Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The lies of Lynchburg: How U.S. evolutionists taught the Nazis.
Answers In Genesis ^ | September 1997 | Carl Wieland

Posted on 12/01/2008 2:33:55 PM PST by Fichori

First published:
Creation 19(4):22–23
September 1997

by Carl Wieland

The chilling revelations of a recent television documentary1 expose the disturbing consequences of evolutionary ways of thinking. Beginning in the 1920s, many thousands of people in the United States were sterilised against their will and without their consent, to prevent ‘undesirable breeding’. Over 8,000 of these procedures took place at a major centre to which such ‘undesirables’ were sent, in Lynchburg, Virginia.

(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...


TOPICS: History; Science
KEYWORDS: crevo; crevolist; eugenics; evolution; hitler; lynchburg; nazi; virginia
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-338 next last
To: allmendream

>>God has no place in science class, either for or against. God and HIS actions and HIS plan are not subject to scientific analysis.<<

I teach Him to be the creator of all things. Every theory is by the Grace of Him and all the discoveries are by His Gifts.

This is exactly what the movie Expelled was about.

And let me tell you, I’m glad I homeschool.


141 posted on 12/02/2008 11:19:07 AM PST by netmilsmom (Psalm 109:8 - Let his days be few; and let another take his office)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

or burnings at the stake.


142 posted on 12/02/2008 11:21:23 AM PST by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

First I heard “God has no place in science class”. Now it’s “God has no place in science class, for or against”...

while completely ignoring the fact that the cult of evolution IS very much against.

Amazing isn’t it?

Constant goal post moving, but at the end of the day, these are the people left with defending the indefensable: the godless liberal NEA agenda.


143 posted on 12/02/2008 11:26:57 AM PST by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Fichori; Coyoteman; Mr. Silverback; valkyry1; cpforlife.org
Coyoteman, I think its about time you answered the questions in 69

While he's at it, he can say whether he believes scientists shold be trying to eliminate religion.

23 months since I asked.

144 posted on 12/02/2008 11:51:09 AM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

And the Spanish Inquisition. No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!


145 posted on 12/02/2008 11:57:31 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

You know better than that, unless you don’t read coyoteman’s drivel.


146 posted on 12/02/2008 12:07:31 PM PST by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: tpanther
You know better than that, unless you don’t read coyoteman’s drivel.

So people really do expect the Spanish Inquisition?

147 posted on 12/02/2008 12:18:48 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Ask coyoteman, it’s his assertion.


148 posted on 12/02/2008 1:06:44 PM PST by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

If it’s his assertion, why do you expect everyone else to answer for it?


149 posted on 12/02/2008 1:10:26 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Because he hasn’t. Maybe you can help him with it?

Besides, it was you who brought it up.


150 posted on 12/02/2008 1:23:07 PM PST by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: allmendream; netmilsmom
There is no “God theory”. God is not a scientific theory as the actions of God are not measurable, predictable, and replicable.

God has no place in science class, either for or against. God and HIS actions and HIS plan are not subject to scientific analysis.

Here we witness the utter hypocrisy with M-theory, string theory and multiverse theory.

151 posted on 12/02/2008 1:30:29 PM PST by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

What would you like me to do?


152 posted on 12/02/2008 1:31:56 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
“The people that take the evolution theory side have no problem with “beings” from another planet “seeding” the Earth, but have a problem with Our Lord “seeding” it.” [excerpt]
Thats because Dawkins' god-aliens are themselves a product of natural processes and the feasibility of their evolution from non-living matter is explained by their existence in yet undiscovered conditions on an unknown planet, whose environmental conditions are not found on earth.

Essentially, Dawkins has conceded that life evolving from non-living matter here on earth is not feasible.

The only explanation that he can then give without compromising his a priori belief in evolution is that the first evolution occurred on another planet.

By making this statement, he can shed the burden of proof, because the planet in question is unknown and probably impossible to reach in his lifetime, and therefore he cannot be expected to verify his claims.

Not exactly what I call science.
153 posted on 12/02/2008 1:33:20 PM PST by Fichori (I believe in a Woman's right to choose, even if she hasn't been born yet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

LOL!


154 posted on 12/02/2008 1:36:29 PM PST by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

I have been since thread started!


155 posted on 12/02/2008 1:37:33 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Ethan Clive Osgoode

Thanks, I did not know that. It’s a good day when you can learn something.


156 posted on 12/02/2008 2:22:47 PM PST by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Just this thread?


157 posted on 12/02/2008 2:28:27 PM PST by tpanther (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: tpanther

For now.


158 posted on 12/02/2008 5:09:28 PM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom
I'm honored, madame.

Evolutionists believe that all life evolved to its present forms through natural selection. The critters who had gained useful traits through mutations survived to breed (or bred more often) than competing organisms.

Creationists believe that the first chapters of Genesis are literally true, that God created the world in six days. Though some of the folks working in creationist circles are competent, legitimate scientists, creationism can best be described as religion criticizing Darwinism.

Intelligent design has to do with scientists finding structures in organisms that appear to disprove Darwinism because they have "irreducible complexity." They couldn't have evolved into their present form because they wouldn't have worked (much less given the ancestor critter advantages) if they were simpler. Michael Behe, who wrote the book "Darwin's Black Box" and started the whole ID ruckus, compared them to mousetraps, because if you remove any one part from a moustrap it's useless. One of the systems he cited was blood clotting; if any particular component chemical is absent, the system doesn't work at all. Ergo, these systems must have been designed by an intelligence, or they must have occurred naturally in some way other than simple forms becoming more complex via natural selection. Either of those would disprove the current Darwinian model.

IDers are often accused of being creationists, but ID is science criticizing science, which is why it is so feared.

Let me know if you have any other questions. I'll leave you with a chart of the coagulation cascade in blood clotting:


159 posted on 12/02/2008 7:26:54 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
Proving microevolution means squat. It's like proving a certain civilization built pyramids by proving they they made clay pots.

There are any number of ways the theory could be falsified. Another mechanism of genetic change could be discovered that was somehow not subject to natural selection. A genomic analysis that didn't conform to the nested hierarchies of phylogenetic analysis previously discovered would also falsify common descent.

Or, one could find biological systems that couldn't have evolved because because they are irreducibly complex...oh wait, if someone did that, they would just be accused of arguing from ignorance or worshipping the God of the gaps. That's what was said when Behe presented examples. IDers could find 100 ironclad examples of irreducible complexity that stood up for 100 years and they would still not be considered falsification of evolution. They would be considered "God of the gap" claptrap no matter how strong the science was.

The reality is that evolution will never be falsified, because any work that appears to falsify it will be judged unscientific. It will be said that those who made the discovery are arguing from ignorance, and evolutionists will say, "No, you must be wrong, we proved in in the lab." They will also accuse said scientists of being closet creationists if they either have any admitted faith or anybody at any creationist organization has ever said the work could be useful for promoting the creationist cause.

For too many, science has become Professor Love's Traveling Salvation Show, and religions don't get falsified. Falsification won't kill evolution any more than finding out Charles Taze Russell couldn't read Greek killed the Jehovah's Witnesses.

160 posted on 12/02/2008 7:54:55 PM PST by Mr. Silverback ("[Palin] has not even lived in the Lower 48 since 1987. Come on! Really!" --Polybius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 321-338 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson