24 Apr 12
Originally posted by RJHindsTo me there is only one type of evolution and it does not work
To me there is only one type of evolution and it does not work. However, you
seem to think there is an exception in your case with two ape parents. Have
you considered making yourself available of scientific study?
That's interesting. Most creationists at least acknowledge some form of evolution but you don't think it happens at all! So which bit do you think doesn't happen:
Do offspring not differ from their parents (variation)?
1. If they do then do they not pass on those differences to their own offspring (heritability)?
2. Or do the differences not in any way affect the offspring's ability to survive (not really one of the requirements since it is implied by 1 but I thought I'd make it explicit)?
3. Or is there actually no competition for food or reproduction in the natural world (selection)?
Because that is all that is required for the process of evolution to be inevitable.
--- Penguin.
25 Apr 12
Originally posted by humy
it starts off saying:
“What did the 'biased' scientific minority' ever do for us?”
it then lists a number of creationists that have contributed to science.
In that list, it includes Werner von Braun who was known to work for the Nazis in WW2 -the video certainly scored an own-goal there!
His “contributions” included the V2-rockets that killed many men ...[text shortened]... of these non-creationist have made a bigger advancement to our understanding of the world.
it then lists a number of creationists that have contributed to science.
In that list, it includes Werner von Braun who was known to work for the Nazis in WW2 -the video certainly scored an own-goal there!
His “contributions” included the V2-rockets that killed many men, women and children.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbraun.htm
“...These rockets killed 2,724 people and badly injured 6,000. ...”
-yes, we SHOULD recognise the contributions of creationists! -such delusional people have already demonstrated that they are dangerous and potentially evil as a result of their delusions. And Werner von Braun is proof of this.
Humy disquaified creationist Werner Von Braun's scientific contributions because of his work on the V3 Rocket used by the Nazies.
And here we can see Dr. Von Braun's own attitude about which nations he prefered to utilize his scientific knowledge and for what reasons his preference:
Sart at about 6:55 and wait:
He wanted his knowledge to in the hands of people not "godless" but guided by the Bible. At least that is what he wanted.
&feature=relmfu
25 Apr 12
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywill
[quote] it then lists a number of creationists that have contributed to science.
In that list, it includes Werner von Braun who was known to work for the Nazis in WW2 -the video certainly scored an own-goal there!
His “contributions” included the V2-rockets that killed many men, women and children.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAbraun.htm east that is what he wanted.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKY4ssYZsRQ&feature=relmfu
Humy disquaified creationist Werner Von Braun's scientific contributions because of his work on the V3 Rocket used by the Nazies.
NO. I disquaified creationist Werner Von Braun's contributions because he knowingly made contributions that would be used for murder of innocent people including children but didn't say let alone do anything against it but simply kept working for the Nazis until the end of the war.
He wanted his knowledge to in the hands of people not "godless" but guided by the Bible.
yes, and he knowingly allowed his work to be used for murder without even a protest because he had the delusional belief he could do this and not share moral responsibility for the murders. That is logically consistent with thinking that “ his knowledge to in the hands of people not "godless" but guided by the Bible” is a good thing even when it involves that knowledge being used for murder by theists for having one delusion belief makes it easier to have others.
Nazism and Creationism go to together well. Most Nazis were theists and many were Creationist:
http://coelsblog.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/nazi-racial-ideology-was-religious-creationist-and-opposed-to-darwinism/
shame on you for supporting an evil Nazi collaborator just because he was a creationist.
25 Apr 12
3 edits
Originally posted by humyHumy disquaified creationist Werner Von Braun's scientific contributions because of his work on the V3 Rocket used by the Nazies.
NO. I disquaified creationist Werner Von Braun's contributions because he knowingly made contributions that would be used for murder of innocent people including children but didn't say let alone do anything aga
shame on you for supporting an evil Nazi collaborator just because he was a creationist.
Humy disquaified creationist Werner Von Braun's scientific contributions because of his work on the V2 [edit] Rocket used by the Nazis.
humy:
NO. I disquaified creationist Werner Von Braun's contributions because he knowingly made contributions that would be used for murder of innocent people including children but didn't say let alone do anything against it but simply kept working for the Nazis until the end of the war.
I don't see a huge difference in what I said you said and your clarification.
I think it appears that the man had a change of heart. Now, lots of causes and wars begin as one thing and end up as something else. Of course being a typically loyal German citizen subject to the propoganda of his government, I can see him dedicated to its national defense.
Today in Argentina, brave soldiers who fought in the Falklins war (Malvenas to Argentina) have some bitter second thoughts about how they were used by the military junta.
I think if we are realistic we have to give room for nationals entering into a nation's conflicts with one attitude but coming to another attitude latter on. IF you are going to deny people the benefit of having a change of heart after further consideration, I think you are setting the moral bar too high.
You do not have perfect moral judgment about things throughout your total lifetime. Unless you're perfect, you too probably change your mind about things.
I am willing to give the scientist Werner Von Braun a benefit of a doubt that his optimism about the Nazis changed as the war progressed. His quote indicates he obviously had a change in heart.
me:
He wanted his knowledge to in the hands of people not "godless" but guided by the Bible.
yes, and he knowingly allowed his work to be used for murder without even a protest because he had the delusional belief he could do this and not share moral responsibility for the murders.
That he was caught up in hysteria the same way you are caught up in hysteria to rid the earth of theism, shows he was not that different from yourself.
He was probably caught up in a belief that Germany was the victim, along with millions of other Germans who were bitter about the punishment exacted on them after WWI.
I don't see much difference in that and your paranoia that theists are the evil scum of the world, to be blamed for everything negative about society you can imagine.
Now you want to re-write history to make Nazism as the subsidiary of Theism. Their object of worship was the German people and their fuel was Charles Darwin much more than any Theism.
That is logically consistent with thinking that “ his knowledge to in the hands of people not "godless" but guided by the Bible” is a good thing even when it involves that knowledge being used for murder by theists for having one delusion belief makes it easier to have others.
Nazism and Creationism go to together well. Most Nazis were theists and many were Creationist:
With me you don't have a whole lot of credibility to talk about what is "logically consistent" any more.
Nazism, Master Race, Survival of the Fittest, goes hand and hand with Darwin's Evolution. He may have believed that he heard the voice of Divine Providence as a youth. His rationalization for genocide was Darwinian. And his skill in captivating audiences into hysteria was do largely to occultic beliefs and advice he secured for his rise to power.
Don't waste your breath or time trying to deny it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillNo it f****** well doesn't.
Nazism, Master Race, Survival of the Fittest, goes hand and hand with Darwin's Evolution. He may have believed that he heard the voice of Divine Providence as a youth. His rationalization for genocide was Darwinian. And his skill in captivating audiences into hysteria was do largely to occultic beliefs and advice he secured for his rise to power.
Don't waste your breath or time trying to deny it.
And it is incredibly stupid and grossly insulting to claim otherwise.
25 Apr 12
Originally posted by jaywillDarwinism, as you call it, is based on observations of the natural world. The natural world, as you believe it, was created by your God, maybe you should take your complaint up with him.
Dr. Richard Wikart,(spelling?) the author of the book [b]"From Darwin To Hitler" weighs in on the subject of Nazi motivations for genocide & eugenics:
Start watching at about 2:15 and hold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtVmT63tbmY&feature=relmfu[/b]
Originally posted by jaywillHitler was a theist. Most Nazis were theists.
Dr. Richard Wikart,(spelling?) the author of the book [b]"From Darwin To Hitler" weighs in on the subject of Nazi motivations for genocide & eugenics:
Start watching at about 2:15 and hold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtVmT63tbmY&feature=relmfu[/b]
On top of that, how does biological Darwinism logically and rationally naturally lead to social Darwinism?
To any rational non-delusional person ( such as most atheists and perhaps most of the non-extremist theists although not so sure about the latter ) it clearly doesn't.
How would it logically follow that if in the wild only the fittest survive then that would mean we morally should model our own society so that only the 'fittest' ( ignoring here the issue of who is to decide who is the 'fittest' ) survive? Answer, it doesn't. You cannot go from an 'is' to a 'morally should'.
If you deny this, then explain: how one logically follows from the other? i.e. how does social Darwinism logically/rationally follow from biological Darwinism?
That's where morons like you and the Nazis keep getting it wrong.
Social Darwinism is not part of any real science i.e. it is pseudoscience while biological Darwinism is about a real science based on evidence. The two do NOT equate.
But for those with generally lower I.Q. ( generally the theists like yourself ) as well as the delusional ( Nazis, religious extremists ) , yes, believing one can lead to believing the other -but that is as a result of illogic/irrationality/stupidity on the part of them and not the fault of real science which social Darwinism has no part in.
Many of the more rational theists accept the fact of biological evolution but do not accept social Darwinism; do you deny this? If not, then you admit that accepting biological evolution does not necessarily lead to accepting social Darwinism.
25 Apr 12
Originally posted by humyI think you should work on your name calling and adhoms, you know: idiot - moron.
Hitler was a theist. Most Nazis were theists.
On top of that, how does biological Darwinism logically and rationally naturally lead to social Darwinism?
To any rational non-delusional person ( such as most atheists and perhaps most of the non-extremist theists although not so sure about the latter ) it clearly doesn't.
How would it logically follow that if ...[text shortened]... cepting biological evolution does not necessarily lead to accepting social Darwinism.
I know a good junior highschool boys room where you could get some juicy insults for your arguments, scribbled on the walls.
Do work on your name calling.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Apr 12
Originally posted by twhiteheadNot could.
You started it when you came up with this line:Nazism, Master Race, Survival of the Fittest, goes hand and hand with Darwin's Evolution.
as googlefudge points out that could be taken as an insult.
IS.
It IS an insult of the grossest kind and I f****** well take it as one.
It's also completely unfounded and verifiably false theist propaganda and lies.
25 Apr 12
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillHold what? My head in my hands? What were you holding?
Dr. Richard Wikart,(spelling?) the author of the book [b]"From Darwin To Hitler" weighs in on the subject of Nazi motivations for genocide & eugenics:
Start watching at about 2:15 and hold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtVmT63tbmY&feature=relmfu[/b]
I did not notice any weighty thoughts on christian motives for Jewish pogroms over the centuries, a solid basis on which to build the Final Solution.
25 Apr 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeIn the context I consider your posts balanced and appropriate. It is indeed hard to settle for anything approaching coherent expression and not to just explode in a screaming fit.
Not could.
IS.
It IS an insult of the grossest kind and I f****** well take it as one.
It's also completely unfounded and verifiably false theist propaganda and lies.
I can tolerate and sometimes enjoy Jaywill when he is offering us his intricate interpretations of the Bible itself, because I can live with the possibility that like others he is simply and sincerely absorbed in his religious conviction and doing his best, but when he passes on his perverse links to weird anti science and couples this with offensive and insulting allegations based on the distorted ramblings of a weirdo, then I regretfully part company because he has evidently abandoned all critical thinking and passed beyond reasoned discussion.
Dawkins commented in one of his excellent books that when he went for his first talking tour in the USA he was expecting hostile audiences. Instead he encountered people who were fascinated because they had not been exposed to a sensible and informed account of what evolution is, how natural selection works and how species actually relate to each other. When he is not making a fuss about his atheism, he can write lyrically about the biological world and its extraordinary variety. What a shame that so many Americans especially feel unable to deal with this material without feeling an existential threat to their boiled cabbage beliefs. After all, there are indeed many good scientists who, as the thread says, can reconcile evolution with their Christian (and other) faiths. I disagree with them but that is less important.
So I sometimes share your wish that Jaywill would f### o## with that sort of foul abuse and his smirking plea of innocence by referring to this authority of his.
Originally posted by jaywillOkay so lets summarise the lesson will we, as best I can and without intentionally misrepresenting it. An interesting piece of disinformation and probably persuasive to a non critical audience.
Dr. Richard Wikart,(spelling?) the author of the book [b]"From Darwin To Hitler" weighs in on the subject of Nazi motivations for genocide & eugenics:
Start watching at about 2:15 and hold.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtVmT63tbmY&feature=relmfu[/b]
The concentration camps are examined slowly and with appropriate sadness. How could the Nazi's do such things?
Hitler was not mad. He believed he was benefitting mankind and enabling the evolution of a superior race of human beings by promoting breeding of true aryans and destroying defective and degenerate branches of the species.
His ideas were indeed widespread among scientists who supported the notion of Eugenics. This was also influential in the USA where they sought the enforced sterilisation of the mentally and morally infirm.
What Darwin did was to de-privilige human life as compared with the life of animals. When human life is no longer sacred, then it becomes an economic matter and not a moral one to take life for politically favoured reasons. Hence we see abortion, euthenasia and other ways in which life is trivialised.
This represents a regression from civilisation. Among savages (we are told seriously near the end) the weak and the old are not cared for - they were left to die. Civilisation has brought us hospitals, asylums and other means for protecting the vulnerable.
Powerful people now dominate all the research funds in science. We are told that religion cannot be part of science and that morality is not relevant. A powerful elite (with emphasis) is driving this programme and destroying our human values.
Anyone who takes Darwin seriously has to come to terms with its terrible implications. Not all scientists think like this but many do and they are the powerful elite who tell us what to think.
Heady stuff. These guys are very frightened. The purposeful way in which they produce such propoganda is disturbing. A number of very valid concerns (eg about the Eugenics movement), a number of imaginative leaps (about savages and civilisation for example - just fantasy), a concern about abortion which assumes that women are just carrier bags whose own lives have no value.
A totally misleading account of Darwinism because it fails to point that Darwin did not invent the theory of evolution at all - it had many expressions and Darwin actively rejected many of them which had a lot of influence not least on Eugenics. Even in terms of Natural Selection, Darwin was not the only one to come up with this theory and support it with good evidence as he himself acknowledged - he only just managed to be first to publish. If Darwin did not exist the theory of natural selection would have emerged regardless. Darwin is respected because of his integrity, his ethics and moral concern, and his remarkable research as well as his brilliant writing style - still highly readable - so it is very annoying when ignorant people assault his good name.
The conpiracy theory about the scientific elite is twaddle. You can't have your cake and eat it. Do we want to keep science and religion respectfully separate, which is a reasonable idea, or do we want to ask how religious claims stand up to scientific investigation? Remember that if a scientist could find a valid scientific way to endorse the biblical acount of the history of this planet he would win a Nobel prize and be massively celebrated. These guys do not want fair evaluation of their claims. It is propoganda and highly manipulative, twisting unrelated assertions together to support a very loaded agenda. All while rubbing their sincere hands with wide eyed moral anguish. Makes me puke.