Jump to content


Photo

Evolution In Schools


  • Please log in to reply
161 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 May 2010 - 11:59 PM

Ah the Hitler fallacy.

Whatever Hitler privately believed is irrelevant and subject to speculation. His remarks in relation to his religious views are available for anyone to find. Simply stating "no christian would ever say what he said." Doesn't change his words and actions. I could say, in regards to things that you write that no christian would ever say that and I would be equally in error if I made the same remark. Your personal opinion on what constitutes a "real christian" is irrelevant.

Hitler was an evolutionist. He believed in an Aryan super-race and then proceeded to murder millions that he felt were less fit to exist before he finally murdered himself.

Evolutionism continues to harm people with its fallacies.

View Post


Interestingly in the realm of getting at of the truth of the matter, Hitler was raised apparently a Catholic. Personally I don't believe in the Catholic Church or care what happens to it. However he later turned towards pure unadulterated Atheism. Both the religious sides and atheists sides want to point the finger at the other because of the embarassment potential he gives either. WWII was the fault of both Atheism and Religion.

Atheists will always point out that Hitler was raised Christian, therefore he must have still been a Christian when he turned into the beast history sheds light on. They insist he was never an atheist. This is a lie because the man did use evolution and survival of the fittest to justify his extremist applications of Darwinian Social Engineering. His right hand man was Martin Bormann (June 17, 1900 – May 2, 1945) who was an atheistic extremist. The History Channel just had a piece on just who Martin Bormann was. He was an extremely vocal atheist within the Nazi party and they most influencial behind Hitler's decision making. Historians actually have labled him Germany's "Secret Leader". Even Himmler cowered before him. Bormann influenced Hitler to shut down all church monastary schools throughout the "Lebensraum". One thing you can admired about him as an atheist is that at least he was consistant with his beliefs. He refused to celebrate Christmas. He hated and would let his kids participate. Most modern atheists aren't quite so principly devout. Hey , a party is a party to a party animal = "Whay Is truth?". :mellow:

Here's an excerpt about the collection of Bormann writtings called "Hitler's Table Talk".

Bormann took charge of all Hitler's paperwork, appointments, and personal finances. Hitler came to have complete trust in Bormann and the view of reality he presented. During a meeting, Hitler was said to have screamed, "To win this war, I need Bormann!".[4]
"A collection of transcripts edited by Bormann during the war appeared in print in 1951 as "Hitler's Table Talk" 1941–1944, mostly a re-telling of Hitler's wartime dinner conversations. The accuracy of the Table Talk is highly disputed, as it directly contradicts many of Hitler's publicly held positions, particularly in regards to religious adherence. The Table Talk is the only original source to claim that Hitler was an atheist. While Hitler's true religious feelings are unknown, Bormann was one of the few vocal atheists in the Nazi leadership."



But the arguement still persists by a supposedly righteously indignated Atheism when who make the disclaimer that he was raised Catholic, therefore he was a Christian, But that's like saying Richard Dawkins is a Christian because he was raised Anglican and a member of the Church of England in Kenya while growing up. I don't think any one claimingto be Christian would make the arguement Dawkins was never a Christian. But then there are all those pictures of him in Churches and meeting with Ecclesiastical Hierarchies. True, but he was first a good intelligent politician in the beginning trying to gain power and politicians going to bed with religious clergy and vice-versa has been going on for centuries. For centuries if a political leader wanted election or re-election, he'd better get the support of the clergy or the people wouldn't follow, which in reality is very very sad.


In the end, it was the innocent, the people who have for centuries been duped into believing early on to trust politicians and their clergy without question who were the ones who really suffered the most. But that's a decision everyone has to bare personal responsibility for, both Atheists leaders and Religious leaders.

#62 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 08 May 2010 - 08:22 AM

There isn't any controversy inside the scientific community. There are no other explanations taught in public schools because there aren't any other competing explanations.


Is Creation not a competing explanation?
There are scientists who believe Creation.

I agree, students should be taught how to think, not what. And they should be given the tools necessary to accomplish this. One of those tools is the previous experience and expertise of scientists and their hard won efforts and work before you. The choice should be how you use this.


So you agree that evidence should be given to the students, along with multiple explanations, and they should figure out what they believe is right?


Creation is in no way, science. Creation has no evidence to support it's claim. It is an assertion that can easily and regularly does dismiss any inconvenient data and evidence. It's taking the science out of the picture and inserting the words "because god did it" in it's place.


I say the same thing about evolution. This can go on forever.


Belief is in of itself, not evidence. You must provide scientific evidence for it to be science.
I wholeheartedly agree with you there :lol:


And there is claimed scientific evidence for Creation. If you deny it it is your problem, don't go around evangelizing for evolution.


You cannot teach creation in the classroom. Disregarding the fact that creation isn't science for a second. Creation is religious by definition. You cannot teach religion in public schools.


If Creation has scientific evidence, it is science. There is claimed scientific evidence. So if that evidence is taught then there is no problem with calling it science.
I believe you are simply offended by the fact that I disagree with evolutionists trying to use tax dollars to get as many recruits as possible.
If you try to teach students to think one way, you are not teaching them to think for themselves but rather to think as they were told.


If you believe evolution is so convincing, then why do you have a problem with another belief getting equal treatment? If it is so obvious why wouldn't people choose it?
You know the problems with your own idea and you don't want to admit that, so you are afraid that people would realize Creation is true if they are given evidence.

I fail to see why this is so difficult for you to understand. There is a separation of church and state for a reason.


Separation of Church and State is there to protect the Church from the State. If you don't believe me read the original letter.

#63 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2010 - 09:18 AM

Is Creation not a competing explanation?
There are scientists who believe Creation.
So you agree that evidence should be given to the students, along with multiple explanations, and they should figure out what they believe is right?
I say the same thing about evolution. This can go on forever.
And there is claimed scientific evidence for Creation. If you deny it it is your problem, don't go around evangelizing for evolution.

Show me the evidence that hasn't been debunked.

If Creation has scientific evidence, it is science. There is claimed scientific evidence. So if that evidence is taught then there is no problem with calling it science.
I believe you are simply offended by the fact that I disagree with evolutionists trying to use tax dollars to get as many recruits as possible.

Unlike creationism/christianity who doesn't want any recruits.

If you try to teach students to think one way, you are not teaching them to think for themselves but rather to think as they were told.

So what you are really saying is that you want to take evolution out of schools. I got that part.
But why not then leave them both out and make no mention of evolution nor christianity until the child has graduated high school. Then present the evidence for christianity and evolution. Now this would be the fairest thing to do given your own assertions.

If you believe evolution is so convincing, then why do you have a problem with another belief getting equal treatment? If it is so obvious why wouldn't people choose it?

Because you've been indoctrinated.

You know the problems with your own idea and you don't want to admit that, so you are afraid that people would realize Creation is true if they are given evidence.

Not in the least. I doubt evolution about as much as I doubt the sun will rise. And I have no problem with anyone seeing the evidence for creationism. Study it all you want. Just do it after school.

Separation of Church and State is there to protect the Church from the State. If you don't believe me read the original letter.

View Post

This is horribly wrong. Please provide citations for this statement.

#64 Guest_wisp_*

Guest_wisp_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2010 - 09:22 AM

Sorry about the length. I tend to do that...

What are you talking about? Only a fool would believe that every bit of the Bible is literal...

Oh... Well... Lots of people feel differently.

It has been debated here. The other position says something along these lines: "
A Christian follows what the Bible says without contaminating it with human fallible interpretations."

And, according to you, if something is debated somewhere then there is no fact. Right?

Just look at Jesus' parables.

I know. I agree with you. I just didn't know you agreed with me. It usually takes me a long time to get a creationist to accept that they're not biblical literalists.

And what does this have to do with anything?

It has a lot to do with your reasons to be a creationist. It also illustrates the following point: There are several variations of yours and other faiths. A Science classroom is not where you should consider them.

I know you're not talking about teaching creationism. But you still want for faiths to be considered when choosing what to teach.

"Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories."-Wiki

I admit that it does not follow the definition of indoctrination that well, though.
Thank you! I appreciate your honesty. ^_^
Critical examination should still be encouraged.
Why make a distinction with Evolution? Should chemistry leave a door open for water to turn into wine? Should heliocentrism consider the possibility that the Sun can stop moving and that would make it sit still in the firmament?

You can critically examine scientific facts. Einstein did it with simultaneity, and it went very well. But most of the times critically examining scientific facts is just a waste of time. Nevertheless your faith gives you a good enough reason to waste that time. You should do it, without your school prompting you to.

Then why are teachers trying to get students to believe evolution as fact?
Because it is a fact they try to teach them.

It is obvious from the questions they ask.
I don't deny it.
Sorry. I worded it incorrectly.
I think it should be taught as what scientists believe. Without trying to convince students that it is true.
I don't understand.

Are there true things, according to you? Are atoms true?

I tend not to talk about "truth" when discussing Science. Just evidence, facts, data, etc.
If anything, macro-evolution is not necessary to be taught.
Depends on your line of work.

In my opinion, it is an AWESOME thing to teach. ^_^

Micro-evolution has its uses.
I bet you can't tell the difference between micro and macro.

Because i think nobody ever could.

If they knew the difference, they would be able to distinguish kinds with precision.

I sure can't.

Look:
Posted Image
Cladus: Eukaryota
Supergroup: Opisthokonta
Regnum: Animalia
Subregnum: Eumetazoa
Cladus: Bilateria
Cladus: Nephrozoa
Cladus: Protostomia
Cladus: Ecdysozoa
Phylum: Arthropoda
Subphylum: Hexapoda
Classis: Insecta
Subclassis: Pterygota
Divisio: Neoptera
Subdivisio: Endopterygota
Superordo: Panorpida
Ordo: Lepidoptera
Subordo: Glossata
Infraordo: Heteroneura
Divisio: Ditrysia
Sectio: Cossina
Subsection: Bombycina
Superfamilia: Bombycoidea
Series: Saturniiformes
Familia: Saturniidae
Subfamilia: Saturniinae
Genus: Rothschildia

...incomplete
Where does the "not fact" begin? Does this Rothschildia belong to the Saturniinæ subfamilia? Is that its kind? Is that the limit to Evolution? Can that be accounted by "microevolution", and the rest can't?

You can make the same question all the way up to the root of the family tree.

But macro has no application,
Well, that's just wrong.

Do you know why the RH blood group system is called that?
http://en.wikipedia...._of_discoveries

It's because it was first found in the blood of rhesus macaques.
Posted Image

I'm not saying that "macroevolution" is correct (whatever you mean by that). We're discussing its usefulness. Assuming all animals are related according to the phylogenetic tree is useful. It can save people's lives. It lets you know what kind of treatment you can try on a rat before trying it on a human, for instance.
Ain't that helpful?

Again, i'm not saying that "macroevolution" is correct. I'm saying that assuming it is a fact can save lives, and has done so.

and there is no reason to cause controversy ver it by teaching it in class.
Well, i think there are.
You seem to think:
If I'm right, then it is moral to use people's money to try to convince them I'm right because I'm right.
No. It's moral to give people tools.

I don't believe evolution is fact.
I'm not trying to be rude, but that doesn't sound very relevant.
It is very relevant. You are claiming it is fact.
Yes. That's my claim. And, sorry again, but your beliefs are not important when deciding what's factual and what's not.

It's not about "subjective facts". Those are called "opinions".

Do you not believe in scientific facts?
Yes.

Evolution is not one of them though.
OK... Can you name any scientific fact, and tell me how you decided it was a scientific fact with a criteria that would leave Evolution out?

What reason is there to teach it anyway?
To me, knowledge and understanding are good in themselves.
Don't say "because it's true" because a lot of things are true, regardless of one's belief in evolution.
I would never, EVER say such a thing.
Why teach (macro)evolution out of all things?
I understand. Your evolutionary worldview forces you to.
It's not a worldview. Evolution shuts up when trying to explain lots of parts of the world.

After all, all life is for according to evolution is surviving and outperforming other people, so other people don't matter, only you.
According to evolution of course.
Wrong. Very wrong.

For social animals (such as ourselves) other individuals are VERY important. Individual survival often depends on the group.

We evolved as pray, and yet we have forward oriented fully enclosed eyes on the front of our skulls. That made us vulnerable, and we started to depend on one another to warn us from danger (or so the hypothesis goes).

And even in non-social species, other individuals are very important, if they share a good portion of an individual's genes. If that wasn't the case, females would eat their eggs, for instance.

Plenty of times the individual is not the main character of Evolution.

Wouldn't you like to learn about it? Even if it's in order to debunk it. Whatever.
Before debunking Evolution it would serve you well to learn about it.

Or perhaps you're not interested in that, but only in keeping it out of classrooms...
You didn't answer my question: Do you do this for yourself? For your classmates? Or for whom?

By the way, since Evolution doesn't preclude an interest in other individuals, can you take that back, please? ^_^

But it is unconstitutional at least here for the government to fund the teaching of a philosophy that denies religion.
Evolution is not a philosophy. It is a scientific fact. Again, if your faith collide with facts, it's not facts that need adapting.
The government must remain neutral, not for or against.
I'm not so sure about that... What if my faith tells me that all the women in your family are my god's gift to me?
Ugly, right?

One reason evolution is so controversial because it is debated whether it is science or not.
Debated where?

Not in the scientific community.

On one occasion i debated whether the XXI century started in the year 2000 or 2001. I explained to them that it was a fact that it started in 2001 because the first year of our era was the year I (there was no 0). Some didn't agree though.

By your standards, the fact that debated whether if 2001 was the first year of the millennium was a fact removes its factuality (if you allow me the redundancy).

You need to consider the other person's viewpoint, when you are going to spend their own money trying to destroy their faith.
Yes. I agree. You're right.

I normally don't use their money, but i have destroyed some people's faith. I try not to do it wantonly. There are people that could get more hurt than helped by that, so i try to be careful. And i try to give them company while they go through the difficult process of letting their faith go.

But can the state do the same? This requires individual attention.

It doesn't exclude the supernatural from every corner of the Universe. It just explains a little something.
It claims that natural processes created life, not God.
Actually, no. Evolution explains the evolution of life. Not how it began.

You can believe that God created life, and let it evolve according to the set of rules that He intelligently imprinted in the Universe. You're still a theist, you still believe that God created life, and you still accept Evolution.

Then why teach students to believe evolution as fact
I try not to sound repetitive, but each time you say this i'm bound to tell you that Evolution is a scientific fact.
without telling them to critically analyze the information?
Every branch of Science should be equally analyzed. If you take it on one of them based on religion, you have let religion enter the classroom.

Oh, and... Well... Do you really think that christian creationists outnumber Jews, Hinduists and Islamic creationists put together?
So you just guessed?
No. I checked the census (even if the piece of data made total sense to me) after i heard about it in what you'd call "an atheist hate video" (i don't think of it as such, but it does contain more violence than it would if i had made it).


#65 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:02 AM

Most likely in return for your ignoring or not reading what he said.

I am absolutely astounded that both of you read that statement and then without even a moments hesitation, have objected to it.

If either of you cannot understand what's wrong with the statements you both made....man I just cannot believe you both said that. I'm floored.

View Post


Can you provide the empiricism in his statement, or are you going to follow like a lemming, his folly?

#66 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:12 AM

Can you provide the empiricism in his statement, or are you going to follow like a lemming, his folly?

View Post


You didn't answer my question. Don't deflect.

#67 Guest_wisp_*

Guest_wisp_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2010 - 10:20 AM

Hello, tomato.

You wrote:
"If you don't care about it, well, too bad... We've all been taught lots of things we didn't care about."

That's the fault of the teachers.
It is the teachers' responsibility to be as inspiring as possible.

It sounds correct, but inspiring me to learn about Geography would have been a serious challenge (there was no Google Earth at the time).
I hope I am inspiring my students to continue learning English.
You wouldn't believe how uninspiring one of my English teachers was.

Seriously.

She explained something (with a visible lack of interest). Then she would write a dialog in the blackboard. Then she would give us a written set of questions whose answers were just written in the blackboard.

I knew some English by that time, and i was so embarrassed to just copy what she wrote, that i tried my own answers.

I got the only B among all the A's.

Her system penalized learning and originality.

I understand you to say that Evolution should be taught because that's what most scientists believe.
Not quite. There are lots of things scientists believe that shouldn't be taught in a classroom. Some of them are too technical. Some of them are not important.

I was saying why it's not indoctrination, and why it should be taught as a scientific fact. Not why it should be taught. Indoctrination was the issue. :lol:

But I don't think that's a good reason for teaching Evolution.
Rather, I think that their [i]reasons [/i]for believing in Evolution should be taught.
Sounds like a false dichotomy. Sounds like teaching Evolution.

Anyway, arguments from authority are wrong when trying to determine the accuracy of a scientific proposition. But they can be RIGHT when trying to decide what gets taught in a Science classroom. There are authorities who decide that. And what most scientists believe is very relevant for their decisions.

You wrote:
"Are you trying to stand up for your creationist classmates' rights? Is that what this is about? Or is it about you?"
I started to say that even if Cata is fighting only for Cata, it is good because Ayn Rand advocated egoism.
But that would be argument from authority.
Hahahaha!
(See there? I'm disagreeing with another agnostic!)
I'm actually a pantheist. "Agnostic" was the closest thing i found in the options.


#68 Cata

Cata

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 326 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 16
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Bellevue, Washington

Posted 08 May 2010 - 11:45 AM

Sounds like a false dichotomy. Sounds like teaching Evolution.

Anyway, arguments from authority are wrong when trying to determine the accuracy of a scientific proposition. But they can be RIGHT when trying to decide what gets taught in a Science classroom. There are authorities who decide that. And what most scientists believe is very relevant for their decisions.


If the reasons were taught, but we were not forced to accept them, rather discuss them, then it would be fine.

To discuss the reasons, whether one believes it or not, requires knowledge of what evolution is.
School is for education, not for recruiting children into the belief system that many people have made of evolution. If discussion was encouraged, then students would think more and actually try to come up with their own answers instead of believing what other people say.

#69 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 08 May 2010 - 03:39 PM

Me neither, until recently.

Creationists had me convinced that he accepted Evolution. Haha! Not that it mattered to me in any way though.

Now that i know he was a creationist, it still doesn't matter to me. I don't find it very interesting, actually. But i do find it interesting that creationists try to use our disgust for this psycho against a scientific proposition, as if it had any relevance.
And even MORE interesting that those who do it didn't do their homework (most of them) or are probably dishonest about it (Ben Stein).

View Post


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jon7hnQSBcs&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jon7hnQSBcs&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Posted Image

It's ironic that one of the foundations of evolution is survival of the fittest, and Hitler's book Mein Kampf means My Survival. Then we have the race comparison below...

Posted Image

Where did the idea come from to compare man to ape? Was there another person that had the evolution idea before Darwin? Was Darwin involved in plagiarism?

And then we have eugenics. Hitler loved this idea. Guess who headed it up and did many experiments for Hitler? Frances Galton, Darwin's cousin who came up with the idea to speed up human evolution to it's perfection. Get rid of the weak, feeble minded, diseased etc...
http://www.eugenicsa...genics/list3.pl

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/174QiTrzFV8&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/174QiTrzFV8&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ufqOe0_pres&hl=en_US&fs=1&%22></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ufqOe0_pres&hl=en_US&fs=1& type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Posted Image

This evolution-eugenics idea lasted far beyond Hitler and World War 2, as evolutionists put on a display of Indians in a zoo to show how we have evolved beyond them.

Posted Image

Even Ernst Haeckel had the same idea as stated above.

Attached File  Slide181.jpg   15.09KB   2 downloads

Evolution and Eugenics, and all the people involved:

1) Darwin.
2) Hitler.
3) Galton.
4) Huxley
etc...

Can all be found making comments that supported the views of each other. That there are lower races of humans, and those races need to be removed. Whether it be Eugenics, which connects to Darwin and Hitler, or evolution. The conclusion is the same and so are the founding ideas that bread these things, and the crimes against humanity.

How do you justify putting humans on display in a zoo to degrade them as animals lower than all other humans?

#70 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 08 May 2010 - 06:25 PM

You didn't answer my question. Don't deflect.

View Post


A- You didn't ask a question:

Most likely in return for your ignoring or not reading what he said.

I am absolutely astounded that both of you read that statement and then without even a moments hesitation, have objected to it.

If either of you cannot understand what's wrong with the statements you both made....man I just cannot believe you both said that. I'm floored.

View Post


B- You obviously don't understand the fallacy built into his (and apparently your) flawed philosophy. I would suggest you dig a little deeper, and read a little more prior to posting here.

#71 Guest_kenetiks_*

Guest_kenetiks_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 May 2010 - 08:32 PM

A- You didn't ask a question:

Actually I did, just in the post after that one. My bad as I was following several different post and got turned around. The question is on the next page I think. But I'll repeat it below.

B- You obviously don't understand the fallacy built into his (and apparently your) flawed philosophy.  I would suggest you dig a little deeper, and read a little more prior to posting here.

View Post

Enlighten me as to the fallacy. Calling my philosophy flawed is like pointing at a birds front paw. Perhaps you could further enlighten me why it is that the sciences are flawed in reconstructing the history of the species after the fact? That macro evolution cannot be observed therefor it cannot be proven?

#72 Guest_wisp_*

Guest_wisp_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 May 2010 - 01:56 AM

If the reasons were taught, but we were not forced to accept them, rather discuss them, then it would be fine.

I'm not sure i understand what "forcing someone to accept a reason" would look like.

To discuss the reasons, whether one believes it or not, requires knowledge of what evolution is.

Yeah...

School is for education, not for recruiting children into the belief system that many people have made of evolution.

Sorry, but i don't understand what you mean by "believe system".

This is my belief system: The Universe works according to a set of rules. They can be worked out.

That's pretty much it.

If discussion was encouraged, then students would think more and actually try to come up with their own answers instead of believing what other people say.

I already told you that if you direct that same criticism towards any branch of Science, that's fine with me.

Third time i ask you: Who do you do this for?


#73 Guest_wisp_*

Guest_wisp_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 May 2010 - 02:54 AM

Hi, ikester.

I'm sorry, but i don't know why you quote me. I don't think you addressed anything i said.

I don't quite understand the purpose of posting that video.

Do you think i said or implied that Hitler was a christian? If so, i'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but i just didn't.

It's ironic that one of the foundations of evolution is survival of the fittest, and Hitler's book Mein Kampf means My Survival. Then we have the race comparison below...

I don't see the irony. Isn't it when the literal sense is opposed to the real one?
English is not my language, so i can be confused...

And evolutionary biologists don't talk in such terms. It's not "survival of the fittest". It's not even necessarily about survival. It's about passing genes. Those who do tend to be the ones with traits that give them a certain advantage in their particular environment.

Sometimes, in Nature, the best way to get a huge offspring leads to the death of the individual. The individual will readily go to death if that's what it takes to pass its genes.

Where did the idea come from to compare man to ape?

From the similarities? From taxonomy? From Linnæus?

Humans have been classified as primates since the 1700s when a Christian creationist scientist figured out what a primate was –and prompted other scientists to figure out why that applied to us.

Where does the idea come from to compare a dog to a mammal? How about that dogs are mammals?

The same applies to humans and apes. We are apes.

If you think your god made us like we are, well then you could ask Him why he made us apes.

There is a psychological issue here.

Let me demonstrate it:
Posted Image

For some reason creationists tend to accept that we're vertebrates, and that we're mammals. Well how could you have a mammal that's not an animal?

Every creationist accepts we're humans. Well being an ape just comes with the package. It doesn't look optional...

Was there another person that had the evolution idea before Darwin? Was Darwin involved in plagiarism?

No. Linnæus couldn't figure out the process by which phylogenies were formed, and Darwin could.

And then we have eugenics. Hitler loved this idea.

Yes, yes. Lots of ugly people made a bad use of Science (sometimes misunderstanding it). That still doesn't deny the factuality of facts.

And if you're talking about Hitler accepting Evolution, well that's just wrong.

Guess who headed it up and did many experiments for Hitler? Frances Galton, Darwin's cousin who came up with the idea to speed up human evolution to it's perfection. Get rid of the weak, feeble minded, diseased etc...
http://www.eugenicsa...genics/list3.pl

As creationists say so often: That's just microevolution!

Hitler did not accept Evolution (as my quotes demonstrated).

Posted Image
His mistake.

Doesn't the Bible say that black people are cursed by Moses?

Evolution and Eugenics, and all the people involved:

1) Darwin.
2) Hitler.
3) Galton.
4) Huxley
etc...

I don't see your point.

Would you like for me to say they were ugly bastards? Would that please you? Because i don't rely on their authority at all, nor does Evolution.

Can all be found making comments that supported the views of each other. That there are lower races of humans, and those races need to be removed. Whether it be Eugenics, which connects to Darwin and Hitler, or evolution. The conclusion is the same and so are the founding ideas that bread these things, and the crimes against humanity.

That can be found in the Bible as well.

And i still don't see your point.

Would you like for us to cover this scientific fact because its knowledge can bring bad consequences?

How do you justify putting humans on display in a zoo to degrade them as animals lower than all other humans?

I don't see anything degrading about being animals.

If you feel degraded by that, well take it on the god that made you an animal. You can't blame Evolution, even if it was wrong.


#74 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 May 2010 - 02:56 AM

Posted Image

#75 Guest_wisp_*

Guest_wisp_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 May 2010 - 03:10 AM

Am i 11?

To me there are two valid ways to make a distinction. Only one of them is useful:
a) Methodological distinction. Each one of the two are better studied using different tools.
B) Objective distinction. Anything above the species level is macro (not very useful, but much more precise).

To creationists it's about impressive Evolution, and unimpressive Evolution.

They feel unimpressed for the time being, but say they would be impressed if we found:
1) Things that the Theory of Evolution wouldn't predict or permit.
2) Things that would take more than their time left to live.


#76 Guest_tomato_*

Guest_tomato_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 May 2010 - 03:46 AM

You were 11.
I omitted a word in the clues.
I went back and corrected it, and for some reason, the program rearranged the whole puzzle.
So I posted the new puzzle in its place.

The correct answers are now:

1. TOMATO
2. WISP
3. YORZHIK
4. RAZORBLADES
5. THAROCK
7. KENETIKS
8. KLEINMAN
9. DELPHIKI
10. EOCENE
11. CATA
12. AJF
13. IKESTER
14. GILBO

I hope I represented everybody accurately.

#77 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 09 May 2010 - 03:56 AM

You were 11.
I omitted a word in the clues.
I went back and corrected it, and for some reason, the program rearranged the whole puzzle.
So I posted the new puzzle in its place.

The correct answers are now:

1. TOMATO
2. WISP
3. YORZHIK
4. RAZORBLADES
5. THAROCK
7. KENETIKS
8. KLEINMAN
9. DELPHIKI
10. EOCENE
11. CATA
12. AJF
13. IKESTER
14. GILBO

I hope I represented everybody accurately.

View Post


No, I think you omitted someone :huh:

#78 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 09 May 2010 - 04:41 AM

There isn't any controversy inside the scientific community. There are no other explanations taught in public schools because there aren't any other competing explanations.

View Post

Your statement is not only invalid, it is the offspring of the political propaganda from people like Richard Dawkins. You don't understand it's scientists that started the creationist movement in the 60's and the Intelligent Design movement in the 90's? I know four people personally in the "science community"--a retired MD, a geologist, a chemical engineer, and a science teacher, that all reject macro evolution.

I agree, students should be taught how to think, not what. And they should be given the tools necessary to accomplish this. One of those tools is the previous experience and expertise of scientists and their hard won efforts and work before you. The choice should be how you use this.

View Post

There is nothing wrong with evolution getting reviewed by scientists who do not accept it. There are valid credentialed scientists and science people who accept the historical findings of chemistry, biology (not evolutionary--when I was a kid it was just biology), physics, and math, except when it crosses the line of origins. SO when living fossils are found and when 14C readings are being found in coal and diamonds, and heme is found in fossils--it is accepted as evidence against evolution. It's called peer review. The powers that be don't like the weaknesses of their theory to be exposed.

Creation is in no way, science. Creation has no evidence to support it's claim.

View Post

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you don't believe in the creation of our planet by asteroids. So are you saying the earth has always been here? Or by creation, maybe you only mean creation by an outside intelligence, right? But I was looking for evidence the other day, perhaps in the asteroid belt. I thought there would be at least two or more asteroids clinging together, since that is what Discovery Channel animations show us happened. But I only found that they orbit each other. But I guess the "science community" now accepts animations as evidence.

Or are you talking about the evidence for abiogenesis? That should be taught in schools instead of the OTHER archaic superstition that believes intelligence created order, and that evolution fails by it's own tenants of natural selection and mutation alone.

It is an assertion that can easily and regularly does dismiss any inconvenient data and evidence. It's taking the science out of the picture and inserting the words "because god did it" in it's place.

View Post

No, actually, it's more like evolution can't do it, because it has no effective mechanism. Selection itself kills evolution. The Cambrian layers kill evolution. The need for corresponding, simultaneous, chance mutations kills evolution. Math kills evolution.

Belief is in of itself, not evidence. You must provide scientific evidence for it to be science.

View Post

In my last response, did I use the Bible. I used evidence. I say evolution falls by it's own tenants alone. The idea that step by step mutations (most of which are deleterious or neutral) are not going to dead end, or be selected for to the point of what is now--a plethora of species--and a symbiotic purposeful ecology--is preposterous.

And to attempt to give us adaptational changes in bacteria as evidence, and supposed transitions like the mud skipper, which is a living fossil, along with a long list of living fossils (evidence of stability in the kinds, not waning change into other totally different kinds)--is not sufficient evidence for the grand claim of macroevolution.

You cannot teach religion in public schools. I fail to see why this is so difficult for you to understand. There is a separation of church and state for a reason.

View Post

Yes, and so you have your ace in the hole. Supreme court rulings. Congress did their constitutional job, and stayed out of it. Because congress shall make no law in respect of the establishment of religion, nor the free the exercise thereof.... SO the courts can rule from the bench by their interpretation.

Let me ask you this. Why is it that 150 years ago, children learned to read the Bible in schools, and had the McGuffy Reader, which contained allusions to Bible stories and morals, and now we can't do it? Were they wrong back then? Did the founding fathers not understand the constitution they wrote, ratified, and fought for?

McGuffey is remembered as a theological and conservative teacher. He understood the goals of public schooling in terms of moral and spiritual education, and attempted to give schools a curriculum that would instill Presbyterian Calvinist beliefs and manners in their students. While these goals were considered suitable for the homogeneous America of the early-to-mid 19th century.... wikipedia


If the way modern day society interprets " the separation of church and state" was constitutionally valid, McGuffey readers could have never been allowed in public schools.


#79 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 09 May 2010 - 07:24 AM

Hi, ikester.

I'm sorry, but i don't know why you quote me. I don't think you addressed anything i said.

I don't quite understand the purpose of posting that video.

Do you think i said or implied that Hitler was a christian? If so, i'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but i just didn't.

I don't see the irony. Isn't it when the literal sense is opposed to the real one?
English is not my language, so i can be confused...

And evolutionary biologists don't talk in such terms. It's not "survival of the fittest". It's not even necessarily about survival. It's about passing genes. Those who do tend to be the ones with traits that give them a certain advantage in their particular environment.

Sometimes, in Nature, the best way to get a huge offspring leads to the death of the individual. The individual will readily go to death if that's what it takes to pass its genes.

From the similarities? From taxonomy? From Linnæus?

Humans have been classified as primates since the 1700s when a Christian creationist scientist figured out what a primate was –and prompted other scientists to figure out why that applied to us.

Where does the idea come from to compare a dog to a mammal? How about that dogs are mammals?

The same applies to humans and apes. We are apes.

If you think your god made us like we are, well then you could ask Him why he made us apes.

There is a psychological issue here.

Let me demonstrate it:
Posted Image

For some reason creationists tend to accept that we're vertebrates, and that we're mammals. Well how could you have a mammal that's not an animal?

Every creationist accepts we're humans. Well being an ape just comes with the package. It doesn't look optional...

No. Linnæus couldn't figure out the process by which phylogenies were formed, and Darwin could.

Yes, yes. Lots of ugly people made a bad use of Science (sometimes misunderstanding it). That still doesn't deny the factuality of facts.

And if you're talking about Hitler accepting Evolution, well that's just wrong.

As creationists say so often: That's just microevolution!

Hitler did not accept Evolution (as my quotes demonstrated).

Posted Image
His mistake.

Doesn't the Bible say that black people are cursed by Moses?

I don't see your point.

Would you like for me to say they were ugly bastards? Would that please you? Because i don't rely on their authority at all, nor does Evolution.

That can be found in the Bible as well.

And i still don't see your point.

Would you like for us to cover this scientific fact because its knowledge can bring bad consequences?

I don't see anything degrading about being animals.

If you feel degraded by that, well take it on the god that made you an animal. You can't blame Evolution, even if it was wrong.

View Post


Wisp, please stop ignoring the obvious. Hitler believed in Evolution. You cannot escape that fact... unless you want to re-write history.

Saying that Hitler did not believe in Evolution is the most incorrect statement that I've heard in this thread, and it is an oxymoron at best.

Hitler + Mein Kampf + using the word Entwicklung(Evolution) multiple times = means that Hitler did in fact believe in Evolution. I'm sorry wisp but your just wrong. Why use the words Entwicklung over and over again if one did not believe in putting words into action??? I think this much is obvious, plain as day.

The Holocaust was one of the biggest attempts at " Preservation of Favored races." Hitler did not Favor Jews... therefore he exterminated them.

Who wrote Origin of Species, Preservation of Favored Races?... well that was Darwin,...and Hitler was quite happy accepting evolution as a basis for his actions. Hitler wanted the Aryan race to be supreme, ask anyone who studies history, and anyone who was alive back in those days, and they'll tell you that you are wrong. The Aryan race was believed by Hitler and the Nazi's that they were the most highly evolved race on the planet.

So saying Hitler did not believe in evolution will not ever make it true, and you know it. So please, accept the fact that you are wrong, and move on please.

#80 Guest_wisp_*

Guest_wisp_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 May 2010 - 10:15 AM

Hi, scott. ^_^

Wisp, please stop ignoring the obvious.

Even if i was, that phrase doesn't help.

Hitler believed in Evolution.

He didn't understand it. He didn't accept it. I've shown you in those quotes up there. Did you read them?

You cannot escape that fact... unless you want to re-write history.

That also doesn't help.

Saying that Hitler did not believe in Evolution is the most incorrect statement that I've heard in this thread, and it is an oxymoron at best.

Again, not helpful.

Hitler + Mein Kampf + using the word Entwicklung(Evolution) multiple times = means that Hitler did in fact believe in Evolution.

You have just used it. Doesn't mean you believe or understand it. But that's closer to an argument. Thank you.

I'm sorry wisp but your just wrong.

Not helpful again.
Why use the words Entwicklung over and over again if one did not believe in putting words into action???
I didn't say he didn't.
I think this much is obvious, plain as day.
Not helpful.
The Holocaust was one of the biggest attempts at " Preservation of [b]Favored[/b] races."  Hitler [b]did not Favor[/b] Jews... therefore he exterminated them.
He tried.

You don't have to believe, understand or accept Evolution in order to do that.

Who wrote [u]Origin of Species, Preservation of Favored Races[/u]?... well that was Darwin,...and Hitler was quite happy accepting evolution as a basis for his actions.
No happier to accept it than you are. He accepted the same parts of Evolution than you do, except that he didn't have the word "microevolution".
Hitler wanted the Aryan race to be supreme,
Actually he thought it was.
ask anyone who studies history, and anyone who was alive back in those days,
Don't need to. And i knew Schindler's wife.
and they'll tell you that you are wrong.
She didn't tell me about Darwinism. Sorry.
The Aryan race was believed by Hitler and the Nazi's that they were the most highly evolved race on the planet.
Microevolved. ^_^
So saying Hitler did not believe in evolution will not ever make it true, and you know it.
Of course. But i didn't just say it. I showed it.

I also said why it's not relevant at all when trying to determine the accuracy of a scientific theory.

So please, accept the fact that you are wrong, and move on please.
I really have no problem admitting my mistakes. That's how you grow. But perhaps you didn't read the quotes, so i'll quote Hitler again:


The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi
So only microchange is possible, according to Hitler and the creationist movement.

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
So God was our intelligent designer, according to Hitler and the creationist movement.

The most marvelous proof of the superiority of Man, which puts man ahead of the animals, is the fact that he understands that there must be a Creator. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
So we're not animals, and we have a creator.

From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)
You can't get any clearer than that.

Again, i'm not saying or implying that creationism is wrong just because Hitler shared it's views. I wouldn't dare to do that. It is completely irrelevant.

Likewise, this is not a good reason to floss:
Posted Image

I would like better arguments. That's all.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users