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.
Now we know he is just a disruptor.
Soneone said it best -- he flings poo like a monkey at the zoo.
You aren't an atheist, so why should you apologize? Why would an atheist believe in the story of Noah, the Mosaic authorship of Genesis, or the historicity of Job? I asked, you never answered.
Your religion is Trollianism, and you're an archbishop.
Jim thinks there should be no personal attacks in his forum.
Are you going to accuse him of having a Gestapo complex??
CP for Jim, and apologies...
You stated, "Your religion is Trollianism, and you're an archbishop"....that was quite an excellent response...Bravo...
I know what you mean, but once you know him, he has only one face.
This poster has accused many freepers of being anti-Christian and anti-Semites on this thread with absolutely no evidence of such other than his warped view of the world. This kind of crap should not be allowed on FR - it is the same as Jesse Jagmo playing the race card against oppenents. This stuff should not stand.
Because they succumb to the arbitrary, unscientific, philosophical notion that the distinction between natural and supernatural is scientifically valid.
Again, unless science can show intelligent design to be beyond its purview it has no business discarding the evidential products of intelligent design (namely organized matter that performs specific functions) or the theory of intelligent design, as unscientific.
The inequity on the part of evolutionists is glaring. On the one hand they are permitted to construct renditions of history based upon reasonable conjecture and be called scientific, while proponents of ID, when they reasonably conjecture organized matter as a product of intelligent design, are (supposedly) pushed out of the arena. The fact is, there is more physical evidence to support intelligent design than there is to support an intelligent Congress, let alone a billion year history of unobserved, unrecorded processes.
The higher power could be evil.
Since we are all properly obeying the * modern interpretation * of the First Amendment, good & evil isn't the question. Good & bad, right & wrong, etc., etc., ad nausea; are all inherently religious ideals.
The modern interpretation of the First Amendment (according to the liberaltarians) says government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, government must never consider issues of morality and right and wrong...
So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturdays. But it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean, whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
The mythical rights of men and women are also meaningless. The very concept of rights is also founded in religion. Since the enlightened person is freed from any superstitions about some "God," they are free from having to worry about "rights. Only raw power counts and humans are just meat puppets for the powerful...
Try using a little logic... unless you flunked out of that class...
"Because they succumb to the arbitrary, unscientific, philosophical notion that the distinction between natural and supernatural is scientifically valid."
It's philosophically valid anyway. If something is clearly supernatural, then it by definition supersedes the natural and thus is beyond natural explanation. This methodological naturalism was so important in assuring objectivity and not alone scientists to use explanations such as "God did it" or "It all depends on the stars" et cetra.
"Again, unless science can show intelligent design to be beyond its purview it has no business discarding the evidential products of intelligent design (namely organized matter that performs specific functions) or the theory of intelligent design, as unscientific."
ID is beyond its purview; methodological naturalism. Organized matter performing specific functions (although in actual, organized matter does not perform functions determined a priori; this can be seen with biochemical pathways. Check out H. J. Muller, "Reversibility in Evolution Considered from the Standpoint of Genetics," Biological Reviews 14 (1939): 261–80.) does not dictate intelligent design.
ID's predictions have been falsifiable. Even if it were a scientific idea, it has been discredited.
"The inequity on the part of evolutionists is glaring. On the one hand they are permitted to construct renditions of history based upon reasonable conjecture and be called scientific, while proponents of ID, when they reasonably conjecture organized matter as a product of intelligent design, are (supposedly) pushed out of the arena. The fact is, there is more physical evidence to support intelligent design than there is to support an intelligent Congress, let alone a billion year history of unobserved, unrecorded processes."
There is plenty of evidence to support evolution, but I don't want to get sidetracked by that. It's a topic deserving unto it's own.
ID's tangible predictions, namely CSI and IC, have been discredited already. As I've said, even if it was in principle science, it has become discredited and inaccurate.
Then why did you initiate them... throw the rock, hide your hand, then blame someone else... and go crying when you get a bloody nose...
stands2reason acts just like Hizzbollah...
Is this an example of something taught in logic class?
We're not talking about what is philosophically valid, but what is scientifically valid. How does science determine this distinction? Is it the understanding of the observer that renders a phenomenon "natural" instead of "supernatural?" Until we answer this question we have no business discarding intelligent design as unscientific as if it is "supernatural." As I've told you already, the observable universe is replete with examples of intelligent design; some by direct observation, others by inference.
We're not talking about what is philosophically valid, but what is scientifically valid. How does science determine this distinction? Is it the understanding of the observer that renders a phenomenon "natural" instead of "supernatural?" Until we answer this question we have no business discarding intelligent design as unscientific as if it is "supernatural." As I've told you already, the observable universe is replete with examples of intelligent design; some by direct observation, others by inference.
This poster is Troll City.
I thought you were forewarned by your grand master to stay well enough away from my posts in the first place. It would be better for all concerned. Your participation tends to coarsen the level of discourse.
I am not demanding any basis for right and wrong, you are; based on some esoteric ideal you cannot define...
I am just calling and raising you, to put it in a poker lingo... you just won't show your cards because you have a loser hand... and I am holding the aces...
"We're not talking about what is philosophically valid, but what is scientifically valid. How does science determine this distinction?"
It doesn't. Methodological naturalism is the philosophical viewpoint science has taken to ensure objective research.
"Is it the understanding of the observer that renders a phenomenon 'natural' instead of 'supernatural?'"
Oh certainly, an observer's understanding of a phenomenon to be supernatural, such as lightning in days hence, does not rend it supernatural. However, if something is proposed by definition to be non-natural, then by definition it is impossible to investigate it as it supersedes natural boundaries and thus supersedes science which is confined to natural phenomena.
Look at it logically, so that you understand the distinction.
Person B proposes that a potential Event A *appears* to be supernatural.
The appearance of a potential Event A being supernatural to Person B does not make it so.
Thus, Phenomenon A is not necessarily supernatural.
Compare that with this:
PPerson B proposes that a potential Event A is *defined* as supernatural.
If potential Event A is defined to be supernatural, then by definition it is supernatural.
Thus, Phenomenon A is necessarily supernatural.
If you start off a scientific investigation by *stating* that your explanation is *by definition* supernatural, then *necessarily* your explanation is not testable.
But, that is the philosophical contention scientists take with ID. The scientific contention regards IC and CSI, the main predictions and *central* components of ID, both of which have been falsified. As these central pieces of evidence have been falsified, then *necessarily* ID is falsified.
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.