Posted on 08/19/2006 6:39:43 AM PDT by RaceBannon
Show links Darwin, Hitler ideologies Holocaust was fallout of evolution theory, says new production
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: August 19, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Charles Darwin should share with Hitler the blame for the 11 million or more lives lost in the Holocaust, a new television special explains. And, the program says, the more than 45 million American lives lost to abortion also can be blamed on that famous founder of evolutionary theory.
The results of Darwin’s theories
"This show basically is about the social effects of Darwinism, and shows this idea, which is scientifically bankrupt, has probably been responsible for more bloodshed than anything else in the history of humanity," Jerry Newcomb, one of two co-producers, told WorldNetDaily.
How about this one?
In the beginning, Old Man Coyote stood alone with water surrounding him. Two ducks swam by, and Coyote asked if they had seen anyone else. The ducks said no but thought that something might exist under the water.Coyote asked if they would travel underwater for him and report on what they saw. The ducks did as they were asked, finding nothing. He asked again, and the ducks returned with a root. On the third try, they found mud and Coyote was happy. He told the ducks that they could build with it, and he began to shape and mold the mud into an island. He blew on it, and it expanded. He blew again, and it grew into the earth. The ducks said they did not like the earth's emptiness, so Coyote created grass and trees out of the roots that came from the water.
Coyote and the ducks loved the earth, but it was flat. They wanted rivers, valleys, mountains, and lakes. So it was done. Soon Coyote and the ducks made a perfect earth, but they grew lonely, with only the three of them to sit and enjoy the land. So Coyote molded dirt to form men and then more mud to create many types of male ducks. Soon, they realized that without women, the males could not have children. So with more dirt he made women and female ducks to populate the earth.
One day Old Man Coyote traveled upon the land and was surprised to find another Coyote. When asked where he came from, the younger brother, named Shirape, said he was unsure of his origin and only knew he existed. As the two traveled along, Shirape wanted Old Man Coyote to make other animals, for only ducks, humans, and the two Coyotes had been created. The elder Coyote agreed, and as he spoke the new animals' names, they were created. He said "Elk" and an elk appeared. He said "Bear" and a bear appeared. This is how it was until all animals were created.
What you said. Wish I'd written it.
You also have not been paying attention...
Because the thread has been moved to chat. Thus, no need to "part company."
Interesting -- I don't get the point or the connection, but an interesting article.
Then I'm glad to have written it for the both of us. :)
What have I missed?
Not only did he not survive, he didn't even reproduce.
Hitler went extinct. :-)
Certainly.
not macro as in the theory of evolution
Wrong. Macroevolution has been observed directly (observed speciation) and in the fossil record.
There are so many holes in the theory
I aggree with the idea that Hitler was encouraged by the theory
as it was designed to oppose a moral and self-restrictive conscience.
Evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophical viewpoint.
When you falsely teach that we came from monkeys
Humans and modern apes share common ancestors; besides, humans are classified as apes.
it tends to activate the darker desires that we all have.
Not really since evolution is a scientific topic, not a philosophical one.
It's really sad that kids are not allowed to be taught the creation theory in public schools
and its many fascinating points under the delusion that it is not science.
Possibly the only deluded ones here are the creationists.
More than that... The phrase "survival of the fittest" was actually coined by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology (full of his characteristically useless and turgid broad generalizations) published in 1864. HOWEVER, Spencer had actually formulated his own general theory of evolution, an specifically his theories of social evolution, LONG BEFORE he was aware of Darwin's ideas. And of course it was on Spencer, not Darwin, that "social Darwinism" and most other like abuses of evolution were based.
Now, here's the interesting part. Spencer claimed to have derived his principles of evolution FROM THE LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS. All the creationists who have for years been touting the laws of thermodynamics as a (supposed) refutation of evolution have actually been touting the "real" scientific root cause (if you insist on that fallacy) of genocide and racism!
Name them. There have been a handful of scientists (almost all NOT in the physical sciences) who have taken the silly ID on, but please produce a list of reputable life scientists who are "debunking" it. For extra credit you can tell how they are "debunking" it since there is no scientific alternative that explains the evidence.
I aggree with the idea that Hitler was encouraged by the theory as it was designed to oppose a moral and self-restrictive conscience.
Please show any publication, anywhere before Hitler's regime that states TToE was "designed to oppose a moral and self-restrictive conscience." TToE was designed as a result of evaluating available data. It has strengthened significantly over the years and more and more data have become available.
When you falsely teach that we came from monkeys it tends to activate the darker desires that we all have.
TToE doesn't say we came from monkeys and your statement is a non-sequiteur anyway.
It's really sad that kids are not allowed to be taught the creation theory in public schools and its many fascinating points under the delusion that it is not science.
Which one? And under what possible circumstance could ANY Creation story (including Genesis) be seen as science?
It has? well that took long enough, didn't it?
abondoning thread.
Posters correct you, you say nothing.
You don't argue your points.
And you'll come to the next thread and again misconstrue the ToE.
Correct. I just don't see that as excusing the cultural Marxism of those who are only here to throw crap at the Christians...
I am not a "conservative" and never said I was...
I think that a greater number of the people who bash the religious folks here are leftist trolls whose only purpose is to undermine the Republican party. I say this as an unapologetic atheist. I know how the leftist subterfuge works and the one thing they really hate, just like the Islamists do, is Mosaic Law...
Some of them are so myopic and have such a need to do anything contrary to the Christians that what they forget in their own blind, raging ignorance is that Moses wasn't a Christian (this is just one way I spot them).
Cultural Marxism has a goal to feminize males, making them docile and compliant.
Marijuana is a chemical warfare agent. Homosexual monogamy is a psychological and biological warfare tactic.
No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion.
Some of these liberal-tarians forget, it is THEY who advocate “separation of church and state.” Let me cram it right back down their throats...
It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.
Now, it ain't so palatable to them, is it? They are the ones here bashing the religious folks, now they want to claim some mercurial, ever changing definition of freedom of religion? I'm not going to live in their hell...
If I cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater, I don't think someone should be able to light one with a U.S. flag and call it “free speech.”
Of course, a lot of these traitors to the United States would also whine if we wanted an Amendment to ban homosexual marriage or flag burning, wouldn't they?
There are doctrinaire, myopic cultural Marxists whose only purpose here on FreeRepublic is their polemic need to do anything contrary to the Christians. You will find most of them on the homosexual issue threads, the evolution threads, drug threads, genetic engineering threads or any other issue involving a perversion of, or attack on the Judaic book of Genesis. Feminazi and Gaystapo are very close to the reality of the situation.
Some of the Bozos out there can't get past that word “God,” so they would just piss the entire country away and join the enemies of America; all because they have this polemic need to bash the Christians and do everything in contravention to them. I say screw them and the filthy practices they want to live by. My children are not going to inherit their squalor if I can help it.
There are a few litmus issues you can tell who the enemy is. Just because they have a Madison Avenue designer label, doesn't mean they can be trusted...
Well, it is a theory, but in your case I believe that It must be fact.
It wasn't when I posted. Interesting how one out of control poster can push a thread into a much less frequently viewed forum. After seeing this happen over and over again, one might even start to think this type of behavior might be deliberate, given the result is desired.
PRE hoc ergo propter hoc??????
LOL
Your post #335 to me, while passionate and obviously strongly felt, has no relationship whatsoever to my post #319, to which you appear to have been responding. Sorry, but your #335 left me scratching my head.
it seems that some people like to use any stick to thrash Darwin. Now they have turned (once again) to attempting to blame the Holocaust on poor old Charles's insight and theories.
It is, to them, an irrelevant trifle that facts and history do not support their assertions.
From what I can tell, the "link" (as such) as it exists is as follows:
1. Darwin published OotS and DoM
2. Spencer et alia came up with somewhat different models of evolution, and came up with "social evolution". Spencer also coined a phrase and concept ubiquitously misattributed to Darwin - "the survival of the fittest"
3. Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, sociopolitical philosopher and writer, formulated the notion of the "ubermensch" and the proper role of his society as one of preparing the field for the emergence of such superior humans. ("Thus Spake Zarathustra")
4. Various "eugenics" movements, weakly derived from misunderstandings of the ToE and enormously derived from extant notions of racial superiority, came into vigorous existence in many western societies (including white Protestant America)
5. Hitler perverted these secondary and tertiary perversions of Darwin's work, mixed in Germanic folklore and extant Germanic Christian antisemitism (see: Martin Luther et omnia generis alia), and came up with Nazi Aryanism as a justification for his statism.
that's a pretty weak stick with which to cudgel the theory of an observant old man. The link to Luther is much more linear, much more pure.
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.