[js1138]

So if Hitler was such a good Darwinian, why did he kill the brightest, most talented and productive members of his society and promote the breeding of the Nordics, who, compared to the Jews were retarded? That's not very scientific.

And why are his racial ideas indistinguishable from centuries of German Lutheran antisemitism?

If he was being scientific rather than responding to existing religious bigotry, why pick on a religious group? Why not administer IQ tests and gas the less talented?

[Zionist Conspirator]

So if Hitler was such a good Darwinian, why did he kill the brightest, most talented and productive members of his society and promote the breeding of the Nordics, who, compared to the Jews were retarded? That's not very scientific.

And why are his racial ideas indistinguishable from centuries of German Lutheran antisemitism?

So, you think Martin Luther wrote Genesis? You are ignorant.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Nazi antisemitism was racially, not religiously oriented. That is, it did not target beliefs or membership in a faith community (e.g. a Nordic person who kept kosher and revered the Torah and the Talmud was still considered Nordic) but it did target people by ancestry/genetic heritage (e.g. a Jewish convert baptized Lutheran was still considered Jewish.)

Nazism was supposed to be "applied biology" (Fritz Lenz coined this phrase in 1931).

The Nazis collected race records of grandparents and great-grandparents, not synagogue records of Bar Mitzvahs.

[FreedomProtector]

"So if Hitler was such a good Darwinian, why did he kill the brightest, most talented and productive members of his society and promote the breeding of the Nordics, who, compared to the Jews were retarded? That's not very scientific."

Do you really expect an authoritarian elite which thinks it has evolved so far that it should direct its own evolution to make rational or even 'enlightened' decisions?

Dostoevsky noted the moral consequences of atheism... 'If God didn't exist, everything would be possible'

There is a distinct difference of world-view of the nature/condition of man between the an evolutionist and a creationist. One believes that man is basically evolving into higher levels of goodness from a primitive type, while the other believes that man was made in the image of God, has a conscience (laws of God written on their heart), yet is fallen/has a sinful nature.


I noticed that on your homepage that you have spent a lot of time and energy defending the belief that that world has evolved solely via chance and natural processes.

While it is tempting to write a short book here and insert lots of quotes etc...
1) Modern theory of evolution is based on faith, not science/observation
2) The mathematical improbability of random generation of a single protein much less spontaneous generation.
3) There is no explained mechanism for change given that the vast vast vast majority of mutations are harmful and natural selection does not produce anything new.
4) Gaps in the fossil record observed by evolutions....Punctuated equilibrium posits periods of stasis interrupted sporadically by spans of abrupt, progressive change.
5) etc....


But, instead let me just ask you one question.......
What happens if you are wrong?

Pascal, a brilliant scientist, put it this way...

"God is, or He is not. But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up...Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is."

My guess is that you wrestle with this question more than you want to admit. When you observe the complexity of even a single cell, the observations you make are contradictory to the logical conclusions of your presuppositions (mathematically impossible that even a single protein can be generated solely via chance and natural processes) This tension causes the build up walls of protection to shield yourself from the conflict....adding one more item to your page.....