You lost! Your stomachs will roast in hell!
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.
Sorry, I'm not trying to insult God or anything. I'm showing how it isn't smart to support the idea that God essentially *poofed* things into existence rather than being more creative and using evolution. Otherwise, there would *no* need for ERVs, pseudogenes, noncoding DNA, et cetra. I'm not trying to insult God - I'm trying to show why it isn't a good idea logically to say God didn't use evolution.
"New biological pathways do not falsify intelligent design."
Yes, they do. All complex biochemical structures are held to be, as predicted by ID, IC and thus *cannot* evolve and *cannot* have precursors as such complex biochemical structures, *according* to CSI *must* have been designed by an intelligent agency. That we observe the precursors and the evolution entirely invalidates ID.
"he falsification of intelligent design resides in the potential for particle matter to diffuse into chaos and thus become wholly unintelligible."
I already talked about quantum mechanics. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, etc shows how particle matter *is* an unintelligible mess, with particles occupying two places at once, with non-casuality, etc.
"That's hasn't happened yet. Tomorrow may be another story."
It happens all the time in quantum mechanics.
"Again, the distinction between natural and non-natural is superficial, arbitrary, philosophical, and scientifically useless."
No, it ensures objectivity in science.
"Intelligent design can, and has been directly observed."
No, it hasn't been. That structures evolve, have evolutionary precursors, and that CSI and IC are non-existent as I have *continually* discussed falsifies ID.
"Organized matter performing specific functions is a hallmark of the same."
How many times are you going to repeat the same argument? I just showed how CSI was non-existent.
"The universe is replete with examples, dynamic development of new biological pathways notwithstanding."
Not really.
Even our ability to make such distinctions as "order" and "chaos" bolsters the point of some idea of order and chaos. What we see as "chaos" is merely many items behaving according to said principles (i.e. what you've stated is "built into it by nature") in too great a volume or in too complex a path for our finite minds to process.
Hitler wasn't Catholic? That's indeed arguable if he was Catholic and he most likely simply used Christianity as a propaganda tool.
I thought jennyp's comment was an admirable phrasing of that same idea. I, also, hold that view. The idea that the earliest competing and extremely simple life forms (if such can be said of any living thing, even the most mundane) transformed the planet's biosphere into the one capable of sustaining our type of organism has always appealed to me as a Creator at work under no obligation to hurry things along. It just seemed that you were citing what appear to be useless yet existing increments as evidence that these could not be created since such a creator would be less than omnipotent ... as if ONLY instantaneous must be the methodology of an intelligent creator.
Correct, Hitler wasn't Catholic. He was a murdering Nazi son of a bitch. Nothing in Catholicism encourages, permits or sanctifies the wanton murder of human beings.
No it doesn't. It is a subjective distinction in the first place.
Now THAT is a non-sequitur!
What we've done, or attempted to do, is show how science itself is dependent on that which cannot itself be subjected to scientific inquiry, such as the laws of logic.
We've then posed a probability: given that science depends on something unobservable and antecedent, either we must assume that A) these transcendental principles/facts/truths stand on their own, or B) their very existence points to an ultimate transcendental Cause. From these two choices, we have an irrational one (A) and a rational one (B).
In effect, what we have accomplished is effectively the proving of God's existence by way of elimination, to wit, the absurdity/impossibility of the contrary. The next scientific fact or anecdote someone throws out will rest on the very a prioris that point to that conclusion. Actually, that applies not just to science but to all communication and meaning.
In proving God's existence we have destroyed the possibility of a key logical implication of Darwin's theory, were it true: that there is no need for God for life as we know it. In doing that we have not entirely disproved Darwinism, mind you, but have eliminated one of its primary appeals.
Your grasp of this topic is doubtful. The "laws of logic" are part of mathematics and therefore only valid if the axioms upon which the mathematics is based are valid. The axioms are arbitrary and the primary reason we use the ones we do is that they are incredibly effective at generating useful results. No one but the ignorant assume that there is some part of mathematics not subject to inquiry; there are axioms in mathematics which are in fact not accepted in all mathematical fields (e.g. the Axiom of Choice).
We've then posed a probability: given that science depends on something unobservable and antecedent, either we must assume that A) these transcendental principles/facts/truths stand on their own, or B) their very existence points to an ultimate transcendental Cause. From these two choices, we have an irrational one (A) and a rational one (B).
*snicker*
Regardless of whether or not the "laws of logic" can be subject to inquiry, you clearly failed to apply said "laws" to your own argument. Or was this supposed to be an instructive exercise by showing how many logical flaws and fallacies can be fitted within the boundaries of a single sentence? I am not talking nitpicky semantics either, but basic structural reasoning flaws. People like you give reasonable creationists a bad name, with this weird handwavy "logic".
You will have to excuse me if I find you a poor speaker for the cause, but that was a transparently ridiculous argument.
I'm a little confused by your question...maybe I'm missing something. I am a bit tired this evening. But my point was that science includes many things by definition. One cannot put limitations on science because it doesn't go along with a deeply held belief. It just doesn't work like that and I think you are limiting yourself to alot of fascinatiing observations of another dimension; not to mention many scientific observations that point to a creator. Where is the academic tolerance?
There are limits in science. It's not the be-all end-all. And just because something isn't scientific doesn't make it true.
Don't get so caught up in worldly doings. You might lose sight of what's real and what's illusion.
I linked to a study that shows the speed of light to be constant for the last 160,000 years. Do you have an objection to their reasoning or observations? Do you agree that the speed of light is now known to be constant for at least the last 160,000 years? If not, please explain.
Also, assuming that it varies, what would be the astrophysical effects, since stars depend on E=mc2 for their energy?
But instead, you responded with
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.
Quantities? I assume you mean things like the measurement of Cepheid periods, their spectra, the angular increase in the light echo from the supernova, etc.
.. geometrical concepts, trigonometric constructs? These depend only upon the axioms of math.
[snip... philosophical woolgathering ...]
I really don't get your argument here. Whatever your presuppositions, the regularities of the universe are observed facts.
You are talking about furniture. I'm talking about the rug it sits on.
You're analogy doesn't make sense to me.
that was one of my points...there are other than this world studies that are fascinating. Of course science is limited; but it does point us to the designer of the things we look at through science. I don't think we disagree.
So you're saying that transcendental laws and lawlike principles that govern the universe standing on their own, with no particular meaning or intelligence behind them is perfectly rational? Very seriously: Do you realize how absurd that sounds?
No, I'm obviously human trash fit for disposal. Thanks for noticing, and thanks for your input.
You lost! Your stomachs will roast in hell!
Oh? Can you specify these?
Where is the academic tolerance?
Where is the academic rigor?
there are so many...a big one is the amazing dna code that actually has a numeric system to it and is more complex than a computer code. The functions of our eyes are more complex than a modern camera and yet are totally automated. It couldn't make itself...simply not logical or possible. It's just our dark thoughts that try and confuse us about Him.
the many reputable creation scientists have plenty of scientific rigor...they shouldn't be excluded from public schools. Maybe in a totalitarian state, but not in America.
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.