Lice offer clues to origin of clothing

USA TODAY ^ | 8/18/2003 | Tim Friend

[jennyp]

BTW, I appreciate your more nuanced statements on this thread regarding Darwinism's connection to Communism & Naziism. They're much more reasonable than most of what I've read from creationists - including your own words on the Indian Dinosaur thread!

The problem is, it's obvious that Hitler & Marx were latching on to whatever widely-accepted beliefs (both religious beliefs & scientific theories) they could find to lend an air of legitimacy to their psuedoscientific views. There is no way you can blame legitimate science - or most established religions - when they get mininterpreted or intentionally twisted to serve a charlatan's purposes.

If Darwin & Wallace had never existed, Marx could easily have come up with a rationalization for the inevitable march of history via some sort of "dialecticial materialist calculus". After all, Dialectical materialism asserts a predictability to historical progress which is well-suited to sketching out as a function thru time. If I hadn't blocked out my horrid college calculus classes from my memory, I could probably come up with some plausible-sounding equations to "explain" this inevitable dialectical March of History.

All Marx & Hitler needed was some plausible sounding rhetoric to inspire the readers of their Magnum Opuses. Once they took control of the universities, they didn't need to justify themselves intellectually, as all the books with critical arguments would've been burned and the skeptical professors would be in jail or assassinated.

[f.Christian]

Thanks to evolution ...

it looks like the federal judiciary system from the ussc on down is doing power sharing and pandering with liberals ---


prosyletizing on the fr too !

[BMCDA]

Fixed & Unmovable Placemarker

[balrog666]

Are you saying that the One and Only didn't Create those things? Or that it was some afterthought necessary because some simple human screwed up the Perfect Divine Plan in an way unforeseen by God? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your @ss?

[DittoJed2]

jennyp,

On the other thread (which I really would prefer not to refer to since I stated I didn't want to discuss that thread) I started talking about astronomy and the evolutionist crowd chastised me and said that "big bang" and "astronomy" were different disciplines (which they implied they weren't really all that interested in discussing). There are links I could post from creationists discounting big bang. But, I'd be accused of "spamming the thread".

Regarding your posting, I do not see a heliocentric view of the universe contradicts Scripture. My reasons were stated on the other thread. I know some creationists (a real minority) want to argue for geocentrism. Frankly, I don't care what is at the center as long as God created it. He could have created it close together or far apart. That's up to him. Scientists have then taken the speed of light and turned speed into distance (the distance it would take light to travel to X planet, etc.,) when in reality, they are making a lot of assumptions there. Who says that God had to create everything so that it was close together? That doesn't even make sense. And, there is no basis for saying that the universe is billions of years old. Oh, yeah. We tested some meteorites by radiometric dating methods (nevermind that the same meteorites can test to be different ages based upon the test used). I forgot.

Regarding your link, I'll let this guy defend his own work. What he said isn't what I've claimed. As a matter of fact, historically, I have stated I see communism and Darwinism as having come out of the age of the skeptics (from Descartes, to David Hume, to Emmanuel Kant).

[tet68]

Enough with the philology, lets get back to the lousy subject.

Another name for lice, "Chisai tamadachi". (little friends)

In the camps, as I have read, the zeks and the jews too, could tell when a person was close to death by the way the lice behaved, and when they died the lice would leave the body quickly.

In WW I. they were called mickies, cooties and chats
and from this 'chatting' has remained in our social vocabulary.

Gives a whole new meaning to 'chat' rooms.
Think I'll go take a shower.

[DittoJed2]

BTW, I appreciate your more nuanced statements on this thread regarding Darwinism's connection to Communism & Naziism. They're much more reasonable than most of what I've read from creationists - including your own words on the Indian Dinosaur thread!

I believe I was just as nuanced there. I was accused of saying some things I did not say and you can check the record on that one. I never called a single poster a Nazi, for example, yet that was the accusation. I also didnt' "run away" or "give up" as was said about me afterwards. I made a decision to stop posting on that thread. Posting on this one shows that I'm still in the game.

The problem is, it's obvious that Hitler & Marx were latching on to whatever widely-accepted beliefs (both religious beliefs & scientific theories) they could find to lend an air of legitimacy to their psuedoscientific views.
Let's separate the two. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Darwin published about 10 years later. I don't see a connection with the advent of Communism and with Darwinism.

Hitler is another story. He didn't "latch on" to Christian beliefs. He propagandized using Christianity while expressly going against its teachings. He did latch on to Darwinism, and this latching on was given support in the words of Darwin himself and his followers. There is a difference there. Again, I'm not saying Darwinism is solely or mostly to blame for Nazism. However, it sure didn't hurt it and some of the statements of its followers supported it quite nicely. You can't make the same case for Christianity (as I have defined above).

There is no way you can blame legitimate science - or most established religions - when they get mininterpreted or intentionally twisted to serve a charlatan's purposes.
Read the quotes I posted above and the link above and tell me if something can be misinterpreted about Darwin and Huxley et al believing that certain races were superior to others in humanity. Hitler's racism found ample support in Darwinism as it was taught and promoted prior to his time and during his time. Where Hitler, and Kinkle, and Harris and Klebold took it a step beyond Darwinism is in being the instrument of "natural selection" which would purify the races. (Although, I recall Darwin predicting that the stronger races would one day subjugate and maybe even kill off the weaker ones, so it's possible that some support could be found there- but I'm not prepared to make that case).

If Darwin & Wallace had never existed, Marx could easily have come up with a rationalization for the inevitable march of history via some sort of "dialecticial materialist calculus". After all, Dialectical materialism asserts a predictability to historical progress which is well-suited to sketching out as a function thru time. If I hadn't blocked out my horrid college calculus classes from my memory, I could probably come up with some plausible-sounding equations to "explain" this inevitable dialectical March of History.
I don't think Marx was influenced by Darwin all that much if at all. Certainly not in the writing of the Communist Manifesto. If anything, it was the other way around since Darwin was later (though I've never heard of him reading Marx). I do think that they both sprang up in an intellectual environment that was increasingly anti-God. This goes back at least to Rene Des Cartes "If I can't see it, I ain't believing it".

All Marx & Hitler needed was some plausible sounding rhetoric to inspire the readers of their Magnum Opuses. Once they took control of the universities, they didn't need to justify themselves intellectually, as all the books with critical arguments would've been burned and the skeptical professors would be in jail or assassinated.

Again, separating the two. You are dealing with folks who were 80 years apart here so they weren't necessarily all that connected. Hitler got his plausible rhetoric in part from Darwin but more from his followers such as Huxley. He may even have gotten some of it way back with Lamarck, though the language he uses in Mein Kampf sounds remarkably Darwinian.

[DittoJed2]

Are you Cliff from Cheers? :o)

Never thought I'd talk to someone who was expert on the nomenclature of lice.

[tet68]

Let me tell you about cheese mites!

http://www.feic.com/esem/gallery/chzmite.jpg

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Are you saying that the One and Only didn't Create those things? Or that it was some afterthought necessary because some simple human screwed up the Perfect Divine Plan in an way unforeseen by God? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your @ss?

A bit from column A, a bit from column B, and mostly from column C.

It all goes back to Zoroaster deciding that Ahura Mazda created all the "good things" (cattle, horses, etc.) whilst Ahriman created all the "evil things" (insects, bugs, etc.). Judaism and Christianity cribbed these ideas from Zoroastrianism without atribution, and without thinking too clearly about the implications for their alleged "one God responsible for absolutely everything" theory. It's a little weird to assert that we have lice because Eve took a bite of an apple; at least the Persian myth is a little less bizarre and doesn't saddle us with an unearned "original sin" merely because we had the audacity to be born.

[bert]

Many black women in America took a basckward evolutionary step when they began to sport the African lice cut, a very short haircut popular with African women for thousands of years. Helen Norton, the wanabe Rep from DC is a proponent.

[jennyp]

Again, separating the two. You are dealing with folks who were 80 years apart here so they weren't necessarily all that connected. Hitler got his plausible rhetoric in part from Darwin but more from his followers such as Huxley. He may even have gotten some of it way back with Lamarck, though the language he uses in Mein Kampf sounds remarkably Darwinian.

The problem with that line of argument, IMO, is that Hitler also believed things that were very different indeed from evolution. Some might say he believed in a strange form of creationism!:

In conjunction with his racial ideology and antisemitism, Hitler often spoke of an "historic" or "higher mission" of the Aryan race and its elite core, the German people. The Aryans, according to Hitler, were once rulers of the earth, the highest race of mankind, endowed with the highest degree of spiritual qualities and the only ones capable of producing a higher civilization.19 Aryans were, in essence, god-men on earth, but through blood poisoning lost their ruling position. However, as its "higher mission," the German people were destined to regain this position for the Aryan race. To do so, Germany must restructure its political and social foundations and create a state whose function was to promote the Aryan culturecreating "spiritual elements" that exist in the blood of the German race. If this were done, racially and thus spiritually pure human beings could be produced, ensuring Aryan world domination.20

But if this Aryan destiny were to be fulfilled, Hitler believed, one major obstacle would have to be dealt with-the Jew. The Jew was the poisoner of the blood (soul) of the Aryan race, thus inhibiting its spiritual growth and endangering its divine destiny. Since Hitler saw all Jewish actions as racially and thus spiritually motivated, it became his divine mission to create an Aryan spiritual movement to combat the Jewish race.21 Hitler believed that his Nazi party, founded as a spiritual movement, would successfully rise to German political dominance since it was based in his mind on eternally true ideals rooted in the very soul of the Aryan race.22 Once in power, the Nazi movement could then create a state that would foster the historic destiny of the Aryan race. And the first task of this Aryan state would be to eliminate the Jewish threat.23 This is why Hitler's political career both began and ended with a warning against the Jewish danger.
-- Hitler's Racial Ideology: Content and Occult Sources by Jackson Spielvogel and David Redles

Thus Hitler believed that the Aryan race had originally existed in a state of grace - of perfection - to which they must claw their way back. (You could almost call them "fallen angels".) But it's the powerful evil force - the Jews, in his case - that prevents the Aryans from returning to that Godlike state.

IMO that has startling echoes of the story of Adam & Eve.

The paper, BTW, goes on to argue that Nazi ideology owes a lot to the occult beliefs of Madame Blavatsky called "Theosophy". It's interesting reading, to say the least. The paper describes some of the details of the History of Man, according to the Theosophists:

Each root race is seen by Blavatsky as being constituted differently in a physical and spiritual sense. In the earliest times man was purely spirit. Then at some point in time, this spirit entered and animated physical matter.39 Man thus evolved, in Blavatsky's cosmology, from the ethereal to the material. The original spirituality of man can be seen, according to Blavatsky, in the fact that mankind once was endowed with psychic powers, which she attributed to the so-called "Cyclopean eye."40 With the "Cyclopean eye" man had "spiritual sight," the ability to perceive subtle realities of the spiritual world, and thus could "see" into the future and read minds. Blavatsky felt that as man evolved materially and intellectually this "Third Eye" atrophied to what is now the pineal gland and man mostly lost his psychic powers.41 But, stated Blavatsky, mankind is destined to regain these abilities. That Hitler was well versed in these racial peculiarities is demonstrated in one of Herman Rauschning's conversations with Hitler:

The pursuit of the "random path of the intelligence," we learned, was the real defection of man from his divine mission. To have "magic insight" was apparently Hitler's idea of the goal of human progress. He himself felt that he already had the rudiments of this gift. He attributed to it his success and his future eminence. A savant of Munich ... had also written some curious stuff about the prehistoric world ... about forms of perception and supernatural powers. There was the eye of Cyclops, or median eye, the organ of magic perception of the Infinite, now reduced to a rudimentary pineal gland. Speculations of this sort fascinated Hitler, and he would sometimes be entirely wrapped up in them. He saw his own remarkable career as a confirmation of hidden powers. He saw himself as chosen for superhuman tasks, as the prophet of the rebirth of man in a new form.42

[balrog666]

A bit from column A, a bit from column B, and mostly from column C. It all goes back to Zoroaster deciding that Ahura Mazda created all the "good things" (cattle, horses, etc.) whilst Ahriman created all the "evil things" (insects, bugs, etc.). Judaism and Christianity cribbed these ideas from Zoroastrianism without atribution, and without thinking too clearly about the implications for their alleged "one God responsible for absolutely everything" theory. It's a little weird to assert that we have lice because Eve took a bite of an apple; at least the Persian myth is a little less bizarre and doesn't saddle us with an unearned "original sin" merely because we had the audacity to be born.

Yes, yes, you are correct. Almost everything becomes obvious in retrospect.

Resolving the obvious is always a valuable lesson if it can be understood. Let's see who pursues it without the requisite understanding.

[Junior]

There was a second creation wherein God created these organisms to plague mankind? Where does the Bible mention that?

[PatrickHenry]

Exactly what are you implying???

Well ... I just thought that ... you know, if maybe a friend or something ... yes, that's it, in case a friend of yours should require some ... ah, friendly advice ... you could give them that website to look at. That's what I was thinking. Honest.

[DittoJed2]

Again, separating the two. You are dealing with folks who were 80 years apart here so they weren't necessarily all that connected. Hitler got his plausible rhetoric in part from Darwin but more from his followers such as Huxley. He may even have gotten some of it way back with Lamarck, though the language he uses in Mein Kampf sounds remarkably Darwinian.

The problem with that line of argument, IMO, is that Hitler also believed things that were very different indeed from evolution. Some might say he believed in a strange form of creationism!:
I already stated that Hitler could have been a theistic evolutionist, but the case can not be made with any credibility that his "theos" was the biblical God, nor was the Nazi god Jesus:

According to Spielvogel: "From 1935 to 1939 Nazi policy toward the churches was conducted along three separate avenues simultaneously: an attempt to gain administrative control so that the Protestant and Catholic churches could be brought under the authority of the stat; the wagig of an ideological struggle to replace Christianity with a new cult in the hearts and minds of all Germans; and a campaign of terrorism and intimidation designed to gradually reduce the Christian churches to extinction." (Jackson J. Spielvogel, Hitler and Nazi Germany:A History, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice Hall, 113)

Regarding Hitler's social Darwinism: 'struggle is the father of all ting.' Hitler perceived struggle not as the essence of all nature, thus postulating a crude Darwinism, but ALSO as the central principle for both individuals and nations, thus exalting a crass Social Darwinism. In a 1928 speech at Kulmbach, he stated: "The idea of struggle is as old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle....I this struggle, the stronger, the more able win, while the less able, the weak lose. Struggle is the father of all things....As it is with the individual so it is in the destiny of nations. Only by struggle are the strong able to raise themselves above the weak. And every people that loses out in this eternally shifting struggle has, according to the laws of nature, received its just dessert. A Weltanschauung that denies the idea of struggle is contrary to nature and will lead a people that is guided by it to destruction." (ibid., 138)

---

Again, while the idea to be the agent of natural selection wouldn't have come from, where would the idea of struggle and of inferiority of certain races have come from?

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla. (Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", 2nd edition, New York, A L. Burt Co., 1874, p. 178)


Likewise, Darwin's close friend Professor Adam Sedgwick was one of the people who saw what dangers the theory of evolution would give rise to in the future. He remarked, after reading and digesting The Origin of Species, that "if this book were to find general public acceptance, it would bring with it a brutalization of the human race such as it had never seen before." (A. E. Wilder-Smith, "Man's Origin Man's Destiny", The Word for Today Publishing, 1993, p.166).

IMO that (the gods quote)has startling echoes of the story of Adam & Eve.

Except if you remember the story, Adam and Eve were told they would be as gods by Satan. They weren't gods. They were humans. Hitler didn't get this ideology from the Bible. As to his philosophy being influenced by Blavatsky, it very well may have. I have no problem with that.

[DittoJed2]

The fundamental nature of God's creation was changed with the fall. Animals began to eat other animals and fear humans. That didn't happen before the fall. Humans began to hunt and to desire sin. The organisms which cause the diseases which you mentioned were present at creation. However, they weren't dangerous then. God said all of his creation was "very good". Death did not exist, nor disease. Then man sinned. The Bible said that act cursed creation, and suddenly harmless organisms became dangerous. As mutation occurs, they become even more dangerous.

Today, a lot of diseases are likely started and spread through sinful activity. Example being, the origins of Aids. Other STDs no doubt started from sex with animals. It's hard to find information on this on the internet, but that is the rumor with Syphillis. (There is also another article on the net tracing it to an entirely different disease, so I'm really unsure on that). God punished sexual relationships that were viewed as depraved. The penalty for bestiality was death. Why? Because God is just a cosmic kill-joy who doesn't want a guy to relieve a little tension when a woman isn't around? No. Because it is harmful to his creation (not to mention disgusting and vile). God also forbad homosexuality and mentioned that men having sex with men would bring about a just reward within their bodies. I didn't write the book. It is in Romans 1. You can read it with the referencing footnotes

The point is, God did create everything lovely and perfect and man did screw it up, but God has promised to fix it back the way it was supposed to be. That's good news and a testimony to God's love. He is allowing man the run of his free will now, but the time will come where he allows such no longer. All will be judged, according to His righteousness spelled out in Scripture. Since no man is righteous, only those robed in the righteousness of His Son will be accepted.

As Peter said in Acts 4 when speaking to an audience of Jews:

10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.

11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.

12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.


The good news is that we are all sinners and under a curse, but we can be freed from that curse by accepting Him. Jesus loves gay and straight, adulterers, murderers, and just your average "nice guys". But our best isn't enough to match God's standards of holiness- but Jesus's is and he offers that gift freely to you (John 3:16).

[Aric2000]

Give it up Jenny, the woman totally fails to understand of what you speak, she just cannot relate to it.

evolution is evil incarnate, the devils work as far as she is concerned because it has the audacity to show that the bible cannot be taken literally. OMG not that!!

Considering that the literalist are a very small minority, evolution does not actually effect that many peoples belief structure, but those that it does are VERY loud, and VERY hard headed. Kind of like punching a brick wall, you won't get through, and your hand will hurt.

Ignore her, she is another fanatic who is clueless because her fanaticism blinds her to all other possibilities.

Sad, but true.

This is why I never take ANY fanatical fundamentalist seriously, because they CANNOT be reasoned with, they are blind to all else but their belief structure and will attack ANYTHING that might somehow threaten it.

[DittoJed2]

Aric,

The one thing I have noticed with these evo threads is an absolute and complete INTOLERANCE for anyone who agrees with the Bible. I mean, what I am witnessing is really ideological bullying to the point that when I'm having a conversation with someone that provides historical documentation to back up what I am saying (and correct the misrepresentations by others of what I was saying on a previous thread)the "gang" absolutely can not tolerate it being said and will burst upon the scene with your usual litany of name calling and belittling. What I'm seeing from you and several in your group (not all, a few have been fairly respectful- very few) is a pattern I've only seen with the leftists. Personally attack someone as stupid, a fanatic, and unreasonable just because they said something that hurts your point of view. Belittle anything they post or worse take the hours spent looking into and reading those posts and pretend like no research was done, no scientist on the other side is credible, they are all just cranks, jokes, and idiots. It's very immature of your group to be acting this way. However,even if you intimidate jenny from not posting to me any more, you aren't going to silence me. What I posted was the truth. It was carefully measured and backed up with actual historical data.

So, the next time you hurl insults without substance as you do so often, it would behoove you to first open your eyes really really wide and look around. If you do so, you just may see that the image- the one you are seeing of a one who is coming off VERY loud, VERY hard headed, and appearing as just another fanatic who is clueless because his fanaticism blinds him to all other possibilities- that image is the one of your own reflection in the mirror.

[Aric2000]

/rantmodeon

Oh PUHLEASE, give it a rest.

If evolution was SCIENTIFICALLY disproved tomorrow, it would NOT effect me in the least. It is a scientific theory, NOTHING more.

But if god came out of the sky and told you that the creation story was allegorical and not meant to be taken literally, you would ignore him and keep going on with your fanatical belief structure.

No matter what facts, evidence etc were shown to you, you would fight them if they somehow disagreed with your literal interpretation of the bible.

Creationism IS the answer for you, and you will fight ANYTHING that disagrees with it.

Tell me that that is NOT the truth, go ahead, tell me that I am clueless. Tell me that if I gave you all the evidence necassary to DISPROVE creationism, that you would NOT ignore it and fight me with EVERY ounce of your being.

Go ahead, tell me that that is NOT the case.

So far, ALL of the socalled "evidence" that you have given has been refuted in one way shape or form by science.

ID theory, creationism, the flood, etc, HAVE NO EVIDENCE to back them up.

ID is Behe's idea because he is arrogant enough to think if he can't figure it out, then it MUST be irreducibly complex, Guess what? BS...

Creationism, the only proof you have is written in a book that was put together by a group of men with an agenda.

Yes, it is an ancient story, But I can give you literally THOUSANDS of creation stories, but since this one is in your bible, it MUST have occurred, oh PUHLEASE....

And the flood, there are SO many flood stories that it is ridiculous, but because this one is in the bible it MUST be the truth, again, OH PUHLEASE!!! There are so many flood stories, and fact of the matter is that the Noah flood story is obvioulsy a takeoff of a very ancient Babylonian flood myth. There is PROOF that a flood of MAJOR proportions occurred within the black sea area around 10,000 years ago, and that is about the right time for the babylonian myth, and therefore probably is the flood of Noah. So it probably was an actual event, but not a WORLDWIDE flood, but the area that the people of that time considered their entire world.

Science is science, it does NOT claim ANY moralistic lessons, it just states the evidence as it sees them, then puts that evidence together and comes up with a hypothesis to fit that evidence, then that hypothesis is torn apart, piece by piece and tested beyond belief, then if it passes those tests, then it is considered a scientific theory.

Evolution has PASSED all peer review put against it, it has passed muster in ways that would tear anything less firm into little tiny pieces. Yet you and your kin ignore it and say that it is religion, so that you can ignore the scientific evidence that backs it up.

So far, I have yet to see ONE piece of Creation science peer reviewed, I have yet to see ID actually agree to be peer reviewed, but when a scientist actually chooses to peer review it on his or her own, they are able to tear it into tiny, itsy bitsy pieces.

Yes, I find your fanaticism sad, and I am sorry, but I am intolerant of such ridiculous closemindedness.

Alamo Girl does NOT fight the science, she realizes what science is, and tries to fit it into her worldview, and has done a pretty damn convincing job of it too.

You, you just go to AIG, fling their arguments at us as fast as you can and then expect us to lay down under the onslaught.

Sorry, ain't gonna happen.

Then you go screaming off into the night about how unfair we have treated you.

That's after of course you bring in the strawman about how nazism somehow came about because of evolution and Darwin, or was at least a piece of the puzzle that created it. Guess what? Hitler was a Roman Catholic, BORN and raised, the church was a MAJOR influence on his beliefs and the political structure that he laid down. Do we attack you because he was a christian and used it to build his political system, NO, or at least not until you decide to blame a SCIENTIFIC theory for his ideas. A fricking scientific theory, give me a break. A scientific theory does not claim to give you a code of ethics to live by, good grief. What kind of ridiculously stupid argument is that? Hint, VERY stupid!!

Last but not least.

Intolerance? Yes, I am intolerant of rabid fanaticism in ANY form. I am intolerant of WILLFUL ignorance in ANY form. I am INTOLERANT of closemindedness because of religious belief in ANY form. I am INTOLERANT of lies for religious purposes in ANY form.


I am intolerant? I am not even close compared to you.

No one is a true christian unless they believe in the total inerrancy and literalist interpretation of the bible.

You believe that, therefore you are a true christian and ONLY others that believe as you do will be tolerated.

I am just intolerant of the above, you are intolerant of about 99% of the human race.

/rantmodeoff

Last post to you for right now, I am about worn out and I am going to try and go out and kill some fish tomorrow. So I am going to bed.

Good night, have a wonderful evening....