Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
ikester7579

Literal Evolution.

Recommended Posts

Sorry for the two posts, but you raised a lot of good points I wanted to cover. Back to it :D

 

...

 

Which is basically why I don't go there. You act as if FRDB is the only site you have been to. I find that hard to believe. In fact if I did a search on your name, would I find that you are a member of several other forums and blogs? Or could it be that you use different names everywhere you go so that you tracks cannot be traced?

40700[/snapback]

I've been over this with you before Ike. Here and FRDB are the only debate sites I have an account at. And I only made an account at FRDB when Adam decided to have that official debate.

 

Feel free to search me if you don't believe. I don't know if FRDB keeps dates for signing up on the account anywhere, but if you can check it you'll find I'm telling the truth. My internet alias is always Arch, ArchDragon or Firebrand as I can't be bothered remembering alternative names.

 

You can also find those same names on Deviantart and World of Warcraft. Even my personal website is Arch-dragon.com

 

So go nuts. I have nothing to hide.

 

(On that note there is another Arch at FRDB who I was identified with early on. I made sure people knew we weren't the same person within my first few weeks here).

 

Dawkins believes in Panspermia.

40700[/snapback]

Does he? I read The God delusion recently and he definitely offers it as a plausible alternative, but never stated it was what he believes happened. Of course, that book is a couple of years old now.

 

I see zero because unless pinned down, most atheist would rather look like they agree with majority views from their peers.

40700[/snapback]

I disagree, and I think the forums here and even at FRDB will back me up for the most part.

 

If what is interpretated, cannot be confirmed in at least 2-3 places, then it's a misinterpretation and should not be taken literally until such confirmation is found. Also, every word in the interpretation has to be used.

 

Example: In the verse where it says a woman should not talk in church. And that they should get information from their husbands when they get home.

40700[/snapback]

I doubt I would have too much trouble finding 2 or 3 passages that restrict woman from preaching. What do you do when you have conflicting messages like this?

 

Also, how useful is using every word in the interpretation? Wouldn't you need to understand ancient Hebrew for that to work? Sorry that's a little unfair of me, do you understand Hebrew? Or Greek?

 

I'm sure other people have similar methods of testing their interpretations against Biblical writings, and I'm sure they think their method is foolproof too. My point is that your method is just another way of interpreting and I don't see how it's more accurate than others.

 

You can point to a lot of stories in the Bible that show woman in preaching roles, but on the other hand you have a couple of passages that explicitly state they can't. Which do you choose?

 

That said, I think you have a fairly solid method and I definitely agree with your interpretation :lol:

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, of course. Tolerance is often required, especially when religion is involved. Or football :lol:

Tolerance is only required of people whom take a disliking unto another for one reason or another.

 

The problem is Ike that you don't like it when others make this kind of remark, but feel justified to make them yourself. I prefer the practice what you preach tactic. You know, lead by example?

Strong words for someone whom approves of one side doing it. And therefore has not the same words for his own peers.

 

Yes Ike, I think I do understand. What you don't seem to understand is that this kind of thread only insights the anger, rather than trying to douse it.

Maybe I should have flexed some mod powers instead? And show by example as a what not to do? I allowed the thread to show by example how one side thinks it's great to point out the wrong doings of another. But then has a major problem when the same is done unto them. Each one of your posts proves this as you try and justify the actions of your peers.

 

That's great, but you assume that others have been around this debate as long as you have. There is every chance others haven't heard the answers to these questions. I know I haven't.

But instead of trying to educate newbies like me you get on your high horse and make posts like this one. I know you're probably bored of answering the same question again and again, but if you want to teach people that's the only way to go about it.

People come to a forum like this looking for answers (we hope) and instead they get rants on evolution teaching people to kill the retarded. Other than allowing you to vent, who do you think this helps?

They learn by me pointing out things I have learned from my experience. There is no high horse. I was making the playing field more level. It is a known fact the most evolutionists do not like level playing fields and is the very reason such things are brought up.

 

Like I have said many times. If you dish it out, be prepared to take it as well. Your attempt at reverse of guilt is becoming a bore.

 

Yes more than likely. But I thought that's the point you were trying to get across? That this is what evolution teaches as a whole? I don't see the point in picking on the occasional crazy person who preaches death in the name of evolution or religion. If it's not how the majority feels then it's not what's being taught.

Then why did one of you peers do it, and you said nothing? But when I did it, all hell breaks lose. How ironic.

 

I'd still be interested in seeing the crazy nut-job who's going around saying we should kill off the retarded because evolution demands it.

And here you go again with your absolutes. This atheist would not have said religion was to blame. You're talking about some very troubled individuals. Probably in some way mentally retarded themselves. If they didn't blame evolution, they'd blame religion. If not religion, video games. You know, as long as it's not their own fault.

Just look towards the Rational Response Squad. Do I really need to go into detail? And ther following is much bigger than Phelps could ever dream of. And even though Phelps does this by brain washing. The RSS seems to have people whom want to think freely and do this.

 

I'm not talking about any other time Ike, I'm talking about this time.

And what would that prove Ike? I can do the same thing reading Christian blogs.

We both agree that it's wrong, right? So why do you repeat it here?

I can't speak for every site, but I've seen it done here and at FRDB.

Sorry Ike, but if you're going around saying that evolution teaches people to kill the retarded then I've got no problem with you being banned.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

40876[/snapback]

Why not repeat it here? Other do about the Christian faith. All through this post you have shown the inability to even see anything from the other side of the issue. In fact your post has turned into a blame fest. Did I start this? No. I was not the one whom made the other thread. But some how your post makes me guilty of both threads?

 

Also, evolutionists say that we Christians teach people to kill (abortionists etc..). Here again I dished out what is dished and you waaa like a child?

 

It is clear you are becoming a time waster. And with all the complaints I have about you, I would have no problem banning you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott.  I hate to break it to you but we do live in the land where the founding fathers believed that all men are created equal.

 

And even if they didn't believe this, then tell me what is so wrong with helping those less fortunate than you?  Can you tell me what is wrong with lifting people up out of the bad places that they have found themselves in?

The majority of Atheists are liberal?  That maybe true, but what does that have to do with anything?  Also I would like to see a source that shows the majority of atheists being liberal.

 

But I think you are mistaking Atheists for Agnostics.  Atheists don't believe in god, don't believe in an afterlife.  These things are as absolute as you can get.  Agnostics don't know if there is or isn't a God.

What Ikester is saying is about as bad as me pointing out various quotes from the bible and then claiming that Christians are evil for believing in a god who does 'x'.

 

As you can see when Ikester is making outrageous claims such as these the few Atheists on this site call him on it.  If I would make similar claims then the Christians on this site would call me on it.

 

Now I'm not surprised that you are jumping on board with Ikester on this.  But it would be nice to address the many points that have been made that run counter to what Ikester is claiming.

40683[/snapback]

Equality has nothing to do with helping others. If everyone was equal, there sure wouldn't be a need to help others. No one would need help. The fact is, no one is equal, and that's why we help others, because we see that everyone is unique, and unequal. You don't treat disabled people the same way you treat non-disabled people... it just wouldn't be right acting like they could help themselves, when clearly they need help. Equality turns a blind eye to uniqueness.

 

What is mean't by equality, in my opinion is that we are all human... therefore we should at least treat each other with the same respect and love for one another. It doesn't mean that we are all the same, but I think you already know this.

 

As for atheist being liberal, well the majority of the ones that I've met in my lifetime have all been liberals, and the ones that weren't turned out to be deist.

 

Also, I'm on Ikesters side, because as he has shown... the things he claims are true, because this is not the first time I've seen him support his claims on this very subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for atheist being liberal, well the majority of the ones that I've met in my lifetime have all been liberals, and the ones that weren't turned out to be deist. 

40961[/snapback]

From my experience the atheists that I've met vote Labour, Liberal Democrat and Tory (or other) in about the same ratio as the rest of the people I meet. I don't see what the political leanings of atheists has to do with the topic at hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equality has nothing to do with helping others.  If everyone was equal, there sure wouldn't be a need to help others.  No one would need help.  The fact is, no one is equal, and that's why we help others, because we see that everyone is unique, and unequal.  You don't treat disabled people the same way you treat non-disabled people... it just wouldn't be right acting like they could help themselves, when clearly they need help.  Equality turns a blind eye to uniqueness.

I see where your concern is when it comes to equality. And I agree with the points that you bring up. But physical capabilities are not the way I compare people, well actually mental agility is not something I judge people on. I do my best to treat everyone with kindness regardless of their 'capabilities'.

 

What is mean't by equality, in my opinion is that we are all human... therefore we should at least treat each other with the same respect and love for one another.  It doesn't mean that we are all the same, but I think you already know this.

Cool we are in agreement here :lol:

 

As for atheist being liberal, well the majority of the ones that I've met in my lifetime have all been liberals, and the ones that weren't turned out to be deist.

Fair enough. I don't know too many Atheists personally, so I can't say if they are liberal or not.

 

 

Also, I'm on Ikesters side, because as he has shown... the things he claims are true, because this is not the first time I've seen him support his claims on this very subject.

40961[/snapback]

Don't get me wrong. Ikester is right on a lot of topics. I respect him also, but sometimes the things he says seems to be just to incite an angry reaction. When he says something I disagree with I simply point it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong.  Ikester is right on a lot of topics.  I respect him also, but sometimes the things he says seems to be just to incite an angry reaction.  When he says something I disagree with I simply point it out.

40973[/snapback]

If the truth incites an angry reaction, its not the fault of the truth, or that of the truth bearer. I have never seen a post by Ikester evidencing that intent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the truth incites an angry reaction, its not the fault of the truth, or that of the truth bearer. I have never seen a post by Ikester evidencing that intent.

41003[/snapback]

 

Its the truth in the statements he makes that is in question for me. And that is what annoys me. What he does from time to time is similar to quote mining. Such as when he states that Evolution has caused the most horrible things to happen. Such as Hitler exterminating the Jews. This is a partial truth, the part that is true is that Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews, the other part is false.

 

As far as it being his intent, I'm willing to say that it is my interpretation of the those posts where he makes those types of statements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the truth in the statements he makes that is in question for me.  And that is what annoys me.  What he does from time to time is similar to quote mining.  Such as when he states that Evolution has caused the most horrible things to happen.  Such as Hitler exterminating the Jews.  This is a partial truth, the part that is true is that Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews, the other part is false.

 

As far as it being his intent, I'm willing to say that it is my interpretation of the those posts where he makes those types of statements.

41037[/snapback]

If you took the time to read the origins of Eugenics, Friedrich Nietchze, and their ties to Evolution and Adolph Hitler’s philosophical bent, you would find out how incorrect you are. Having said that, you shouldn’t take these facts personally, no one is saying that you would use these philosophies to kill millions of Jews. That would be like me taking the Spanish Inquisition personally.

 

The bottom line about evolution is this, why does it matter if Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin Killed millions of people. In light of survival of the fittest, the weaker genomes lost out. And man, being nothing more than “Matter in Motionâ€ÂÂ, and nothing more than higher animals, the herd was culled, that’s all. Why should that bother an atheist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the truth in the statements he makes that is in question for me.  And that is what annoys me.  What he does from time to time is similar to quote mining.  Such as when he states that Evolution has caused the most horrible things to happen.  Such as Hitler exterminating the Jews.  This is a partial truth, the part that is true is that Hitler tried to exterminate the Jews, the other part is false.

 

As far as it being his intent, I'm willing to say that it is my interpretation of the those posts where he makes those types of statements.

41037[/snapback]

Hitler was a chronic liar. Anyone who studies history can easily realize that, Every treaty he signed he broke. Being raised in a Christian home makes one a Christian as much as standing in your garage will make you into a car. The life you live proves what you are, and Hitler was no where close to a so Called Christian life.

 

Hitler had a hit-list that compared each human race to an ape. Was there another idea out where Hitler got this idea from besides evolution?

 

Hitler used Eugenics for his human experiments and control breeding. Do you think it was by sure coincidence that Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, was one of the people who ran it? And that the other two who helped run it, Charles Davenport, and Arthur Estabrook, were supporters of Darwin's work. And the whole theme of the Eugenics movement was the same as Darwin's idea: The Science of Human Improvement by Better Breeding.

post-44-1255655983_thumb.jpg

Exterminate other races is not that much different from human breeding control.

 

Did I quote history wrong? You use the term quote mining as your excuse to not being able to debunk history. But if we don't face history, good or bad, we don't learn from it and repeat it.

 

Also, one of the mechanisms of evolution is "survival of the fittest". I find it ironic that Hitler book "Mein Kampf" means "My survival". The German word for evolution is "Entwicklung". Hitler mentioned this word several times in his book.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hitler.htm

 

Also, why would you take a theory personally? Only religion is taken personally because it requires faith which means it has to be taken to heart. Evolution is not supposed to require faith. Or does it?

 

If I quoted something wrong using history, please point it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you took the time to read the origins of Eugenics, Friedrich Nietchze, and their ties to Evolution and Adolph Hitler’s philosophical bent, you would find out how incorrect you are. Having said that, you shouldn’t take these facts personally, no one is saying that you would use these philosophies to kill millions of Jews. That would be like me taking the Spanish Inquisition personally.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition! :lol: please tell me you all recognize this quote!

 

Of course I don't take these statements personally. I realize that Ikester is not attacking me personally. It's more that I perceive an injustice and I feel the need to point it out.

 

I'll have to take a look at the origins of Eugenics to see for myself what the link is. I'm making plans to simplify my life a little here, so I should have some more time for this.

 

The bottom line about evolution is this, why does it matter if Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin Killed millions of people. In light of survival of the fittest, the weaker genomes lost out. And man, being nothing more than “Matter in Motionâ€ÂÂ, and nothing more than higher animals, the herd was culled, that’s all. Why should that bother an atheist?

41042[/snapback]

Well I already said I need to research the link for myself here so I will leave making comments on the rest of this post, but I feel the need to comment on what I bolded.

 

The question is why should it matter to an Atheist that people were killed. I could ask a similar question, but I won't. Instead I'll answer the question. It matter's because people lost their lives, people suffered. Just because someone doesn't believe in an afterlife doesn't mean that Atheists cannot feel for their fellow man.

 

Like its been said before Humans are social creatures. I feel sad when someone else suffer's an injustice. These are normal feelings regardless of a belief in the divine.

 

You know what, I just realized that doesn't really answer the question. I don't think there is an answer. We care about other people because we are people, we wouldn't want this to happen to us, or to our loved ones. So why would we want it to happen to someone else?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tharock220

Back to the issue, Ikester, do you see the issue with your description of evolution. How would it be productive for the strongest member of a species to kill off all other members??/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the issue, Ikester, do you see the issue with your description of evolution.  How would it be productive for the strongest member of a species to kill off all other members??/

41087[/snapback]

Do you think that Hitler's goal was extermination of all humans except himself? Nope. It was race and the weak extermination. With a few exceptions. But the exceptions had to agree to be sterilized.

 

If you were born feable minded, or deformed. You were marked for:

 

1) Death.

2) Human experiments.

3) Sterilization to keep you from breeding and messing up the super human gene pool Hitler was trying to achieve.

 

If you were not German, or blonde hair blued eyed. You where: Marked for extermination or slave labor until you died.

 

You see, what is dangerous about evolution is when it is applied as social evolution aka social Darwinism. So when evolutionists categorize creationists as uneducated morons. You are promoting social Darwinism which is the most dangerous part of evolution. That is what Hitler was doing with the Jews, where he thought he would speed up the process by doing the selecting part of natural selection for humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler was a chronic liar. Anyone who studies history can easily realize that, Every treaty he signed he broke. Being raised in a Christian home makes one a Christian as much as standing in your garage will make you into a car. The life you live proves what you are, and Hitler was no where close to a so Called Christian life.

I absolutely agree with everything that you said here. And i have to say that the tone of this post is much less hostile than previous posts. (which I appreciate).

 

Although I would say that his chronic lying was part of an over-all plan to make it easier to attack those who he made 'treaties' with. But yes if you break a treaties, or enter a treaties with the foreknowledge that you will break it, then you are a lier.

 

Hitler had a hit-list that compared each human race to an ape. Was there another idea out where Hitler got this idea from besides evolution?

Racism has always been around, since man-kind could determine that there was a difference between people based on skin color, religion, socio-economic classes, or what-ever made 2 groups of people different. Racism existed before Evolution, so yes I can give one example where Hitler got that idea.

 

Hitler used Eugenics for his human experiments and control breeding. Do you think it was by sure coincidence that Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, was one of the people who ran it? And that the other two who helped run it, Charles Davenport, and Arthur Estabrook, were supporters of Darwin's work. And the whole theme of the Eugenics movement was the same as Darwin's idea: The Science of Human Improvement by Better Breeding.

post-44-1255655983_thumb.jpg

Exterminate other races is not that much different from human breeding control.

So lets break this down for a moment.

1. Hitler was a lier, something we all agree on.

2. We have to base our knowledge on him from his actions, something we all agree on.

 

So why would he want to use sub-human races in his gene experiments and stress tests? He would have to realize that the data would not match his perfect race.

 

As far as the connection between eugenics and Evolutionary theory I will have to research this at a different time.

 

Did I quote history wrong? You use the term quote mining as your excuse to not being able to debunk history. But if we don't face history, good or bad, we don't learn from it and repeat it.

Once again we absolutely agree. We have to be knowledgeable on history so we can avoid repeating it in the future.

 

The reason why I claim you are using quote mining is because you are only using information that supports your arguments. If you ignore everywhere in Mein Kampf, where Hitler says that evolution is a crock of you know what, and that man and animals were created as we see them now that is quote mining. You are ignoring these parts because they do not support your view of Hitler.

 

 

Also, one of the mechanisms of evolution is "survival of the fittest". I find it ironic that Hitler book "Mein Kampf" means "My survival". The German word for evolution is "Entwicklung". Hitler mentioned this word several times in his book.

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/hitler.htm

Aha quotes from his book. Please see the above response seeing this is pertinant to this also.

 

Also, why would you take a theory personally? Only religion is taken personally because it requires faith which means it has to be taken to heart. Evolution is not supposed to require faith. Or does it?

Maybe I do take it personally when someone says that Evolutionists are responsible for the greatest tragedies in history. But is it simply because you are ignoring all other reasons for these tragedies.

 

If I quoted something wrong using history, please point it out.

41043[/snapback]

Pretty much every time you have connected Evolution with the reasons for hitler's attack on the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The connection between eugenics and evolution is extremely obvious... any denying it... is just atheist wishful feel good thinking.

 

Just look at the front cover of Darwins book... " Preservation of Favoured Races"

 

Bwhahahaha that explains it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree. But perhaps colony would be a better word. A while ago I started reading a book that delved into this territory. Take for example ants. No one tells them to build giant nests, but still they do it (the notion that the queen ant gives the orders isn't actually true. If fact, there are some who look upon the queen as a slave of the colony and not its head). Humans are the same. At what point were we told to build cities? To share food and shelter? To develop governments?

 

The way ants build a nest bares many resemblances to how humans build cities and at no point did a single individual hand out instruction sheets. That is herd mentality.

 

Regards,

 

Arch.

40871[/snapback]

Maybe we are only debating semantics here. I think it is slightly more. I agree that, to some extent, we are colonial. However it must be acknowledged that our intellect, pride, and other "qualities" , not necessarly positive, give us a slightly different drive than that of the average herd. We will gladly place ourselves in higher priority vs. other humans for wide ranging reasons, not always for the beefit of our fellows.

I will accept that their are those among us that prefer to operate as a herd. On them I lay much f the blame for our current President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tharock220

Do you think that Hitler's goal was extermination of all humans except himself? Nope. It was race and the weak extermination. With a few exceptions. But the exceptions had to agree to be sterilized.

 

If you were born feable minded, or deformed. You were marked for:

 

1) Death.

2) Human experiments.

3) Sterilization to keep you from breeding and messing up the super human gene pool Hitler was trying to achieve.

 

If you were not German, or blonde hair blued eyed. You where: Marked for extermination or slave labor until you died.

 

You see, what is dangerous about evolution is when it is applied as social evolution aka social Darwinism. So when evolutionists categorize creationists as uneducated morons. You are promoting social Darwinism which is the most dangerous part of evolution. That is what Hitler was doing with the Jews, where he thought he would speed up the process by doing the selecting part of natural selection for humans.

41093[/snapback]

 

Why do you keep bringing up Hitler??? How is it even relevant??? Hitler was a self proclaimed Christian and some of the things he wrote in Mein Kampf indicated his leaning toward creationism.

 

Before you respond saying he wasn't a true Christian, read what I wrote a few times.

 

Again, the strongest member of a population killing all of the weaker members of a population would be counter productive. Reproduction would stop hence evolution would be impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep bringing up Hitler???  How is it even relevant???  Hitler was a self proclaimed Christian and some of the things he wrote in Mein Kampf indicated his leaning toward creationism.

 

Before you respond saying he wasn't a true Christian, read what I wrote a few times.

 

Again, the strongest member of a population killing all of the weaker members of a population would be counter productive.  Reproduction would stop hence evolution would be impossible.

41151[/snapback]

Bwahahahaha... you obviously don't know what a Christian is, and Neither does Hitler... who used Evolution in his agenda... so did his assistants who used archeaology to find the complete history of the supreme Aryan Race... so Yes mentioning Hitler is revelant. You have absolutely no grounds to claim Hitler as a true Christian... Everyone claims to be a Christian... you and I both know that doesn't make it so.

 

It's kind of like this: A person likes Hot Rods, therefore he claims to be a Hot Rodder... To be a Hot Rodder one must build and create custom cars... this person does not build cars, and cannot even change his own oil, nor does he own a Hot Rod...therefore this person is clearly not a Hot Rodder, but merely a spectator.

 

You can claim anything, but do you have the substance to back it up????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep bringing up Hitler???  How is it even relevant???  Hitler was a self proclaimed Christian and some of the things he wrote in Mein Kampf indicated his leaning toward creationism.

41151[/snapback]

If you don't understand the relevance of Hitlers actions, attitude and philosophy in this discussion, you may want to go back and re-read Mein Kampf and some of his speeches as well. Hitler, along with Stalin and Pol Pot are classic examples of survival of the fittest and might makes right transposed upon humanity.

 

You whole "Hitler was a Christian" propagandist mantra isn't even worth replying to with anything other than these questions: Which, if any, of the philosophical promulgations of the Christ did Hitler live his life by (or follow)? Do you even understand what (according to Jesus) a Christian is suppose to act/live like? Can you show some examples of the life of Hitler that even slightly resembled the Christian lifestyle of the New Testament? Or, in your haste, are you totally over looking Hitler's political lip service?

 

 

Again, the strongest member of a population killing all of the weaker members of a population would be counter productive.  Reproduction would stop hence evolution would be impossible.

41151[/snapback]

Are you insinuating that,in the Animal kingdom, the weak and sick are not consumed my the predators? Is this what you are saying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep bringing up Hitler???  How is it even relevant???  Hitler was a self proclaimed Christian and some of the things he wrote in Mein Kampf indicated his leaning toward creationism.

Before you respond saying he wasn't a true Christian, read what I wrote a few times.

I have not, and don't believe I have any need to read your previous thought (on Hitler an Christianity?). If I sit in a garage for three years and say "VRRoOOOmmm" will I be a car?

 

Again, the strongest member of a population killing all of the weaker members of a population would be counter productive.  Reproduction would stop hence evolution would be impossible.

41151[/snapback]

That seems to go against standard evolutionary belief. Maybe because you have taken some liberty with, or mis-understood the implied thought? I believe the intended idea was that the stronger would remove the weakest from the herd. This is not just common evo' thought but seems to be proved in some portions of the animal kingdom. Reproduction should be enhanced as the "weakness" will be bred out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tharock220

As for the animal kingdom, I'm talking about animals in the same population(species). Is it productive for members of a population to go around killing the rest of it's members??? It would be pretty hard for the population to survive if it's actively being killed off.

 

I have not, and don't believe I have any need to read your previous thought (on Hitler an Christianity?). If I sit in a garage for three years and say "VRRoOOOmmm" will I be a car?

I'm not sure if you get my point or not. Hitler believe God created Aryans superior and believe by the process of social evolution they should rule. He just wanted to speed it up. Evolutionary theory is biology. So the two have nothing to do with each other.

 

That seems to go against standard evolutionary belief. Maybe because you have taken some liberty with, or mis-understood the implied thought? I believe the intended idea was that the stronger would remove the weakest from the herd. This is not just common evo' thought but seems to be proved in some portions of the animal kingdom. Reproduction should be enhanced as the "weakness" will be bred out.

Think about it Larry. Those who are best adapted to given current pressures survive. The strongest killing off the weak is counterproductive. Hitler himself demonstrated this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tharock220

If you don't understand the relevance of Hitlers actions, attitude and philosophy in this discussion, you may want to go back and re-read Mein Kampf and some of his speeches as well. Hitler, along with Stalin and Pol Pot are classic examples of survival of the fittest and might makes right transposed upon humanity.

 

You whole "Hitler was a Christian" propagandist mantra isn't even worth replying to with anything other than these questions: Which, if any, of the philosophical promulgations of the Christ did Hitler live his life by (or follow)?  Do you even understand what (according to Jesus) a Christian is suppose to act/live like? Can you show some examples of the life of Hitler that even slightly resembled the Christian lifestyle of the New Testament? Or, in your haste, are you totally over looking Hitler's political lip service?

I'd be lying if I said I didn't see this coming. Why is it on the matter of Hitler being a Christian you give the standard "He wasn't a true Christian" response, but he mentions evolution a couple times and it isn't even used in the proper sense it's obvious that evolution is responsible for 6 million Jews.

 

LMAO!!!! I think we call that a double standard. ;)

 

Are you insinuating that,in the Animal kingdom, the weak and sick are not consumed my the predators?  Is this what you are saying?

41157[/snapback]

I don't know. Is that what I'm insinuating??? I don't recall mentioning predators at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hitler was not a Christian, he may have claimed to be, but we know this to not be true simply because we actually read the Bible. We actually know what it means to be a Christian. It seems to me that your extremely confused.

 

So, tharock220, you reallly believe that Hitler was a Christian? You really think so? Really really really really really really really really believe that Hitler was a Christian??? I mean REALLY??? It seems to me that you are openly lying, and unwilling to admit to the facts.

 

I mean did Jesus say kill all the Jews, Ethnic cleansing is a MUST, and that murdering innocent people was a righteous thing to do??? VERY Christlike???

 

NO it was Darwin who wrote " Preservation of Favoured Races". Evolution was not incorrectly used by Hitler, no it was correctly used as a theory that was ultimately put to the test. How's about dwelling on the fact that Darwin himself was a racist, and racism is associated with evolution. You cannot get around these facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be lying if I said I didn't see this coming.  Why is it on the matter of Hitler being a Christian you give the standard "He wasn't a true Christian" response, but he mentions evolution a couple times and it isn't even used in the proper sense it's obvious that evolution is responsible for 6 million Jews. 

41270[/snapback]

Of course you should have seen this coming. But, of course, you have no answer for it either, so you side step it. And that's fine, there's really no need for you to address the obvious. Also, Hitler didn't necessarily have to use the "E" word for one to see how it permeates his writings. And there's no need for you to actually have to address (or admit that fact either). And yes evolution and eugenics play a MAJOR roll in the attempted extinction of "6 million Jews".

 

LMAO!!!!  I think we call that a double standard. :D

41270[/snapback]

Yes, and you really should stop it ;)

 

 

I don't know.  Is that what I'm insinuating???  I don't recall mentioning predators at all.

41270[/snapback]

Your ducking is obvious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms