America's Taliban strikes again

Arkansas News Bureau ^ | 28 August 2006 | John Brummett

[PatrickHenry]

The Holocaust wasn't Hitler's fault. Darwin made him do it. Complicit as well are any who buy into the scientific theory that modern man evolved from lower animal forms.

That's the latest lunacy from one of our more fanatical right-wing American Christian television outfits, the Coral Ridge Ministries in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

Coral Ridge espouses that America is not a free-religion nation, but a Christian one. It argues there should be no separation of church and state.

Thus it's America's Taliban, America's Shiite theocracy.

It certainly has a propensity for explaining or excusing Hitler. A few years ago it brought in a conference speaker to argue that American abortion was a more horrible atrocity than the Holocaust.

One year it disinvited Cal Thomas as a conference speaker after Brother Cal got too liberal. You're thinking I must be kidding. But I kid you not. Brother Cal had displayed the utter audacity to co-author a book contending that American Christian conservatives ought to worry a little more about spreading the gospel from the bottom of the culture up rather than from the top of politics down.

Now this: Coral Ridge is airing a couple of cable installments of a "documentary," called "Darwin's Deadly Legacy," that seek to make a case that, without Darwin, there could have been no Hitler.

Authoritative sources for the program include no less than columnist Ann Coulter, noted scientist, who says she is outraged that she didn't get instructed in Darwin's effective creation of Hitler when she was in school. She says she has since come to understand that Hitler was merely a Darwinist trying, by extermination of a group of people he considered inferior because of their religion and heritage, to "hurry along" the natural survival of the Aryan fittest.

Also quoted is Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Project, who tells the Anti-Defamation League that his comments were used out of context and that he is "absolutely appalled" by the "utterly misguided and inflammatory" premise of Coral Ridge's report.

The documentary's theme is really quite simple: Darwin propounded the theory of evolution. Hitler came along and believed the theory. Hitler killed Jews. So, blame Darwin for the Holocaust. Blame, too, all others who agree with or advance Darwin's theory. Get back to God and Adam and Eve and all will be right again with the world.

"To put it simply, no Darwin, no Hitler," said Dr. D. James Kennedy, president of Coral Ridge Ministries. "The legacy of Charles Darwin is millions of deaths."

Obviously, the theme is breath-taking nonsense. You can't equate academic theory with murderous practice. You can't equate a thinker and a madman, or science and crime.

And you can't ever blame one man for another's actions. That once was a proud conservative precept. In a different context, you'll no doubt find Coral Ridge fervently preaching personal responsibility. Except, apparently, for Adolf Hitler, to whom these religious kooks issue a pass. Ol' Adolf, it seems, just fell in with a bad crowd.

By Coral Ridge's premise, Mohammed is to blame for Osama bin Laden. Actually, Coral Ridge might not argue with that. So how about this: The pope is to blame for the IRA. And Jesus is to blame for Mel Gibson, not to mention Coral Ridge Ministries.

[Omitted some author detail and contact info.]

[Killborn]

Heh. Makes as much sense.

Most of these theories are morally neutral. It's only in their scientific application, despite what the author intends, that these ideas gain a "status" of good or evil.

Using Einstein to make nukes specifically for the purpose of annihilating an entire people would be evil, whilst using it to provide cheap, safe energy to the world would be good.

[Oztrich Boy]

If you bothered to read the thread, you'd know that I not only posted the entire title of his book, I've posted a jpg of it.

If you had bothered to read my post, you'd understand what is meant by "the title page of the book you posted"

And the "momentary slip" is commonly made by those who never bothered to read the book and don't know what it is about.

[Coyoteman]

Good post.

I wonder, if any of the creationists who are nipping after Darwin's heels on these threads have ever taken a graduate-level course in Human Races.

It would seem not.

If I am wrong, I would welcome a correction.

[fish hawk]

This is the kind of crap you guys are always quoting. If you only have the skull, how in the hell do you know if it had fins or legs. I've seen some of your proof which consisted of bones where legs should be but turned into a fin. Now they say it used to be a leg. Yeah right. I'll tell you what, you show me a true whale of any age and show me the four legs on it. Then you can show me an ape that is a man or even part man. Then when you finish that, oh, never mind. I know it's impossible because even in old bones they just don't exist.

[andysandmikesmom]

I agree with what you have said in your post #481....someone invents something, or someone forms a theory, and someone else will take that and use it for their own purpose, whether good or evil....it is quite frankly, very lazy thinking to then blame the inventor, or his invention, or blame the one who formed the theory or blame his theory for what someone else did with that invention or theory...it just makes no sense...

By that type of thinking, lets blame Henry Ford for all the deaths resulting from car accidents...and get rid of all the cars...

Lets blame the Wright Brothers for all the deaths resulting from plane crashes...and get rid of all the planes...

You get the point...one could go on and on with endless examples, examples which of course, make absolutely no sense...

Havent we heard it said, time and time again here, that guns dont kill people, people kill people...why not blame the inventor of guns, and get rid of all the guns...its the very same reasoning, that people are using to blame Darwin for Hitler...Does anyone actually really believe, if Darwin had not formed his theory of evolution, that Hitler would not have acted in the way that he did?...That Hitler would not have done what he did?....Give me a break...Evil people will do as they wish, and they will so using any and all justifications that they deem necessary to sway people to their way of thinking...

[Coyoteman]

Then you can show me an ape that is a man or even part man. Then when you finish that, oh, never mind. I know it's impossible because even in old bones they just don't exist.

This is a transitional. Note its position in the chart which follows (hint--in the upper center):

---

Fossil: KNM-ER 3733

Site: Koobi Fora (Upper KBS tuff, area 104), Lake Turkana, Kenya (4, 1)

Discovered By: B. Ngeneo, 1975 (1)

Estimated Age of Fossil: 1.75 mya * determined by Stratigraphic, faunal, paleomagnetic & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name: Homo ergaster (1, 7, 8), Homo erectus (3, 4, 7), Homo erectus ergaster (25)

Gender: Female (species presumed to be sexually dimorphic) (1, 8)

Cranial Capacity: 850 cc (1, 3, 4)

Information: Tools found in same layer (8, 9). Found with KNM-ER 406 A. boisei (effectively eliminating single species hypothesis) (1)

Interpretation: Adult (based on cranial sutures, molar eruption and dental wear) (1)

See original source for notes:
Source: http://www.mos.org/evolution/fossils/fossilview.php?fid=33

Source: http://wwwrses.anu.edu.au/environment/eePages/eeDating/HumanEvol_info.html

[Senator Bedfellow]

If you only have the skull, how in the hell do you know if it had fins or legs.

Who said that they only had a skull?

I'm not sure which is more alarming - the inability to properly read someone else's post, or presuming to lecture someone else on something where you're obviously clueless.

Mash on the link below to see an excavation of Basilosaurus isis:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric/PDGwhales/PDG20050233.jpg

Does that really look like "only" a skull?

In case you're wondering why nobody takes your objections especially seriously, it's because you haven't got any serious objections. Just fantasy objections.

[fish hawk]

Well now, a chart that some believing Darwinist professor drew up. Yep, you got me there, man came from an ape. All the proof I need.

[Coyoteman]

Well now, a chart that some believing Darwinist professor drew up. Yep, you got me there, man came from an ape. All the proof I need.

I post some of the extensive scientific data supporting evolution and you just wave it away.

It seems you already made up your mind on this issue, and no longer are willing to even consider the evidence. And I suspect you have never actually studied it, for fear of what you might learn...

Heinlein noted this phenomenon some years ago:

Belief gets in the way of learning.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

[jennyp]

No offense, but that's one of the most idiotic bunch of arguments I've seen in a long time.

The part of the spectrum in which the water vapor in the atmosphere lets the light in just so happens to be the part that our eyes have evolved to see in. What ever are the odds???

BTW, my favorite color is sometimes blue, sometimes red, but today I'm leaning towards burnt sienna.

[jennyp]

Well now, a chart that some believing Darwinist professor drew up. Yep, you got me there, man came from an ape. All the proof I need.

Fish hawk, your input is sorely needed!

Which of the following are "just an old ape" and which are "just an old human"? Try it, it's fun!

Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison
(only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). [CLICK HERE] for larger photo.
(Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

• (A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
  
• (B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
  
• (C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
  
• (D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
  
• (E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
  
• (F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
  
• (G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
  
• (H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
  
• (I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man", 300,000 - 125,000 y
  
• (J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
  
• (K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
  
• (L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
  
• (M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
  
• (N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

We know that A) is a modern chimpanzee and N) is a modern human. Everyone agrees that M) was a modern human as well. Your challenge is to fill in these blanks:

Fossil	Just an ape	Ape-like transitional	Human-like transitional	Just a human	Not related at all to apes or humans
B	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
C	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
D	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
E	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
F	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
G	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
H	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
I	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
J	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
K	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]
L	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]	[_]

The Responses So Far:

Person	A Pan troglodytes (modern chimp)	B, C Australopithecus africanus	D Homo habilis	E Homo habilis	F Homo rudolfensis	G Homo erectus	H Homo ergaster	I Homo heidelbergensis	J, K Homo sapiens neanderthalensis	L, M Homo sapiens sapiens (Cro-Magnon, modern human)
Mainstream scientists	ape	ape-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	ape-like, human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans	human-like trans, human	human
The creationists...
Bowden, Malcolm	ape		human		human		human			human
Brown, Walt	ape	ape	ape	ape				human	human	human
editor-surveyor	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
Elsie	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
Gish, Duane (1979)	ape		human		human		human			human
Gish, Duane (1985)	ape		ape		human		human			human
Luskin, Casey	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human	human	human	human
Mehlert, A. W.	ape		ape		human		human			human
Menton, David	ape		human		human		human			human
Michael_Michaelangelo	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	ape	human	human
MississippiMan	ape							ape		human
Taylor, Paul	ape		human		human		human			human
taxesareforever	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human	human
vetsvette	ape					human				human

[ckilmer]

The part of the spectrum in which the water vapor in the atmosphere lets the light in just so happens to be the part that our eyes have evolved to see in. What ever are the odds???
/////////////////////
so you don't think its a coincidence?

very well.

I don't think its a coincidence either.

But to whom do you give proper credit for sight.

Man or God? I say both.

Evolutionists give credit to Man plus the god of chance.

[Oztrich Boy]

What ever are the odds???

Do you know that you can toss a stone into the water so it falls in the exact centre of the circle of ripples?

[jennyp]

Hoo boy.

Look - what use is a mutation that lets an organism see microwaves, say, if all the microwave illumination is blocked by the water vapor in the atmosphere? Not much that I can think of. The only mutations that would confer a distinct advantage over no sight at all would be those that let the organism see colors within the spectrum that actually gets lit up in their environment to begin with.

Riiiiiiiiiight???

[Hoplite]

                           

+

+

=

+

---

it was probably Darwin's fault anyway

I'd say it's a mathematical certainty, per the provided proof.
Dr. Frank-n-furter pic stolen from courtesy of dread78645

[RunningWolf]

That is a nicely drawn flow chart, but as it states, it is a 'best guess'

But to your KNM-ER 3733. Looking at that image, the rear skull section is certainly not from the same creature.

And when you take into account all the fragments the entire composite is made up of, with the noted dating methods noted applied to each fragment, I am amazed at the researchers audacity to build up such a composite, much less attempt to place it as evidence for a theory that they assert as fact.


W.

[RunningWolf]

Evil people will do as they wish, and they will so using any and all justifications that they deem necessary to sway people to their way of thinking

We agree here. But why is it when I have said the same thing, the darwinist evos attacked my statement and suggested it was false , but when you say it, it is supported, hmmmm? Don’t worry you don’t have to answer, the question is rhetorical.

In any event your answer would be a long-winded circular thing that attacked everything around it without ever actually answering anything itself.

For a heads up to where I would go with that, a powerful example of this assertion would be your postings to 'creationists' about the Bible.

W.

[andysandmikesmom]

VI placemarker...

[danamco]

John Brummett is an award-winning columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock and author of "High Wire," a book about Bill Clinton's first year as president. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com.


"Nuf said!!!....................

My Pastor must have hit a real nerve with this dude from last Sunday morning's TV broadcast "The Coral Ridge Hour"!??!
It was all about Evolution which our kids are learning in the Public School system today, but NOT allowed learning about Creation. If he had paid close attention, he would have learned that the two Columbine School murderers were taught Darwinism at their school and based their shootings on that "theory"!!!

No Absolute, all relativism.

[RunningWolf]

LOL!

it is not 'vi' if you have to tell me.., 'kay? But then what good is it to you if I don't know??

W.