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.
actually there were no corrections made; just wishfull assertions. I had left for a walk knowing that I could come back later. Please don't jump to conclusions.
I know. But for some reason evolutionists cannot even accept reasonable conjecture at this point, though they prefer to have a boatload of their own conjectures not only accepted as a matter of fact but also established by law as the only point of view to be discussed in public schools. I tend to think that reason is personal and philosophical rather than scientific.
Put him on VI™ and be done with it!
How is evolutionary theory conjecture? I find observed speciation, the confirmed prediction of chromosomal fusion in human chromosome #2, the confirmed prediction of oxygen isotope types in terrestrial mammal to whale/dolphin transtions, identical ERV insertions in humans and chimps, etc. to be non-conjectural and quite convincing.
Evolution is the prevailing theory on the diversity of life based on evidence, not philosophical conjecture. The only reason that it is the only view discussed in science because it is strongest and best explanation for the diversity of life.
You still ain't showin' your cards... and I got a Mississippi flush you can't beat...
all you need to do is simply look at some of the incredible discoveries such as the dna code which is more complex than a computer code. There are so many fascinating things that point to a creator. If you look up the definition of science it would include the study of creationism. It simply is a very strong opposing theory to toe. Hope you can at least be open minded enough to admit that.
If science were capable of testing methodological naturalism to see whether it is in accord with objective reality then we might know whether this viewpoint will yield knowledge in accord with the same. Regardless, methodological naturalism is capable of recognizing intelligent design. It may have difficulty ascertaining the disposition or personal nature of an intelligent designer, but it has little difficulty in ascertaining the presence of organized matter performing specific functions - a hallmark of intelligent design.
we all have dark and bad thoughts that try and get us to act against our better judgements. And it's just those thoughts that try and convince us that we evolved from apes so we can feel better about our lusts, selfishnesses, etc. After all if you look at animals they really don't have a conscience; they just do what their insticnts tell them unless they are trained to do otherwise.
"If science were capable of testing methodological naturalism to see whether it is in accord with objective reality then we might know whether this viewpoint will yield knowledge in accord with the same."
It can't be tested since it is a practical philosophical contention science has taken to ensure objectivity.
"Regardless, methodological naturalism is capable of recognizing intelligent design. It may have difficulty ascertaining the disposition or personal nature of an intelligent designer, but it has little difficulty in ascertaining the presence of organized matter performing specific functions - a hallmark of intelligent design."
Actually, it can't. If the proposed Designer is a priori proposed to be supernatural, then by definition, it contradicts methodological naturalism.
"all you need to do is simply look at some of the incredible discoveries such as the dna code which is more complex than a computer code. There are so many fascinating things that point to a creator."
An unintelligent creator perhaps, for leaving 98.5% of our entire 3.2 billion nucleotide base genome more or less consisting of ERVs, pseudogenes, and noncoding DNA.
"If you look up the definition of science it would include the study of creationism. It simply is a very strong opposing theory to toe. Hope you can at least be open minded enough to admit that."
I don't see any definition of science that includes creationism. Creationism isn't science as it isn't falsfiable, tentative, naturalistic, parsimonious, accurate, encompassing nor supported.
Reading studies into evolutionary psychology may enlighten you how wrong your contention that animals are essentially amoral is wrong.
We didn't evolve from modern apes; we share common ancestors. Humans are defined to be apes (of the superfamily Hominoidea, and of the family Hominidae) anyway, so what's your contention?
That is an example of a distinction without a difference....
It has been evolving longer, with better quality control.
There are so many fascinating things that point to a creator.
We are talking science, not metaphysics or religion.
If you look up the definition of science it would include the study of creationism.
Do a google for "define:science" and you will get 29 web definitions. None includes "creation" or "creationism."
It simply is a very strong opposing theory to toe. Hope you can at least be open minded enough to admit that.
Neither ID nor creation is a scientific theory. Both are religious beliefs.
The conjectures of evolution extend to ascribing historical derivations where they have not been directly observed. That is not to say the conjectures are fanciful or unreasonable or even unscientific. Arguments for intelligent design are not so much based upon history as upon the immediately observable details of integrated matter functioning purposefully, much as when one makes a machine and turns it loose.
Of course there is evidence for evolution, especially if one is predisposed toward methodological naturalism. I can live with the Theory of Evolution as a reasonable way of understanding origins and such (though I do not believe it). But I have grave difficulties accepting it as the law of the land. There are other ways to interpret the evidence that entail the same amount of reasonable conjecture.
you can point to dubious fossils and say that evolution has been observed but those fossils are not clearly transitional. For toe to be true there would have to be many thousands of fossils showing the transition of one life form into another. But that simply is not the case. The fossils that you guys point to are simply completed life forms. It's just wishful conjecture to say they are transitional. If that were not the case this debate would be so clearly over without many scientists exposing the holes in toe.
The fact that ID and creationism theories are denied a place in public schools shows that toe is more than a scientific theory. It simply doesn't want to be competed against lest it fall of it's own falseness. Thank God for the internet and other sources where kids can look at both sides honestly.
"The conjectures of evolution extend to ascribing historical derivations where they have not been directly observed."
That's a fallacious argument. Speciation is directly observed and scientists also observe evolution in the fossil record. Events in the past leave evidence in the present, and quite honestly, the historical evidence is overwhelmingly.
"That is not to say the conjectures are fanciful or unreasonable or even unscientific."
Evolution isn't a conjecture but a scientific theory.
"Arguments for intelligent design are not so much based upon history as upon the immediately observable details of integrated matter functioning purposefully, much as when one makes a machine and turns it loose."
Yes, but those molecular organelles are quite efficiently produced by evolution. And, the explanation is far more parsimonious than ID.
"Of course there is evidence for evolution, especially if one is predisposed toward methodological naturalism. I can live with the Theory of Evolution as a reasonable way of understanding origins and such (though I do not believe it). But I have grave difficulties accepting it as the law of the land. There are other ways to interpret the evidence that entail the same amount of reasonable conjecture."
Possibly and that's why science is tentative by definition - to allow for change in probably inaccurate scientific theories. While ID I'm afraid has yet to make a case, if they can provide solid, positive evidence that's falsifiable, tentative, naturalistic, parsimonious, accurate, encompassing, and supported, I would be delighted and many biologists as well to be shown wrong.
"you can point to dubious fossils and say that evolution has been observed but those fossils are not clearly transitional. For toe to be true there would have to be many thousands of fossils showing the transition of one life form into another. But that simply is not the case. The fossils that you guys point to are simply completed life forms. It's just wishful conjecture to say they are transitional."
You're not serious? Archaeopteryx is not a transitional? Ambulocetus is non-transtional? Rodhocetus is non-transitional? Do you even read the analyses of why the fossils are transitional? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates)
"If that were not the case this debate would be so clearly over without many scientists exposing the holes in toe." What do you mean by so many scientists? 99.86 percent of all U.S. earth science and life science scientists accept evolution whereas 95% of all U.S. scientists accept evolution. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm)
Holes in the theory? Are identical ERV insertions in *multiple* sites in humans and chimps pure coincidence and the will of the Creator? Is that 98.5% of our genome consisting of ERVs, pseudogenes, and noncoding DNA the indicator of an Unintelligent Designer? Are predicted chromosomal fusion in humans a "test" from the Designer?
"The fact that ID and creationism theories are denied a place in public schools shows that toe is more than a scientific theory. It simply doesn't want to be competed against lest it fall of it's own falseness. Thank God for the internet and other sources where kids can look at both sides honestly."
It's denied a place for the reason that 95% of this great country's scientists can see - they aren't science.
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.