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]

While the evolutionists on the thread are correct to refute "guilt-by-association", Nazi policies in the 30's and 40's are a very logical unpacking of Darwinian doctrine consistently applied.

Its "guilt-by-association," but you agree with it.

Anti-evolutionists can't refute "Darwinism" on its own merits, so they have to restort to "guilt-by-association"?

Lets get back to the real issue; how do you refute this?

---

Fossil: Sts 5

Site: Sterkfontein Cave, South Africa (1)

Discovered By: R. Broom & J. Robinson 1947 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 2.5 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, floral & faunal data (1, 4)

Species Name: Australopithecus africanus (1, 2)

Gender: Male (based on CAT scan of wisdom teeth roots) (1, 30) Female (original interpretation) (4)

Cranial Capacity: 485 cc (2, 4)

Information: No tools found in same layer (4)

Interpretation: Erect posture (based on forward facing foramen magnum) (8)

Nickname: Mrs. Ples (1)

See original source for notes:
http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=24

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Legal rights have nothing to do with morality.

You have never been to this building...

Morality is rooted entirely in the presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

You have no concept of sarcasm, literary allusion, humor, or the general application of language.

[Dante Alighieri]

"of course the fossil record would show the slow developement of one life form into another over the millions of years that toe calls for. Since it simply doesn't, you guys just conjecture what are transitionals which by there structure one could say is or is not transitional. Very unconvincing and along with the mounting evidence for ID and creationism, not believable. If it were convincing, no reputable scientist would see it as false. And so many do...not just peons like me."

I just gave you multiple links showing transitional fossils. It's not very impressive that you raise the same claim after it's been refuted. What "mounting" evidence for ID or Creationism? IC or CSI? Falsified.

From a previous post,

"Is ID or Creationism:

A) Falsifiable - are scientists going to be able to potentially show it to be false?

The potential falsification of ID would be for particle matter to disperse into unintelligible chaos, at which point science would cease. (BTW, evolution does not meet this criteria. Any life form found today can be crammed into the imaginary tree, or lawn, of common descent.)

B) Tentative - is it subject to change and incomplete?

Inasmuch as science is subjective and does not attain to a full understanding of how things work there will always be modifications involving interpretive and expressive elements, just as the work of intelligent design itself is subject to change, sometimes even in mid course.

C) Naturalistic - does it use natural explanations to explain natural phenomena?

The word "natural" is not scientific, but arbitrary. Unless you can answer on what basis science determines what is natural and what is not, the word is scientifically meaningless. It certainly does not apply to intelligent design, since intelligent design is an observable phenomena and has been since the dawn of science itself.

D) Parsimonious - does it make the least assumptions possible and does it not unnecessarily complicate itself?

It attributes the organization of matter performing specific functions to a most likely cause: intelligent design. Moreover, the inclination is to assume a single intelligent designer for the sake of simplicity.

E) Make Accurate Predictions - Does it predict what we should see in the fossil record, in comparative genomics, etc.

Intelligent design predicts we will find organized matter performing specific functions, whether it extends to the fossil record or matter as yet unknown by science.

F) Encompassing - Does it explain why predictions made by evolutionary theory are very accurate and why evidence supports evolution?

Intelligent design recognizes the dynamic processes that take place as result of the implementation of a well-designed machine. As such, it expects to find change within a limited scope.

G) Supported - Are there many positive lines of genuine evidence for it?"

If they aren't all of the above, then neither ID nor Creationism are scientific theories.

[Dante Alighieri]

"Yeah. Concepts such as complexity, function, purpose, design, intelligence, etc. tend to be alien to those who adopt methodological naturalism as if it were the be-all and end-all of science."

No, they aren't alien to science. What is alien to science is supernatural phenomena, however.

"Be that as it may, morphological similarities do not constitute historical derivation."

... That combined with molecular phylogenies, comparative genomics, ERV insertions, and embryological phylogenies *does* consitute a "historical derivation."

"You know that. The evidence for evolution is circumstantial and circumscribed. Nothing more."

Are:

A) Identical ERV insertions in identical sites in the human genome and the chimp genome circumstantial?
B) Is an approximate 99.4% identical match in human and chimp genomes circumstantial?
C) Is that embryological development is similar in vertebrates circumstantial?
D) Is that the confirmation prediction of chromosomal fusion in humans to explain the lack of one pair of chromosomes in comparision to the other great apes circumstantial?
E) Is that 98.5% of our genome consisting of noncoding DNA, ERVs, and pseudogenes circumstantial?
F) Is that... et cetra.

I fail to see how evidence for evolution is "circumstantial."

"Would that you held ID to such a low standard!"

What else should I hold for pseudo-scientific theories trying to misrepresent themselves as scientific?

"Not just unconvincing, but unfalsifiable."

Here's just a list of some falsification tests on evolution that were confirmed:

A) Darwin predicted that trilobites would be found in the Pre-Siluran layer - and they were
B) Biologists predicted that since humans lacked one pair of chromosomes in comparision to other apes, chromosomal fusion must have occured - and it did, in chromosome #2
C) Biologists predicted that since other mammals have an intermaxillary bone, so must humans - and we do, and it was observed during embryonic development
D) Biologists predicted that cetacean fossils predicted that the earliest cetaceans would have lived in fresh water and would have oxygen isotope ratios similar to those found in modern dolphins - and they do
E) Et cetra...

Unfalsifiable? Hardly.

"Any and every biological entity known to man could be crammed into a supposed evolutionary tree, with no way to test whether the connections have any basis in history."

No way to test it? Forgotten morphological phylogenies, embryological phylogenies, phylogenies built on ERV insertions alone, comparative genomics, et cetra?

"What a hoot to see these guys knock themselves out to substantiate a notion spawned from their fertile imaginations. Whatever. Nothing they have done or said militates against the theory that where there is organized matter performing specific functions, intelligent design may have been involved."

CSI has never been shown and it has been shown to be both mathematically and biologically false.

"It seems the biggest beef with intelligent design as science is that it 'cannot be falsified' when in fact the disintegration of particle matter would falsify it altogether."

What do you mean by disintegration of particle matter? Do you mean particles suddenly going out of existence? That happens all the time in quantum physics - virtual particles. They flicker in and out of existence more or less IIRC. Not to also mention, but on a macro-level that entirely violates Conservation of Matter.

[King Prout]

actually, it isn't so much "guilt by association" as it is a case of "argument from adverse consequences"

and a rather weak example of that particular fallacy, to boot.

[Lexinom]

A couple of young brothers buried a dead pet cat in their backyard. Years later, when attending a nearby university, they dug up the skeleton. It had fossilized - in just a few years.

The paleontology dept. at that school determined the skeleton's age in the millions of years.

---

I've refuted Darwinism countless times by undermining its requisite presuppositions: one cannot begin without presupposing God because one is then faced with the absurdity of assuming transcendental truth stands on its own. Truths like the Pythagorean Theorem stand on their own. They are, as it were, the great "I AM".

[King Prout]

A couple of young brothers buried a dead pet cat in their backyard. Years later, when attending a nearby university, they dug up the skeleton. It had fossilized - in just a few years.

yeah. and people get abducted and anal-probed by little gray aliens.

prove your assertion. at least cough up some documentation.

[Coyoteman]

A couple of young brothers buried a dead pet cat in their backyard. Years later, when attending a nearby university, they dug up the skeleton. It had fossilized - in just a few years.

The paleontology dept. at that school determined the skeleton's age in the millions of years.

I do not believe you.

There are no house cats from millions of years ago. Bones do not fossilize in just a few years.

I deal with buried bones on a regular basis; I have excavated many thousand bones, ranging in age up to 10,000+ years. Guess what? No fossils. Not a one!

I will not believe a word of this story without some evidence.

The rest of your post contains even greater nonsense.

[Lexinom]

It's anecdotal, secondhand. I don't have documentation, but it seems to fit with the well-known inaccuracies of various dating methodolgies. 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.

[Dante Alighieri]

Right. And creationist resources are so credible. Got a source, if any, for that claim? And no, not your typical Creationist website, a primary source.

"I've refuted Darwinism countless times by undermining its requisite presuppositions: one cannot begin without presupposing God because one is then faced with the absurdity of assuming transcendental truth stands on its own. Truths like the Pythagorean Theorem stand on their own. They are, as it were, the great 'I AM'."

A philosophical assertion with no evidence? Wow, why am I reminded of the Greeks? Oh, that's right. Greek scientists thought too much about constructing logical arguments for observed phenomena that they forgot to go out and actually, well, *investigate* them.

[Lexinom]

Actually the rest of the post utterly obliterates Darwinism, since it challenges the basis for its presuppositions and exposes it for the absurdity that it is.

[King Prout]

but it seems to fit with the well-known inaccuracies of various dating methodolgies

actually, no. not even slightly.

[Dante Alighieri]

You're attacking a scientific theory on philosophical terms? Great, evolution must be false now. Your premise is fallacious for several reasons: A) You haven't even given and probably won't be able to give evidence that it's correct.

B) Truth in the sense of mathematical truth, forever truth, etc, etc, is non-existent in science. This is what precisely keeps science open to change.

C) Your premise seems like an odd variation of the contingency argument, which is fallacious on its own.

D) Philosophical notions don't falsify scientific theories. You have to have, I don't know, actual *evidence.*

[Lexinom]

Everything you've said assumes a basis for truth ascertained by investigation. Darwinistic presuppositions assume truth and falshood but is utterly impotent to account for its underlying basis - some absolute standard of truth. It must presuppose it as though it stood on its own. The Creationist OTOH presupposes God and is able to account for truth because he has a single, unified, rational starting point.

[Coyoteman]

I've refuted Darwinism countless times by undermining its requisite presuppositions: one cannot begin without presupposing God because one is then faced with the absurdity of assuming transcendental truth stands on its own. Truths like the Pythagorean Theorem stand on their own. They are, as it were, the great "I AM"...

Actually the rest of the post [above] utterly obliterates Darwinism, since it challenges the basis for its presuppositions and exposes it for the absurdity that it is.

If it was that easy, the Nobel prize committee would be banging on your door.

Why do you think that, in one sentence, you as a layman/laywoman can demolish several hundred years of science and 150+ years of evolutionary science? Do you really think scientists are that dumb, or that shallow?

I have to think that you are arguing from a religious belief, rather than a scientific background. I am sorry to have to break this to you, but religious belief does not constitute a scientific argument.

[Dante Alighieri]

Neither evolution nor science holds to any absolute standard of truth. This is exactly what keeps science open to change. Since your premise is false, your conclusion that follows (il)logically from that is also false.

[Lexinom]

I will repeat this part:

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.

To take a page from stands2reason's book, if it isn't faslifiable, it isn't science.

[Lexinom]

Neither evolution nor science holds to any absolute standard of truth

Then all further discussion is futile.

[Dante Alighieri]

You've got to be joking. Are you operating under Poe's Law? By your (il)logic, we can't even tell approximately how long the murdered have been dead by checking rigor mortis. As it should be obvious, events in the past leave evidence in the present. Forgotten dating techniques?

[Dante Alighieri]

Ok then. Then, if Creationism is effectively holding to a standard of absolute truth, it isn't science by definition.