Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out
Creation Evolution Headlines ^ | 8-5-19 | Jerry Bergman, PhD

Posted on 08/05/2019 7:47:32 AM PDT by fishtank

Some Professionally-Safe Darwin Doubters Are Now Speaking Out

August 5, 2019 | Jerry Bergman

When the coast is clear, and their careers are safe, some academics can afford to doubt Darwin publicly.

by Jerry Bergman, PhD

My experience after teaching at three universities, when discussing Darwinism with colleagues, I have learned there exist many more Darwin skeptics than commonly believed. Most are in the closet for very good reasons (career survival), or at least they decline to publicly speak out about their views opposing Darwinism. The evidence against Darwinism is so great that it seems inevitable a few would speak out about their well-founded doubts about evolution. And some have.

(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: alien; alien3; aliens; creation; creationscience; dangdirtyape; darwinism; filthyape; intelligentdesign; monkey; monkeymen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 621-629 next last
To: BroJoeK; Kalamata

Oh stop with the red herring ad hominem attacks. I’ve seen proponents of vaccines defending against anti-vaxxers using much the same language patterns and right back att’em as well but I’m not convinced that Pro vaxxers as well as anti vaxxers are holocaust deniers just because they use similar patterns of speech as various holocaust deniers do.

What does the subject of the holocaust have to do with the subject of evolution vs direct creation by God anyway? On second thought, it might have a lot to do with it based on Nazi propaganda and their views on racial purity and superiority! Still I don’t see where Kalamata has advocated extermination of evolution supporters or even you BroJoeK!

Kalamata is eating you alive...stop digging the hole deeper!


381 posted on 09/12/2019 8:25:39 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6
mdmatthis6: " You speak and insinuate more like a sniveling Nazi than you do a freeper!
Change agent much? "

Sorry, I never met a sniveling Nazi.
Can you explain how they "speak and insinuate"?
How does a FReeper do it?

And wat is a "change agent?"
Are you just an insult agent?

382 posted on 09/12/2019 10:18:37 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 377 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK

Yup you sound just like holocaust denier to me! Deflection is what they do best!


383 posted on 09/12/2019 10:32:02 AM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 382 | View Replies]

To: fishtank

You can’t disprove the religion of evolution to it’s true believers.


384 posted on 09/12/2019 10:38:23 AM PDT by DungeonMaster (Prov 24: Do not fret because of evildoers. Do not associate with those given to change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
central_va: " Great hoaxes through out history:

1. Climate change/warming
2. Darwin's theory
3. Justice is blind
4. Self rule "

And good day To you too, sir.

Nobody disputes that climates change, always have, always will, naturally.
The point of strong pushback is against leftist "watermelon" political proposals.

Evolution theory is strongly confirmed by literal mountains of fossil & other geological evidence as well as now very detailed DNA analyses.
Evolution has never been seriously falsified, and has no competing natural explanation.

"Justice is blind" is our ideal and the intention of the Constitution, though sadly like so many other human efforts, we sometimes fall short of perfection.

"Self rule" is the Constitution's intention, though much depends on our definitions of words like "self" and "rule".
Some seemingly wish to rule not only themselves, but also their neighbors.
Historically such people were called "Democrats".

Have a wonderful day.

385 posted on 09/12/2019 1:33:23 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Kalamata: "Child"

Kalamata: "Child"

Kalamata: "Child"

Kalamata: "Child"

In fact, it's Kalamata who can't control his urges to slavishly obey every Denier Rule, including #7: OK to insult, disparage & malign.

386 posted on 09/12/2019 2:02:23 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Denier Kalamata: "Those were not Christians, Alinsky Joe.
Christians do not persecute anyone."

I've mentioned elsewhere that some of my ancestors were Anabaptists, persecuted by both Catholics and Protestants.
It's why they came to America.
Now you may wish to argue that such persecutors were not truly Christian, or you may wish to argue that Anabaptists are not truly Christian.
Regardless, the historical fact is that Christian official persecutions of heretics began with Roman Emperor Constantine the Great, circa 325 A.D.

Christian persecutions of Jews reached a peak in the Spanish Inquisition, circa 1500 A.D.

None of that had anything to do with Charles Darwin.

387 posted on 09/12/2019 2:19:11 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Denier Kalamata: " On the other hand, there is little doubt that Hitler and his education chief were heavily influenced by Darwinism, as were the other 20th century butchers. "

Nonsense, the fact is that Hitler never mentioned Darwin, natural selection or evolution as natural selection in Mein Kampf.
He did claim to have first learned anti-Semitism in the anti-Semetic Christian Workers Party.
By his own telling of it, Hitler came to anti-Semitism through politics not science.

In reality, there were other strong influences as well, but none had anything to do with Darwin.
So blaming Darwin for the Holocaust is like blaming 9/11 on the breakfast those terrorists ate.

388 posted on 09/12/2019 2:31:52 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Denier Kalamata: "think I understand you. You believe the evidence for evolutionism is so overwhelming, that it is impossible to show us any? LOL! That is really dumb, Alinsky Joe. "

More nonsense because you can visit a natural history museum any time you wish, plus you already have, by your own count, "thousands of books" on the subject, so you are a confirmed denier.
Nothing I present will make any difference to you.

You simply cannot see what you refuse to see, regardless of how good your eyes.

389 posted on 09/12/2019 2:42:16 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Danny Denier post 333: "Child"

Danny Denier: "Child"

Danny Denier: "Child"

Danny Denier: "Child"

Danny Denier: "Child"

Danny Denier: "Child"

This from the poster who cannot bring himself to disobey even one Rule for Deniers.

390 posted on 09/12/2019 3:09:31 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Kalamata: " My rule of thumb is, there is a lot of bad science out there.
It is better to acknowledge the Lord in all thy ways, than to trust in the craftiness of mere men. "

That's an excellent rule, but there's nothing "crafty" about evolution theory.
It's simply a reasonable natural explanation for volumes of data, and there are no others.

391 posted on 09/12/2019 3:58:30 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Danny Denier: "You are lying again, Alinsky Joe.
Dan Graur has repeatedly and vehemently denied that ENCODE disproved evolution.
Why would I claim he did not? "

{sigh}
You can't keep track of you own lies, and need me to look them up for you?
Oooh Kay.

Your post #162, you used Graur to trash ENCODE:


392 posted on 09/12/2019 4:17:13 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Danny Denier: " Either you are lying, or you don't understand what you read.
I have never trashed ENCODE. "

You agreed with Graur's attack on ENCODE.
You also claimed that ENCODE agrees that 80% or 95% of DNA is somehow "constrained" or "restrained" or "influenced" by evolution

And this, you claimed, proves there's no evolution.

The fact is you've posted nothing from ENCODE suggesting more than ~10% of DNA is "constrained" by evolution.

393 posted on 09/12/2019 4:29:00 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Dishonest Danny Denier: "Are you getting senile, Alinsky Joe?
You posted a picture of one of Graur's books, he was the one of the primary interviewee of the 2017 New Scientist article you linked, and you have mentioned him on more than one occasion?
In post #260 there was this exchange:

[Me] "I would say that Graur was none-to-happy with the results published by the consortium.”
[You] "Nor should he be, nor have we seen any response from ENCODE to Graur’s remarks."

You are exceptionally dishonest, Alinsky Joe.
You can get away with those stunts with the unwashed masses, but not with me."

I've posted nothing dishonest, your frequent claims otherwise notwithstanding.
In this case I simply googled up quotes to support my point and apparently Graur's was one.
You then attacked Graur as if he were your personal nemesis, and that is what I responded to.

So clearly what's going on here is that Dishonest Danny has lost track of your own lies and naturally wish to project dishonesty onto yours truly.

That's your use of Denier Rule #5.

394 posted on 09/12/2019 4:45:36 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Danny Denier: " You are thoroughly confused, Alinsky Joe.
I am not even sure how to unpack that mess you wrote. "

No, I'm not in the least confused, am simply quoting back your own posts to you.
Somehow that drives Kalamata into paroxysms of angry accusations.

So I'll give you some clues, I'm going to help you out, FRiend.
You can clear up all your own confusion, you can defeat my argument and win a very rare "attaboy" from yours truly, if you'll just do this:

No denier rules are necessary, just produce the quotes.
395 posted on 09/12/2019 5:02:29 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Danny Denier: " At a health care conference in San Francisco, an audience member asked him about junk DNA.
“We don’t use that term anymore,” Collins replied. “It was pretty much a case of hubris to imagine that we could dispense with any part of the genome—as if we knew enough to say it wasn’t functional.”
Most of the DNA that scientists once thought was just taking up space in the genome, Collins said, ‘turns out to be doing stuff.’”

[Carl Zimmer, “Is Most of Our DNA Garbage?” New York Times, 2015] "

Sorry, that's close but no cigar.
Saying certain DNA alleles have "function" is not the same as saying we know what those functions are, or that Collins agrees virtually all DNA is "constrained" by evolution.
Or that such "constraint" somehow disproves evolution!

Of course, all of that might well prove true, but so far here only Danny Denier claims it.

396 posted on 09/12/2019 5:27:21 PM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; bwest; aligncare; freedumb2003; mdmathis6; Riley
>>Joey said: "We need to start here with an Ode to Danny Kalamata, who just can't function without belittling, insulting & mocking: "Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you,

Child.

******************

>>Kalamata: "You lie and fabricate so much, Alinsky Joe, it is difficult to tell when you are telling the truth."
>>Joey said: "That is your use of Denier Rules #5, #6 & #7.

Child.

******************

>>Kalamata: "You even promote seal and walrus noses and nostrils as transitional blow holes, without a shred of evidence. LOL! We really get a kick out statements like that, Joey."
>>Joey said: "Oh? "We"?? Referring to Kalamata and who else?

Don't get all paranoid on us, Joey: I am referring to just the wife and me. We really did get a good belly-laugh from your "promotion". LOL!

******************

>>Joey said: "Now you're hung up on blow-holes, why?

Huh? I am not "hung up" on blowholes, Joey. You are.

******************

>>Joey said: "Semi-aquatic and aquatic mammals don't need blow holes to breath while in water, so ancient pre-whales wouldn't need them.

There is no such thing as a "pre-whale," Joey, except in the vivid imaginations of religious zealots.

******************

>>Joey said: "When exactly nostrils like those of seals & walruses became more like a whale's blow hole is a matter for future fossil discoveries to reveal. In the mean time, opinions can validly differ.

There you go again, Joey! The absence of evidence is NOT evidence; nor will it ever be evidence!

******************

>>Kalamata: "It is always fun to debate scientific illiterates who pretend to be scientists; but you are exceptionally funny. It is at times difficult to follow your childish antics, but still fun."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you...

Child.

******************

>>Kalamata: "By the way, what is/was your profession? Political Science?"
>>Joey said: "Professional truth detector swimming in a sea of predatory liars.

Just as I suspected: a professional con-man.

******************

>>Kalamata on Shermer's Holocaust book: "Really? Did you even read the book? I will supply a few excerpts. This is one of Shermer's rants against anyone who requires scientific evidence to believe his naturalistic (atheistic) world view:"
>>Joey said: "Thanks for the quotes, it's been nearly 20 years since I read & used Shermer's book against Holocaust deniers, had forgotten his words on other deniers. We can notice first that in Shermer's index at the book's end, no words are referenced such as "evolution", "creationism" or "intelligent design". Such words are not the subjects of Shermer's book.

Shermer snuck those words in, like a true professional con-man. I believe that is called, "sleight of hand", which could be the title of his book; but pretending it to be a book on holocaust deniers makes it a best seller.

******************

>>Joey said: "We should also notice that here, as elsewhere, Kalamata has quoted correctly, even words that don't really support his own claims. I'm impressed by that, if nothing else.

I am impressed by your ability to manipulate the truth, Joey. I hear CNN is hiring.

******************

>>Kalamata quoting Shermer, year 2000: "For creationists to disprove evolution they would need to unravel all these independent lines of evidence and find a rival theory that can explain them better than evolution. They cannot, without invoking miracles, which are not a part of science . . . "
>>Joey said: "Shermer is correct, though the idea of "intelligent design" was intended specifically to eliminate the "miracle" and leave the "intelligence" unnamed.

Shermer pretends his book is about holocaust denial; but in reality it is just another Far-Left hit-piece on conservatives, as well as on those who reject the false religion of evolutionism, who are perhaps conservative, as well.

******************

>>Joey said: "Their problem is that everyone on both sides understands the word "intelligent" is intended only to mask God, and many consider that less than honest kerygma.

The intent of your religion, evolutionism, is to DENY God, Joey. Was your statement just another misdirection?

For the rest of you, the Discovery Institute has Senior Fellows from practically every ideology, except for the religion of evolutionism. For example, Jonathan Wells is (or was) a Moony, of all things! David Berlinsky is a Jew and agnostic. You should seriously consider reading his book, "The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions," if you have not done so. He discusses some of the key themes of his book, here:

The Devil's Delusion.

******************

>>Kalamata: "The next statement is very clever. Shermer first introduces a few quacks into the discussion, and then conflates them with evidence-seekers..."
>>Joey said: "In fact, Shermer clearly identifies just who he's talking about, in this particular case "old earth creationists".

Joey quote-mined my comment, as usual. My full comment is as follows:

[Kalamata] "The next statement is very clever. Shermer first introduces a few quacks into the discussion, and then conflates them with evidence-seekers who reject the circular arguments of modern Bible-hating "archeologists" – those who use the pretense that the Egyptian Shoshenq WAS the biblical Shishak in order to fabricate dates for historical events in the Ancient Middle East (ANE) that will never, ever match biblical chronology. Slick, huh?"

Joey also forgot to mention that Shermer discusses evolution several times, in a book he pretends to be about holocaust deniers.

******************

>>Kalamata quoting Shermer: "Rather than have dinosaurs living alongside humans ten thousand years ago as 'young-earth' Christian creationists do, these 'Krishna creationists' (as some call them) have humans living alongside dinosaurs hundreds of millions of years ago. These are very 'old-earth' creationists indeed!"
>>Joey said: "Now, why is this denial instead of revision?... "

Joey again resorted to quote-mining to distort the context of my statement. He is shameless. Joey also forgot to mention that Shermer's book is supposed to be about holocaust deniers.

******************

>>Kalamata: "And how about the implications of this reference?" "Quoted in T. McIver, “The Protocols of Creationism: Racism, Anti-Semitism and White Supremacy in Christian Fundamentalism,” Skeptic 2, no. 4 (1994): 76-87."
>>Joey said: "Personally, I don't even like that word "fundamentalism" because I don't think it correctly describes conservative traditionalist Christians whose main focus is simply to preserve the "Faith of our Fathers! living still . . . I disagree with those who'd conflate such traditionalists with racism, anti-Semitism and white supremacy.

That was one of Michael Shermer's references in the book you continue to praise.

******************

>>Kalamata: "What does that have to do with the holocaust? NOTHING! But Shermer intentionally associates those who reject the pseudo-science of evolutionism with holocaust deniers, LIKE YOU HAVE DONE!"
>>Joey said: "Your Shermer quotes here come from his final Chapter 9, "The Rape of History", pages 231 to 256. In it Shermer discusses many kinds of denial and offers up his own set of rules for detecting denial (pages 248-250):

Shermer is also a denier, Joey. He denies the existence of God. Does that make him a holocaust denier?

What is your opinion of the professor who called for the death penalty for "Climate Change Deniers?"

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/12/professor_calls_for_death_penalty_for_climate_change_deniers.html

Crazy leftists are not likely to forget that "call to arms." It is indeed a dangerous game against conservatives that Shermer, Prothero, and you are playing, Joey.

******************

>>Joey is listing the God Denier, Michael Shermer's "Rules for Denial Detection"

If Rule #1 is not "Look in the Mirror", then Shermer's rules are even more evidence that he suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

******************

>>Joey lists the rules, and then says, "I think Shermer's rules can apply to all sorts of denial, not just the Holocaust."

I agree. It can apply to God Denial, Special Creation Denial, Intelligent Design Denial, Man Created in God's Image Denial, Global Flood Denial, Jesus Denial, Resurrection Denial, Devolution Denial, Genetic Entropy Denial, Neo-Nazi's Are Left-Wing Denial, and The Climate is Normal Denial, to name a few.

******************

>>Kalamata: "The bottom line is, Shermer is shamelessly using the memory of the holocaust to promote his leftist agenda and his religion of evolutionism/atheism. No objective person can read that book and conclude otherwise. But, then again, you are not objective, Alinsky Joe, so you naturally admire it, and him!"
>>Joey said: "For several months nearly 20 years ago I debated Holocaust deniers in a format similar to this one. The worst of them were extremely vulgar, but setting that aside, their debate tactics were identical to those used by Kalamata, including reliance on personal attacks, insults, belittling & mockery. And their basic strategy was the same, in effect:

I know you are lying about your past, Joey; but ironically you inadvertently claimed that YOU use the same debate tactics as holocaust deniers (e.g., personal attacks, insults, belittling & mockery.)

******************

>>Joey said: "I don't see no stinkin' evidence", even in a Holocaust museum, or, in Kalamata's case, in a Natural History museum."

I never said that, Joey? Are you delusional? This was my statement in #352:

[Kalamata] "The evidence in the Holocaust museum is believable, Joey. The evidence that Charlie Darwin’s philosophy — the origin of your worldview — was the primary driver of Hitler’s worldview, which led to the Holocaust, is why are so defensive and feel compelled to slander and marginalize Jews who reject Darwin and try to expose his treacherous doctrine."

Joey cannot let go of his "holocaust denier" misassociation, because slanderous implications is all he has in defense of his evolution-is-god worldview!

******************

>>Joey said: "History books on the Holocaust "prove" nothing, just as science books on evolution "prove" nothing.

You must be delusional, Joey. Do you really believe the Holocaust proves nothing?

******************

>>Joey said: "Holocaust eye witnesses were all liars, just as scientists all lie about evolution.

You are delusional, Joey. Perhaps this will help you get your head straight. Holocaust eye witnesses are eye witnesses to the holocaust. Scientists do not lie about evolution. Ideologues disguised as scientists, such as Ernst Haeckel and Eugenie Scott, lie about evolution.

******************

>>Joey said: "Holocaust forensic evidence is faked or "proves nothing" just as fossil & DNA evidence is faked or 'proves nothing'"

Do you really believe the Holocaust forensic evidence is faked, Joey?

******************

>>Joey said: "The Holocaust is a politically motivated fantasy, just as is evolution theory."

Do you really believe the Holocaust is a politically motivated fantasy, Joey?

Joey, the Holocaust actually happened. It is a well-verified historical event.

******************

>>Kalamata: "I almost forgot to mention that I had previously mentioned that Shermer's propaganda also links Neo-Nazis to conservative Christians and Freepers, by falsely claiming Neo-Nazis are "right-wingers". Some links are subtle..."
>>Joey said: "Right, so "subtle" that only someone with extreme sensitivity, like a Kalamata, could detect or be triggered by them.

Apparently Joey agrees with Shermer's misassociation of the Neo-Nazi's with the political right-wing; otherwise he would condemn it. With "friends" like Joey, conservatives do not need enemies.

******************

>>Kalamata quoting Shermer from 1991: "Some Holocaust deniers, particularly those with extreme right-wing leanings..."
>>Joey said: "Here I agree with Kalamata that Holocaust deniers, fascists, Nazis & Communists are all left-wing, not right wing as we understand that term in the United States. For us and to the degree that "right wing" means conservative, in the USA conservative means constitutionally limited government and the Bible, not necessarily in that order.

That was a quick turn-around, Joey? Do you have a short-term memory problem?

My quote was from Shermer's 2009 book on, "How to use the Holocaust to smear your ideological opponents," deceptively titled, "Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It."

******************

>>Joey said: "In Shermer's defense, most people in both Europe and America have long been taught that "right wing" means fascists, Nazis and extreme American "conservatives", i.e., the KKK.

You are defending Shermer's slander of conservatives by misassociation?

I am trying to make sense of this. I guess that since Shermer taught Joey how to slander by misassociation and innuendo, Joey must feel he owes him something.

******************

>>Joey said: "For example, discussing the KKK, white nationalism and anti-immigration: "All three movements have called for the "purification" of American society and all are considered right-wing extremist organizations.[11][12][13][14]. That's unfortunate and even more unfortunately way too commonly linked to left wing extremists like fascists and National Socialists."

Ignorance is no excuse, Joey, nor is your reliance on the Far-Left-controlled Wikipedia.

******************

>>Kalamata: "Other examples of Shermer conflating holocaust deniers and fascists with the conservative right-wing are more in-your-face:"
>>Kalamata quoting Shermer from 1991: "...neo-Nazi skinheads and had formed a right-wing organization known as the National Socialist Front."
>>Joey said: "I agree that if the terms "left wing" and "right wing" have any real meaning in our American sense, then "National Socialists" are just as left wing as International Socialists, "Democratic" Socialists, fascists & Nazis. American conservatives are the opposite of any of those things.

You are all over the place, Joey. Also, Shermer's book was the 2009 revised edition.

******************

>>Kalamata: "So, if you hear those wackos on the left screaming "Nazi!" at conservatives and/or Trump supporters, you can "thank" far-left propagandists, like your hero, Michael Shermer."
>>Joey said: "I doubt if there's anyone outside the confines of Free Republic fans who can be counted on to routinely recognize the extreme difference between European "right wingers" and American conservatives. Everyone else will simply point to the KKK and note they are said to be nationalists, racists, bigots and violent, so they are "right wing".

Again, you can "thank" far-left propagandists, like your hero, Michael Shermer.

******************

>>Kalamata on Shermer: "He was disgustingly wrong in using the holocaust as a front to promote his atheist, far-left agenda, as are you. "
>>Joey said: "As I suspected, Kalamata simply cannot answer the Holocaust question directly & honestly, and I think I know the reason.

That is malicious sophistry, Joey.

******************

>>Kalamata: "The Darwinist roots of the Holocaust are well documented, Alinsky Joe, a small part of which I referenced in previous posts."
>>Joey said: "Oh, Danny boy, the truth, the facts are calling you. Hitler did not need Darwin to murder Jews. By his own words Hitler first learned anti-Semitism in the anti-Semitic Christian Workers Party. Darwin had the same relationship to the Holocaust as the terrorists' breakfast to 9/11/2001.

You are rewriting history, again, Child.

For the rest of you who have not been brainwashed by that sophist, check out "Hitler and the Nazi Darwinian Worldview," by Jerry Bergman (Jerry authored the linked article of this thread.) You might also check out just about anything written by historian Richard Weikart. In one of his books on Hitler, you will find this synopsis of Hitler's religion:

"When Hitler explained how he hoped to harmonize human society with the scientific laws of nature, he emphasized principles derived from Darwinian theory, especially the racist forms of Darwinism prominent among Darwin's German disciples. These laws included human biological inequality (especially racial inequality), the human struggle for existence, and natural selection. In the Darwinian struggle for existence, multitudes perish, and only a few of the fittest individuals survive and reproduce. If this is nature's way, Hitler thought, then he should emulate nature by destroying those destined for death. Thus, in his twisted vision of religion, Hitler believed he was serving his God by annihilating the allegedly inferior humans and promoting the welfare and prolific reproduction of the supposedly superior Aryans." [Richard Weikart, "Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich." Regnery History, 2016]

All of Professor Weikart's books are well-researched.

Mr. Kalamata

397 posted on 09/12/2019 9:52:31 PM PDT by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 376 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Danny Denier: "That is a really dumb of you, Alinsky Joe.
The 98% number is the old, fabricated number, when evolutionists were promoting the Junk DNA myth."

98% is based on certain assumptions.
Change the assumptions, you change the percent.

But here's what never changes, regardless of assumptions: no living creature is more closely related by DNA than chimps & bonobos.

398 posted on 09/13/2019 4:36:56 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Kalamata
Danny Denier: "Your first link, Wikipedia, explains that ancient dating methods require "previously established chronology."
Where does that come from, other than from wild guesses?"

"Previously established chronology" can come from pretty much anywhere, historical documents for example.

Danny Denier: "Using that timeline, they can claim that the excavated city of Jericho, which exists today exactly like the biblical narrative predicts, cannot possibly be the biblical Jericho because it doesn't match the Shoshenq=Shishak timeline/
In other words, archeologists use a circular argument of a known biblical date (the ransacking of Jerusalem by Shishak) to "disprove" all previous dates.
Slick, huh?"

Settlements at ancient Jericho start back circa 9,000 BC, using carbon-14 absolute dating, with many levels, some destroyed by earthquakes, some by fire.
Excavations of Jericho began with Warren in 1868, Sellin & Watzinger in 1906, Garstang in 1930, Kenyon in 1952, Nigro & Marchetti in 1997 and Yasine since 2015.
One major destruction at Jericho has been dated to 1500 BC, which some Biblical scholars say doesn't match its chronology.

Others say it does.

399 posted on 09/13/2019 6:20:20 AM PDT by BroJoeK ((a little historical perspective...))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: mdmathis6

>>Mr. Mathis wrote: Psalms 2 is actually a very good reference to put forth in this discussion in light of the postings you have shared and highlighted with me.

LOL! I am laughing because I used the following phrase from Psalms 2 in an earlier post:

“he that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh”

https://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3769318/posts?page=130#130

My quote from Psalms 2 is in the last section.

Mr. Kalamata


400 posted on 09/13/2019 11:30:01 AM PDT by Kalamata (BIBLE RESEARCH TOOLS: http://bibleresearchtools.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 380 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 361-380381-400401-420 ... 621-629 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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