Posted on 03/08/2007 7:46:04 PM PST by ofwaihhbtn
In reality, Hitler beived that humans were created in GHod's image and he wanted to use eugenics to make the German race closer to God's image. Hitler twisted Christianity into supporting eugenics.
Stop debating angels dancing on a pinhead
Aspirin works.
Eugenics is and always has been a concern of people. Everyone tries to find the best possible mate. The notion that you could improve society by killing off undesirables has a long tradition in the Bible, starting with the Flood and moving on through Joshua. It's hardly a new idea.
The modern versions of eugenics have been at least as effective as the Flood in ridding the world of bad people.
The only pinheads I see on these darwinoid threads are the darwinoids themselves. They are blocked figuratively and literally and their science has become calcified. They are boxed into a set of false assumptions and can't get off the merry go round. That's you bub.
As for the rest of your rubbish: Science is not an -ism. Anyone who tries to divorce science from the Creator is going down the road into monstrous territory.
Newton and Kelvin were not blind to reality. The modern deniers of intelligent design are.
People like you repeatedly parrot false canards, apparently believing that if they are repeated enough times they will somehow become true. Want specific examples? Reread your own posts.
Again...you are all over the a place. You gotta focus. Read carefully ---keeping in mind that my comments may be harsh on your narrow darwinoid world view.
I'm just trying to help...but as with all totalitarians - darwinoids included - it's a tough project.
Only darwinoids would desperately swallow the nazi lies.
Apparently and sadly you can add your name to that list.
You are the one who is all over the place...I am focused, focused on what you say...first you say one thing, and then you say something different, and try to pass it off, as if no one is noticing...it wont work...
Help from you?...no thanks...
Go get andy and mike a babysitter.
You need some time out.
I don't doubt this.
They are blocked figuratively and literally and their science has become calcified.
Would this be why we see advances in the biological sciences every day, and yet, to date, there is nothing whatever in creationism that wasn't already known in 1830?
They are boxed into a set of false assumptions and can't get off the merry go round.
Uh-huh.
That's you bub.
Really? What's your basis for this statement?
As for the rest of your rubbish: Science is not an -ism.
?? Where did I say science is an "ism"?
Anyone who tries to divorce science from the Creator is going down the road into monstrous territory.
What does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?
Oh, swell reply..Andy is 32 years old and on his own, doing quite well...Mike died of leukemia at the age of 15yrs...
And I would never follow any advice offered by you...
And sorry about your loss :(
What does this have to do with the Theory of Evolution?
I suspect it has nothing to do with evolution. It sounds like pure apologetics to me.
Two points. First, the Nazis weren't around a couple of thousand years ago when the concept of eugenics, the purposeful breeding of people and the elimination of the undesireable, was first practiced. Secondly, as a general FR rule, anyone resorting to analogies to Nazis as a debating point has already lost the debate. Case closed. Good night, and aspirin does work.
What endeavour did Newton invest the majority of his time? And in the name of God?
People like you repeatedly parrot false canards, apparently believing that if they are repeated enough times they will somehow become true. Want specific examples? Reread your own posts.
I'm still wating for you to cite evidence of ID. Sinmply quoting someone else isn't sufficient unless you can quote their evidence. Newton had none, just simple supposition to formulate an opinion. It's not a question of presuading science to reject evolution. It's a matter of offering a viable alternative that does the same thing as the theory of evolution, but better. If you can't get past a single quote, don't bother replying to my post.
Respected mathematicians claim to have proven that the first living cell could not have possibly come into existance by purely naturalistic mechanisms. I don't have references handy, but this is not controversial. Evolutionists simply dismiss such research. Oh, and they also claim that is is outside the scope of evolution. It is, of course, but it is not outside the scope of ID.
I could give many other examples, but I don't have time.
The problem is that people like you do not appear to be the slightest bit interested in anything that contradicts your grand worldview. Hence, you will simply continue to assert that no evidence exists to support ID. You and your type are simply beyond the reach of reason on this matter.
Eugenics may have been around before the Nazis, but they certainly took it to a new level. Why are you so determined to deny that? Do you deny the halaucost too? (that's one darn word I just cannot seem to spell!)
Actually, that is not the case.
Scientists work from a "grand worldview" based on observable facts and theory.
Often, those who dispute the results of science are relying on other sources of information.
But, if you prefer, you can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, "miracles," palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo, and the rest of the other un-natural phenomena.
You can have all of that and more. I'll stick with science.
"But, if you prefer, you can have magic, superstition, wishful thinking, divine revelation, old wives tales, folklore, what the stars foretell and what the neighbors think, omens, public opinion, astromancy, spells, ouija boards, anecdotes, tarot cards, sorcery, seances, black cats, table tipping, witch doctors, crystals and crystal balls, numerology, divination, "miracles," palm reading, the unguessable verdict of history, tea leaves, new age mumbo-jumbo, hoodoo, voodoo, and the rest of the other un-natural phenomena."
There you go. ID must be one of those, eh? So you rule it out from the start, then you claim that no evidence supports it. Premise and conclusion identical. What a coincidence!
I should have known from your earlier posts that your mind was made up and you don't want to be confused with the facts. I should have known I was wasting my time.
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.