Show links Darwin, Hitler ideologiesHolocaust was fallout of evolution theory

World Net Daily ^ | Posted: August 19, 2006 | World Net Daily

[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.

[Coyoteman]

You cannot prove or disprove the constancy of lightspeed using the scientific method given limiations of the human lifespan. In fact, the only hard data available seems to indicate it is decreasing slightly though we are certainly free to question the methodologies used for the various tests over the centuries..

Its late and I haven't shaved, so I will address only this small part of your post.

Science does not prove things; it is in the business of trying to disprove things. As for the speed of light, nobody is trying to "prove" it, rather the efforts are at measuring it more and more accurately. It it turns out to be a declining variable, so be it. But, at this point there is no good evidence that is the case.

I think you will find that most of us on the evolution side are quite patient with reasonable discourse, but we tend to go ballistic when we see the same nonsense presented uncritically for the thousandth time.

I personally tend to go off when somebody quotemines a creationist website for some absolute drivel on radiocarbon dating, as that is something I do a lot of and have a lot of experience with. I just don't have patience for some neophyte who thinks he can go to some creationist website, load up on nonsense, and trump 35 years of study.

Good night. We will discuss these issues again I am sure.

[Dante Alighieri]

"Someone posted earlier that anything that cannot be disproved is by defintion not science. You cannot prove or disprove the constancy of lightspeed using the scientific method given limiations of the human lifespan. In fact, the only hard data available seems to indicate it is decreasing slightly though we are certainly free to question the methodologies used for the various tests over the centuries.. Regardless: Its constancy is assumed a priori and then used as the basis for 'millions of years', "billions of years", etc. THEREFORE... in that sense, evolutionary belief is faith-based and quasireligious in nature."

Who said that the constancy of the speed of light was non-falsifiable? Relativity anyone?

Also, you mentioned c-decay; see here

"Furthermore much the data you've mentioned is therefore suspect. I am hoping, given your personal background, that you do not take any of this discussion personally given its implications. You've been a very good sport, and I appreciate you humoring me with this debate."

What data is suspect? Could you please specify? Thanks.

Evolutionary theory must make certain assumptions. I've offered a few examples. Without these assumptions the data could not be interpreted to indicate x, y, or z.

You offered that evolution a) does not hold itself to an absolute truth and b) is atheistic. B is false; otherwise, methodological naturalism is violated. A is true for evolution and all of science. This ensures the ability for science to be self-correcting and to change.

"Creationism also makes certain assumptions. Only Creationism, however, gives a rational basis for them. In evolutionary theory the assumptions must stand on their own."

Creationism isn't science though. It isn't falsifiable, tentative, naturalistic, parsimonious, accurate, encompassing, nor supported.

[Dante Alighieri]

Small nitpick: the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 m/s. That's because since 1983, the definition of a meter has been re-defined as the distance light goes in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458th of a second. There are no more refining measures of light.

This is going too late for me; I've got to wake up somewhat early. Pleasure talking with everyone.

[Lexinom]

Yeah it was a pretty funny story. I could have mountains of documentation, however, and it would not matter because evolutionary theory has become dogma, above question.

The story is very possibly true, BTW, but will never be publicized because it doesn't fit the model of what we are "supposed to believe." I could take video of a living dinosaur, get dropping samples, obtain an egg - and it would not change anything. The veracity of the proof is irrelevant.

You may wish to take a stab at the must more serious problem posed in that post, the splitter rather than the easy change-up.

[fabian]

from Merriam Webster's dictionary: Science- the state of knowing...2) a department of systemized knowledge as an object of study< the science of theology>. there is a natural science defintion which deals with the physical world but that is just one of the meanings and of course doesn't exclude a wide variety of scientific study including creationism. This is obvious and shouldn't even need to be stated.

[Lexinom]

Nice chatting with you. Have a good night.

[Seamoth]

The story is very possibly true, BTW, but will never be publicized because it doesn't fit the model of what we are "supposed to believe." I could take video of a living dinosaur, get dropping samples, obtain an egg - and it would not change anything. The veracity of the proof is irrelevant.

So, if those stories are all around, can you link to an article from Answers in Genesis that contains one such "bombshell" like a videotaped dinosaur or, in your anecdote, a cat that fossilized in 3 years? AiG would have an interest in documenting cats that fossilized in 3 years, don't you think... ?

[fabian]

again, you are putting limits on the science field because you don't agree with some of creationisms findings. Science includes alot of stuff other than the natural world. How can one debate with you when you won't even realize the full meaning of science. I think you are a bit too caught up in your intellect and the many dark thoughts are messing you up...as they try to do to all of us.

[jennyp]

Yeah it was a pretty funny story. I could have mountains of documentation, however, and it would not matter because evolutionary theory has become dogma, above question.

The creationist literature is rife with pretty funny stories about all those silly evolutionist coming up with wildly wrong dates. Ever hear the one about the silly evolutionist who dated a mollusk as millions of years old, but then the mollusk squirted them in the eye? Hah hah hah, oh those silly evolutionist they are so silly...

It turns out, of course, that dating techniques aren't so simplistic as the creationist writers assume they must be. This is something that real, working geologists have learned over decades of painstaking work. It turns out that if you try to carbon-date a mollusk that lives in a body of water that is high in dissolved limestone (calcium carbonate that itself is millions of years old), their shells absorb some of it and thus skew the c14 results. This is something that geologists have known for decades and know how to account for, as part of their job. But creationist pamphlet/website authors think it's somehow damning to science. (shrug)

Some fairly major assumptions about constancy have to be made - all of which begin assuming the conclusion (Lyell's geological timeframe) as the premise. They are assumptions not subject to falsification, since to do so under the scientific method would require a time machine. That ain't science, it's "science" - speculation.

No, long ages are a conclusion from the evidence. Young ages are the a-priori dogmatic assertion of young Earth creationists, and that is why you never hear anything about radiometric dating, etc. from them except the supposedly damning (but actually bogus) anomalies like above.

[Lexinom]

None of these are really germane to the discussion. I should not have posted it for that reason.

I think the bigger issue is the epistomological underpinnings of evolutionary theory and the pretended neutrality of its proponents. If there is no rational basis for evolutionary theory (please see my previous posts after #489), no discussion about bones, fossiles, or timeframes is particularly relevant.

[Virginia-American]

You cannot prove or disprove the constancy of lightspeed using the scientific method given limiations of the human lifespan. In fact, the only hard data available seems to indicate it is decreasing slightly though we are certainly free to question the methodologies used for the various tests over the centuries..

Don't underestimate the cleverness of scientists. Read Supernova 1987A Refutes 6000 Year Old Universe.

We have now established by trigonometric measurement that SN1987A is at a distance of about 167,000 light years and verified the speed of light is not significantly changed since the time and place of SN1987A. This demonstrates that the events surrounding Supernova 1987A took place some 167,000 years ago and YEC is therefore falsified.

The basic argument is that the distance can be established by comparing the brightness of Cepheid variable stars and by other means that do not depend on the speed of light. The light from the supernova illuminates a ring around it, and the speed of this light can be calculated by using trig. It's the same value we find now on the earth.

[Lexinom]

It cannot be the conclusion since there is no way to know whether the speed was the same very long ago in the past. It is an a priori assumption.

You still have not dealt with the bigger issue of transcendental truth. None of these other things are of any particularly relevance without a rational basis thereof.

[Virginia-American]

...Young ages are the a-priori dogmatic assertion of young Earth creationists...

No-one has ever postulated a young Earth based solely on the geological evidence.

[jennyp]

It cannot be the conclusion since there is no way to know whether the speed was the same very long ago in the past. It is an a priori assumption.

See V-A's post 531 for just one of many pieces of evidence that join together to build the rock-solid conclusion that the world is billions of years old.

You still have not dealt with the bigger issue of transcendental truth. None of these other things are of any particularly relevance without a rational basis thereof.

What, the fact that science relies on the fundamental consistency of the physical world, and that it relies on logical axioms like identity & non-contradiction? This is supposed to be some kind of failing???

Look, everybody who tries to compose an extended rational thought must rely on some logical axioms. These axioms must be assumed a-priori, because to not assume them will lead to fatal contradictions in any meaningful sentence that the person makes. That does not make a system or theory religious.

[Lexinom]

I am aware of the method of which you speak. And I'm not sure which Creationists are being refuted. It's not relevant though, and here's why.

If you read that paper, you will note allusion to quantities, geometrical concepts, trigonometric constructs - things for which the logical conclusion of evolution (atheism) fails to account. I feel I've already dealt with this at length in previous posts but will reiterite it one last time here.

Some claim science makes no presuppositions. Fact is, without a set of rules in which to interpret the data, far less a consciousness with which to observe it, it is meaningless. Theism (the logical conslusion of Creationism) readily gives an account for the transcendental: The Creator of the Universe also governs the same; He made the rules. They make sense. They provide a basis for scientific inquiry.

Atheism (logical conclusion of evolution) must hold that transcendentals (incl. the universe's physical existence) stand on their own - without meaning, without purpose. Sure, he uses them, but he cannot give an account for them. They become, themselves, the great "I AM" - presupposed but unaccounted for. They just are.

Our choice becomes one of probability: the logical conclusion that we live in an ordered universe whose laws point to a lawgiver, or we live in a random universe in which said laws "just happen" to exist.

Until the atheist can give a coherent and rational account for the very premises he uses in the conclusions of his version of science, the latter holds no weight to the extent it borrows that which makes much more sense in a theistic context - and far less so to the degree it makes assumptions that are predicated on an unprovable premise.

You are talking about furniture. I'm talking about the rug it sits on.

I'm going to bed before I begin taking insults for spelling/grammatical errors.

Thanks also for your input.

[jennyp]

Atheism (logical conclusion of evolution) must hold that transcendentals (incl. the universe's physical existence) stand on their own - without meaning, without purpose. Sure, he uses them, but he cannot give an account for them. They become, themselves, the great "I AM" - presupposed but unaccounted for. They just are.

choice becomes one of probability: the logical conclusion that we live in an ordered universe whose laws point to a lawgiver, or we live in a random universe in which said laws "just happen" to exist.

The order of the universe does not point to a lawgiver. Unless you view atoms & energy quanta as having minds of their own, and have chosen to obey God instead of going off on their own private adventures.

But there is no reason why consistency should not be exactly the expected result of a natural world. In fact there is every reason to think that a consistent universe consisting of unthinking parts would be precisely that - consistent. Because the fundamental particles can't "choose" to act in any other way.

Your basic assumption of how a mindless universe should act is totally wrongheaded.

(I'm off to bed too. :-)

[Thatcherite]

It cannot be the conclusion since there is no way to know whether the speed was the same very long ago in the past. It is an a priori assumption.

When we look at very distant objects we believe that we are looking at the very distant past (due to the constancy of lightspeed). In doing so we see what we would expect to see if the speed of light were constant. Everything would look very different if the speed of light had varied (you cannot just go altering c without affecting everything else). So assuming constant speed of light makes a prediction of what we see looking through telescopes, and that prediction is borne out when we look. Constant lightspeed certainly isn't purely an a priori assumption; it has been supported thus far by every test that we can devise. There is ample evidence that it has always been at its current velocity (excepting the currently hypothetical possibility that it may have been a few % higher in the early stages of the big bang) and no contrary *physical* evidence. (The creation myths of assorted religions don't count as physical evidence).

The light from SN1987A (a relatively close object, as cosmological distances go) has assuredly been travelling towards us for c. 160,000 years. This has been measured geometrically. We can see that atomic decay rates and c were the same when the light left that supernova as they are now. The only young-universe hypothesis that stands up once you understand the SN1987A data is that God created the light depicting an incident that never occurred in transit, 6000 years ago. Do you really want to believe in a God who makes stuff like that up to deceive rational enquirers? What exactly would be the difference between the universe being old, and an infinitely powerful God making the universe look old? A difference which makes no difference, is no difference.

You still have not dealt with the bigger issue of transcendental truth. None of these other things are of any particularly relevance without a rational basis thereof.

Philosophise all that you will. Those of us who actually want to make progress understanding the physical universe will just continue assuming that the universe is driven by natural rules. We'll just keep on looking at the data, forming hypotheses, rejecting failed hypotheses, confirming predictions, and chucking out that which has been falsified. You, if you wish, may continue to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Science does not deal in transcendental Truth, (and those claiming to deal in it appear to be largely charlatans).

Obviously this particular method of examining the universe (widely used in the Western World for the last 300 years) has been an absolute disaster. Progress has virtually ceased since we started working that way. [/sarcasm]

[Seamoth]

The most comfortable position for an atheist is to imagine a timeless, steady state Earth and universe, and that indeed did use to be the default position of atheists in past ages (yes, there were quite a few atheists before Darwin et al). It's a lot harder to explain away the Big Bang and the cosmic soup than to just simply say "humans have always existed". So don't assume that science automatically approaches with the intent to take God out of the equation totally... it doesn't... it approaches with the intent to document history. The fact that there *is* a beginning keeps me believing in a Creator.

[George - the Other]

"Creationism also makes certain assumptions. Only Creationism, however, gives a rational basis for them. In evolutionary theory the assumptions must stand on their own."

Actually, Creationists assume they can read the mind of God - That the seven days of creation are actually seven days in human terms, and then it all comes to an end.

To me, the infinite and eternal God has no limits and is still creating. What we call evolution is a manifestation of His handiwork.

Also, you assume that that evolution's "assumptions" must stand on their own, when in fact, evolution is supported by hard evidence like stratigraphy and radiometric dating. These are based on the laws of physics. Since God created everything in the universe, He created the laws of physics as well. To deny evolution is to deny the existence of God.

[RaceBannon]

If people actually responded to the article and used the article as he basis of their response, they would see FR is filled with intellectual people, instead of baseless attacks on a belief that they disagree with...like liberals do.