How many more pictures would you like?
Posted on 04/29/2008 8:38:43 PM PDT by Soliton
Excuse me but what is a “theofascist”?
> > > > > what is a “theofascist”?
That’s my newly-coined term for jackbooted atheists intolerant of any viewpoint but their own, particularly on public campuses.
Then wouldn’t atheofascist make more sense?
If I agree that Hitler wasn’t a true Christian because he didn’t follow Christ’s principles, will you agree that he wasn’t a true “Darwinist” either because Darwin never advocated for artificial selection to be applied to humans? And spare us ever hearing that slander again?
——If I agree that Hitler wasn’t a true Christian because he didn’t follow Christ’s principles, will you agree that he wasn’t a true “Darwinist” either because Darwin never advocated for artificial selection to be applied to humans? And spare us ever hearing that slander again?——
You are missing the point. Hitler went against principles laid out by Christ. Darwin never advocated for artificial selection of humans in Origin of Species, and said later in Descent of Man about what was later to be called Eugenics(by Darwins cousin and originator of the term Francis Galton)
“A most important obstacle in civilized countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr Greg and Mr Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degreded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves, and their children in comfort. Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shown by Dr Duncan, they produce many more children. The children, moreover, that are born by mothers during the prime of life are heavier and larger, and therefore probably more vigorous, than those born at other periods. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr Greg puts the case: ‘The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. Given a land originally peopled by a thousand Saxons and a thousand Celts-—and in a dozen generations five-sixths of the population would be Celts, but five-sixths of the property, of the power, of the intellect, would belong to the one-sizth of Saxons that remained. In the eternal “struggle for existence”, it would be the inferior and less favoured race that had prevailed-—and prevailed by virtue not of its good qualities but of its faults.’”
“If the various checks specified in the two last paragraphs, and perhaps others as yet unknown, do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men, the nation will retrograde, as has too often occurred in teh history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule. It is very difficult to say why one civilized nation rises, becomes more powerful, and spreads more widely, than another; or why the same nation progresses more quickly at one time than at another. We can only say that it depends on an increase in the actual number of the population, on the number of the men endowed with high intellectual and moral faculties, as well as on their standard of excellence. Corporeal structure appears to have little influence, except so far as vigour of body leads to vigour of mind.”
He never advocated for eugenics. Yet this is his attempt at deflecting its use on humans....
“The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind”
He called a spade a spade, by saying the use of Eugenics on humans was evil. Yet in the same paragraph he laments the burden of being good.
Evil men will not care that Eugenics is evil and will seek to find every reason to implement it if so sought after as part of their plans. For the good of mankind you see!
Not likely.
They can't make any headway in the scientific debate over the theory of evolution, so they are trying to trash Darwin instead.
They probably figure that uneducated minds are easily swayed by that type of propaganda!
But in trying to equate Hitler and Darwin, they are actually following in the footsteps of Goebbels.
How many more pictures would you like?
"If I agree that Hitler wasn’t a true Christian because he didn’t follow Christ’s principles, will you agree that he wasn’t a true “Darwinist” either because Darwin never advocated for artificial selection to be applied to humans? And spare us ever hearing that slander again?"
“It is a science because it follows the scientific method.”
You mean the one where a test is devised and it is carried out under controlled conditions where the results can be observed? Like they do with double-blind studies to test new drugs?
Evolution has always gotten a pass on that version of the scientific method. That’s why it’s not science, it’s only history, maybe at best forensics.
Nice pics. Got any more? Got any pics of modern clergymen and the Waco murderers by any chance?
You understand incorrectly.
"My understanding of Evolution is that the stronger animals kill the weaker animals.""You understand incorrectly."
“The scientific method used for Evolution would be Naturalistic Science.”
The classical Scientific Method wouldn’t work for Evolution to be true so they had to develop a new one, one that doesn’t require testing in a controlled environment and doesn’t require actual observation.
The worst thing about Evolution is that it has cheapened science in general. It has made it so that Algore and all his minions can ignore the scientific method to push their environmental agenda. It has made it so that all the enviro-wackos can make absurd prognostications and hardly anyone calls them on these non-scientific predictions.
"The classical Scientific Method wouldn’t work for Evolution to be true so they had to develop a new one, one that doesn’t require testing in a controlled environment and doesn’t require actual observation.
The worst thing about Evolution is that it has cheapened science in general. It has made it so that Algore and all his minions can ignore the scientific method to push their environmental agenda. It has made it so that all the enviro-wackos can make absurd prognostications and hardly anyone calls them on these non-scientific predictions."
“True, but with the new watered down Naturalistic Science, it is not only easy, but fun, to poke it full of holes with a pointy stick.”
Yes, but it’s amazing that the people on FR who deride ID for not being “scientific” are the same ones who accept the Naturalistic Science model as equivalent to the classical Scientific Method.
They admit that Evolution is not observable (because it takes so long) but still insist that it is based on the Scientific Method. They themselves are religionists but won’t admit it.
Pretty much...
In the end, when you get down to the bottom of it all, its just a theological debate.
Just by another name, though not rightly so.
He lost the war, and died in the process. Darwin's prediction seems to have been correct.
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.