Posted on 08/28/2002 9:36:04 AM PDT by gdani
I happen to agree that Darwin was at least an enabler for Hitler desires. One only needs read Darwins view of races and mankind.
Even if Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Clinton, or Velikovsky gave him credit, placing the blame for the evils of the modern world on the late Mr. Charles Darwin's head is tin-foil material.
The relationships between Darwinism and the great ideologies of the 20'th century are well known. Newt Gingrich summed it up pretty tidely in noting that the question of whether a man views his fellow man as a fellow child of God or as a meat byproduct of random processes HAS to effect human relations.
Within the context of the atheist/evolutionist world view, there is no rational basis for morality. The noted cannibal and evolutionist Jeffrey Dahmer actually stated:
"If a person doesn't think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what's the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges? That's how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all came from slime. When we died, you know , that was it, there is nothing..."
The same kind of thinking led to the nazi and communist states and to the world wars of the last century as noted on several of the links I posted above (531). The fact that "Balrog666" and a half dozen or so other hardline evolutionists on FR don't like hearing or reading this stuff does not affect the reality of the situation.
Interesting that you should post the above as supporting evolution! If moving a nerve from front to back is so hard, so impossible, then think of how hard, how impossible it is for a reptile to turn into a bird, or for a complete eye system to arise. Imagine how long such an accomplishment would have to wait and consider how your statement "Transitionary individuals are actually less fit" makes such a transformation absolutely impossible.
I prefer not to follow the "teachings" of Jeffrey Dahmer. I hope nobody would. The point would be equally stupid if he gave credit to "Ted Holden" (AKA medved), or the Admin Moderator, or even balrog666.
Perhaps the fact that most Freepers understand that point is what distinguishes us from you and your "tin-foil-hat material".
Can you point out to me where Max makes this statement? Thanks.
The quote at the top is Plaisted's summary and refutation of the article where Max made it look like man and monkey shared the same exact mutation in the gene which makes vitamin c. Other animals besides man and monkey from which neither is a direct descendant have such a mutation, specifically the guinea pig, but of course no one says that man is a direct descendant of the guinea pig. So the question at hand is the exact specificity of the mutation. In his response to Plaisted's statement above Max finally admitted that he had no evidence because the gene had not been examined:
the data on this question are not yet available for the LGGLO pseudogenes,
Links to all articles and to all quotes can be found in my post#497.
Wrong. There are insufficient resources to eliminate all circumstances and conditions under which abiogenisis might occur. Abiogenisis has been demonstrated as impossible only under those circumstances that were tested and subsequently eliminated. I refer you to the null hypothesis: We assume abiogensis is false and attempt to demonstrate otherwise.
It seems very clear that what you are trying to do is censor attacks on your petty god Charles. The evidence of Darwin's philosophy being the basis for Hitler's crimes is overwhelming. First we may start with the philosophical father of Nazism, Ernst Haeckel, who Darwin lavishly praised in his Descent of Man, used many of his statements as proof for his theories and even borrowed his fraudulent drawings as substantiation for evolution. But most important, the words of Darwin themselves show the close relationship between Nazism and Darwinism:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.
" Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care. He is impelled by nearly the same motives as the lower animals, when they are left to their own free choice, though he is in so far superior to them that he highly values mental charms and virtues. On the other hand he is strongly attracted by mere wealth or rank. Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian and will never be even partially realised until the laws of inheritance are thoroughly known. Everyone does good service, who aids towards this end. When the principles of breeding and inheritance are better understood, we shall not hear ignorant members of our legislature rejecting with scorn a plan for ascertaining whether or not consanguineous marriages are injurious to man."
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 21.
"Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplicaiton; and if he is to advance still higher he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would soon sink into indolence, and the more highly gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring."
Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 21.
"I could show fight on natural selection having done and doing more for the progress of civilization than you seem inclined to admit. Remember what risk the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is! The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world."
Darwin to Graham, July 3, 1881.
In man the frontal bone consists of a single piece, but in the embryo, and in children, and in almost all the lower mammals, it consists of two pieces separated by a distinct suture. ~~This suture occasionally persists more or less distinctly in man after maturity; and more frequently in ancient than in recent crania, especially, as Canestrini has observed, in those exhumed from the Drift, and belonging to the brachycephalic type. Here again he comes to the same nclusion as in the analogous case of the malar bones. In this, and other instances presently to be given, the cause of ancient races approaching the lower animals in certain characters more frequently than do the modern races, appears to be, that the latter stand at a somewhat greater distance in the long line of descent from their early semi-human progenitors. Darwin, Descent of Man, Chapter 2.
Nice rhetoric, but totally disproved by modern science. There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem).
The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.
There is a reason you find the majority of professors and "intellectuals" in academia are liberals, fascist and socialist. Do you know that reason?
Nice rhetoric, but totally disproved by modern science.
Non Sequitur Man! Thank goodness you've arrived!
Perhaps if you had read my entire post you would be able to make a meaningful reply. Your reading comprehension, attention to detail, and critical thinking skills are as sloppy as ever.
In order to prove the impossibility of abiogenisis, one must first eliminate all circumstances under which is might occur. Pasteur examined a limited subset. To apply his findings to all conditions may or may not be warranted. Thus the utility of the Null Hypothesis, which you have, to the wonderment of us all, ignored. We assume abiogenisis is impossibile, then attempt to demonstrate it can happen at least 10 times. If we are successful, the null hypothesis is disproved. With a small amount of effort, one can easily generalize this principle to a wide range of phenomenon.
Had you actually taken the time to read my post, I wouldn't have had to repeat myself. You might have avoided repeating my argument without the addition of unsupported conclusions. You also might have had a chance of writing a response that somehow related to the quote you pulled from my post, instead of grandstanding on unsupported personal belief. But I, for one, don't believe you possess the integrity to make that possible.
Bingo.
---max
As I said, that is rhetoric not science. In fact, according to the above anything at all would be deemed possible since one can always claim that all the possibilities have not been examined. However, I made a pretty good case for the impossibility of abiogenesis. Can you contradict any of my statements? They are all scientifically proven, they are not made up at all. In fact, neither you nor any materialist can even formulate a hypothesis which fits the scientific facts of what we know about life.
Well, you have just made my argument (against evolution) - now you can take it to court (for ‘your’ atheistic position). Sad!
I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician
Member NY Academy of Sciences
Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America
Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities
New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4
ID doesn’t believe it is getting its fair shake either. As for the Germans; I am sick of this analogy because my Christian relatives left the country for this very reason.
Actually, in Darwin’s Origin of the Species it states:
“If in the future, by some natural design, an entity appears on a screen to another or many named Doctor Stochastic, let him not reproduce for this reason ". Origin of the Species pp667
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.