, Pope John Paul expounded upon this by saying ....

“The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other in itself constitutes a significant argument in favor of the theory [of evolution].”

“if the origin of the human body is sought in living matter which existed before it, the spiritual soul is directly created by God”

Your claim was that the pope "accepts the scientific theory of evolution - that man descended from non human living forms." NONE of these quotes demonstrate this, there are a lot of "ifs" and statements that it's "acceptable" to believe it under certain conditions, but there is NOTHING that indicates that they believe that man descended from non-human living forms.

You have been here for years arguing this and you are THIS blissfully unaware?

I've been arguing WHAT for years?

I systematically AVOID evolution threads, I can't remember the the last time I posted one if I ever have.

138 posted on 02/21/2012 2:04:33 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
I don't need to defend Hitler the Creationists who believed in fixed kinds and that his race was created in the image of God.

You might need to defend the Creationist revisionist history of this idiotic and illogical guilt by association and appeal to consequences article.

No? You don't think it a contradiction that you can fully accept a large genetic difference over a small amount of time, but not a small genetic difference over six to seven million years?

You don't think it a contradiction that your only explanation for the diversity of species is Darwin's theory, the only explanation for human diversity, the only explanation for antibiotic resistance - yet you decry the man whose theory is the only explanation you are able to use?

How did the numerous terrestrial species all arise from those few that could fit on a boat of known dimensions a few thousand years ago?

No explanation? But you opine that certainly some of Darwin's observations were valid? Which ones - the ones that would enable one species to give rise to several?

Still think you are not contradicting yourself?

139 posted on 02/21/2012 2:04:49 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Can you explain to me how all modern terrestrial species arose form those few that could fit on a boat of known dimensions sometime somewhat recently in the past?

What was the mechanism for how they got here then?

Would not one of the fox “kind” giving rise to all the present day fox species be an example of common descent?

How do you explain it?


140 posted on 02/21/2012 2:07:34 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; metmom; Alamo-Girl; betty boop; trisham
Once more, when you have a pope saying that HE actually believes that mankind descended from non-human life, let me know.

The theory of evolution covers a very broad spectrum, acknowledgement that some of Darwin's observations were valid is a far cry from a declaration that man descended from non-human life.

141 posted on 02/21/2012 2:09:08 PM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Yeah, Pope Benedict XVI’s statement about there being much scientific proof for evolution COULD be seen as ambiguous - Pope John Paul talking about the emergence of man from pre-existing living matter and the numerous and independent lines of inquiry that favor the evolutionary explanation COULD be seen as ambiguous - to an absolute moron.
142 posted on 02/21/2012 2:11:59 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

I think what we may be seeing here is a fairly successful hijacking of the subject of this thread.


143 posted on 02/21/2012 2:19:30 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

Again demonstrating a lack of understanding of that which you argue against so vehemently.

“I don’t know nuthin’ ‘bout it but I’m agin it!”


144 posted on 02/21/2012 2:19:41 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Well it is hard to really understand self contradiction and delusional thinking.

Apparently you are unable to provide a reasonable non-contradictory explanation for what you believe.

What mechanism do you use to explain it?

Don't think one is necessary?

Creationists don't understand much about evolution - other than they are “agin it!”, but when called upon specifics they either clam up like cowards or admit to accepting ‘some part’ of evolutionary theory.

So which parts do YOU accept?

145 posted on 02/21/2012 2:28:07 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; wagglebee; metmom

amd: They accept evolution when they need to explain how we got all modern terrestrial species from those few that could fit on a boat

Spirited: Christians accept ‘microevolution,’ that is, changes within kinds. What they reject as absolute nonsense is macroevolution, the idea that one kind, i.e., dinosaurs can change into another kind, i.e., humming birds.

Underlying this nonsense is the Big Lie: Man can change into God.

Informed Christians do not confuse the former for the latter as do superstitious evolutionists.


146 posted on 02/21/2012 2:28:35 PM PST by spirited irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: spirited irish

Wow is THAT delusional.

How are DNA changes - which will change what amino acids are in what proteins - or where and when those proteins are expressed - going to change man (or anything else) into God?

So you accept evolution, as long as I call it “micro”, and the (semi) common descent of species, as long as it is within a “kind”. And as I stated previously, Creationists apparently accept evolution at a rate and power MANY TIMES that observed by evolutionary biology!


147 posted on 02/21/2012 2:33:29 PM PST by allmendream (Tea Party did not send the GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
What do Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, “father of the sexual revolution” Alfred Kinsey, Lenin, and Hitler have in common?

All these pioneers of what some call the culture of death rooted their beliefs and actions in Darwinism - a little-known fact that one conservative leader says shouldn’t be ignored.

Hogwash! They also drank water, inhaled air for oxygen, exhaled CO2, and probably occasionally walked on two feet.

Evangelical retards are going to be the death of this country.

148 posted on 02/21/2012 2:44:24 PM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
As for doctors and their odd (and unscientific) beliefs, read http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-case-of-john-lykoudis-revisited-crank-or-visionary/ and then, if you have any integrity at all, get back to me with your apologies. (Yes, plural.)

Apologies for what, exactly? You linked a story about a physician who clearly was not trained in research methodology. Most physicians aren't. The fact that it turned out he had the right idea tells us nothing of the process that led to it. He may have been a crackpot who just happened on a correct idea (in which case, he bears much resemblance to the proverbial stopped clock), or he may have made some sound observations, but was unable to follow through on them because he lacked training in research methodology. In no way does his story validate the many quacks who, throughout history, have promised that they have the cure, then relay accounts of how the "mainstream" tries to silence them, because they know that portraying themselves as victims of persecution almost guarantees that at least a few people will give them money.

149 posted on 02/21/2012 4:50:48 PM PST by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Will you say “The Pope is a Christian”? I somehow doubt you will.

When I pointed out long ago that the majority of Christians throughout history were Catholic you asked how I KNEW they were actually Christians!

Couldn't see that one coming.

It happens so often... Someone makes a spurious accusation about something they claim I believe and then when they can't cough up any proof for it anywhere when asked for it, they resort to the same *well say it now* tactic.

That is so lame.

You know what? No. I'm not going to answer that question because you claimed that I said it or thought it somewhere. It's up to you to provide the evidence for your claims about what I believe and not after the fact or going fishing looking for it.

What a fail.....

150 posted on 02/21/2012 5:44:19 PM PST by metmom (For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore & do not submit again to a yoke of slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 651-669 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson