Hitler was not only a self-professed Christian who explicitly stated that his reason for killing the Jews was directly because of his religious ideology, BUT he also attacks Darwin, says he's wrong, and goes on to profess himself as a CREATIONIST!
"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties."
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger."
Wow, it's like history class without the facts! Apparently this guy has never heard of the ancient Spartans who practiced a form of eugenics a few thousand years before Darwin was born. Nor has he heard about the various debates on race going on in England while Darwin was still growing up. Hell, he probably hasn't read a single page of Mein Kamph or any of Darwin's books.
The theory of evolution is science and is a fact (not only a theory). It is true that it creates serious doubt that a god exists at all. However it is not Darwin's fault that religions are wrong. You folks are trying to subvert science in order to support crazy ideas - the creator of the Universe was born of a virgin 2000 years ago, healed with magic, resurrected from the dead, teleported before his disciples and flew to heavens. You are entirely irrational and illogical!
@ReturnOfTheJam "Darwinism" - evolution by natural selection - is most strongly supported by 99+ % of working professional biologists. You forgot to mention Kenneth Miller, a catholic biologist. But you wouldn't know this unless you spent the time & energy to actually study modern biology from textbooks written by those who have real degrees in the field.
@prschuster Correction. Evolution is fine. How can anyone refute the evidence? Still, don't confuse factual evolution with Darwinism. One is a viable theory; one is not.
@prschuster Social Darwinism, a concept specifically rejected by Darwin, is not a science at all, but a technology. It assumes we can know enough about the human geneome and the interactions of all it's parts, and about the future environment so that we can make wise decisions about what might be desirable. Even a moments consideration will show this is impossible, a mistaken creed. It cannot be possible to predict what genes are 'desirable'.
@ReturnOfTheJam Dr Weikart is basing his argument on the prior acceptance of anti-evo pseudoscience that is already widespread among non-biologists, along with the pseudoscience of "social darwinism" which misapplies natural selection to social & political systems. That's 2 pseudosciences combined into one package. Go to any accredited college and ask the head of the biology dept whether evolution by natural selection is accepted by professional biologists.
What a brilliant idiot. I love how creationist go to great legths to not fully understand the arguments they make. I also enjoy the ignorance of ignoring their historical religous persecusion towards other cultures, And quote mining out of context is such an honest way of debating these issues.
Evolution by natural selection is a theory in science. It's not a social theory, so anything a history professor says about its social impact is pure social construction. If you want to refute a well accepted theory in biology, get an advanced degree in biology - not the social sciences.
@scoreunder Actually, eugenics has nothing to do with evolution in the first place. It's about social engineering - not natural selection. In fact, it has more to do with intelligent design than anything.
@scoreunder I wouldn't even go so far as to say that eugenics relies on a belief in evolution. It relies more on plant & animal breeding, which are ancient arts that predate any such theory in science. Look at our domestic animals and food crops. They're all the result of selective breeding. Eugenics just took this to a new level with human engineering. No "Darwinism" is required here.
Look guys, god never existed, in fact, religion will be laughed at by thousands of humans in the very near future, it's sad that some people can't understand that we are just highly intelligent monkeys whose only purpose in life is to breed to make more monkeys, get it!
@taliskerscotth No, religion will not be laughed at. Those civilizations with strong religiousness will conquer and destroy the godless ones. Not through weapons or tech but birth rates. PS. I´m not religious.
Basically a big ad hominem. Even if the talk wasn't complete bollox it is irrelevant. Having nasty people believe in something doesn't alter whether it is true or not.
Great lecture. I wanted ot post my video connecting Darwin to Hitler as response by you don't allow video responses. I think I get to the meat quicker than that professor, and I'm not as polite!
This talk is insane, the logic used to answer these questions are so idiotic. 1. Person x believed in Darwin 2. Person x had an opinion y 3. If Darwin is correct, opinion y is also correct.
@sculpt2live The very reliability and authenticity of the table talk itself is coming under question by contemporary historians like Richard Carrier. So it's definitely not a good source to use to assert Hitler's anti-christian sentiments.
@sculpt2live He does realize that the table talk has him making statements like
"We don't want to educate anyone in atheism. Table-Talk [p. 6]"
"An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)... Table-Talk [p. 59]"
"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 [p. 86]"
"I am a Christian and this is a Christian Nation, our Nation, we must drive those who oppose us from the Fatherland and make it pure once more, we do what we do in Gods name"
This guy has hidden agenda written all over him, what we call scientist he call Darwinist, here in the UK everyone (apart from a few crackpots), churchgoing or not, accepts scientific concepts, gravity, magnetism, plate tectonics, evolution etc, etc, but I have never met a 'Darwinist'
Blaming Darwin for Nazi's Eugenics program is like blaming the inventor of the machete for the Rwandan Genocide. Darwin was making scientific observations on nature. Basically whatever species has the most offspring will survive and their traits will be passed down. He never mentioned that you must kill all other species for yours to succeed. You might as well blame God, too.
@EqualAndFree well no its not in human nature to sniff each others butts. whatever happens in nature doesnt make it right in 1st world country i agree but neither is sniffing cocaine and having sex with 15 year olds
@EqualAndFree well i agree with you darwinism is based on fact but people turning it into a religion like survival of the fittest, although true it doesnt really fit our modern way of living.
but at least their not creationists who rely on 2000 year old desert scribblings
@carlmelanson1 Amazing!!! But I would like to think that these views are a natural consequence of you forgetting to take your Thorazine a few hours before you wrote this. I hope that you get better soon and that they don't euthanize you for having inferior thinking.
@jradetzky we didnt invent morality, man has evolved to have compassion and take care of our sick and needy, we stopped being so animalistic about a million years ago, but war(s) bring out the worst in us.
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure"--Adolf Hitler
i like the "we're just here because mom and dad forgot to go the drugstore" idea. also let's not forget because of a BIG BANG everything happened. how is chaos ordered unless drive by an outside source? chaos creates chaos. the bible is fallible because it is written by men? yeah we know it was written by men who were inspired by God. what did you expect it to be written by cattle?
evidence can be tampered with. evidence is also hypothetical. can you see a person's thoughts? can you fathom exactly what happens after death? is it so wrong to think perhaps after this life there will be a here after? so wrong to think that when we die we're not into abyss forever? it could slap you in the face, and you wouldn't even blink with all your hate. hate of something you don't believe in. hate of those who follow it. just plain hate. are you really happy?
@carlmelanson1 This is why I hate Atheism. And not a one of you atheists will disagree with him on moral grounds. Atheism are why blacks may seem inferior to you my brother. For we are all brothers. Something the genius of Atheism cannot comprehend. Our black brothers built the sphinx. Now get a bunch of your racist Atheist friends and duplicate it. lol Some of the lowest IQ's I witness come from we white folks. Some of the brightest people I know are black. Why not all stand against annunaki?
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order
... 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
A tidy way for Catholics to pretend they had nothing to do with it. America is a secular nation, it's founding fathers never expressed anything other than contempt for Christianity, why haven't Americans taken up Naziism? Could it possibly be because it is illegal for them to sign any kind of agreement or "CONCORDAT" with any religious organization such as the Vatican?
That's one liberal misconception misrepresentation sweeping statement.
A "fundamentalist creationist christian" is a guy u get like Dr. Hovind or Ken Ham.
Hitler based A LOT of his theories on evolutionism that the Jews were an inferior race, & wanted to kill them off to help speed up the process of Darwin's theory (very manipulative & dangerous.) AND he used a lot of anti-Semitic Catholic doctrine, I agree.
But Catholicism is FAR from biblical Christianity.
No, it's backed up by evidence. Look into it yourself. Inmate Hovind is just a propaganda victim and propagator. Even Ken Ham doesn't deny evolution. He's a scientist. Hovind has no qualifications and very little knowledge in science. Hitler based his ideas on the bible, and was a Christian, hence the holocaust. You might not like Darwinian evolution, but you can't deny it's true and has as yet caused no harm.
See, whenever i ask for evidence, no one ever presents any, they just say things like "THEY are always giving u the evidence.", but never actually say what it is. They don't dare because the truth is scatry to them. If what you claim is true, then why so scared of givng evidence? Give it a try with an open mind. You might be surprised what you find.
can you give me one transitional fossil to back up evolution.. and when you cant... go and look up "the bacterial flagellum".. and see what they call this thing, this mechanism is so complex that it just simply could NOT have evolved.. i do deny evolution, and you can think what you want to think, i dont care one bit, i look for the truth and when presented i take it.. darwin said it himself "there should be thousands of transitional fossils and if not found my theory fails"
There are 1000s upon 1000s of transitional fossils, there are museums full of them. Please research this yourself. I assure you you do not know better than the entire scientific community which, to put it very mildy, has an incredibly good track record. Evolution has been observed over and over again, the evidence is overwhelming.
The bacterial flagellum was debunked by scientists many years ago. Go look up it. You are free to deny science if you want, that is your choice.
@Ozzyman200 Oh, please!!! There is not even a single proven transitional fossil!!! Name one. And contrary to the bacterial flagellum being debunked, it has been given further difficulties. Initially it was thought there were only 40 some parts integral to it. Now it is known there are over a hundred and only about 20 have been shown to be 'similar' (some only vaguely) to other components. Not one mutation has been shown to produce any new information, new function, body parts... only loss.
i read all your comments with "ozzyman" and i couldn't have said it better, it seems like no matter what evidence we have to back up ID its just not good enough to show them the truth, i feel these people just eat up anything dawkins and hitchens speak...
in response to your last comment.. lol since you backed me up and spoke better then i could to that guy, you can have any kind of smoothie you want my friend lol
@JusJuiceIt Thanks! So true. For most, anything to avoid acknowledging sin, guilt, judgment, need of a Saviour or change of life.
So that should clinch it... Jesus is my Best Friend. And my favorite smoothie is the one I just finished.. pomegranate, lemon, raspberry, blackberry, blueberry, strawberry, with a few dates, spinach, and some green powder. Hmmm hmmm!
amen brother.. your first sentence was perfect in defining an atheist! you want to hear something funny, i actually brought this up at my youth group meeting last night.. "no matter what proof we find for ID, atheist disregard it and throw anything they can at us! but yet my friend, to them we are the close minded ones, the ones that have blind faith in a deity and no common sense what so ever lol.. but my mind is completely open, for its the truth i seek, and after overwhelming
evidence and reason, i sit here comfortably knowing Jesus of Nazareth died for my sins and then resurrected.. Im always happy to meet people like you enoch, God bless, and may he continue you to speak through you!
You're siding with a guy who's been wrong on every count. I'm sure you have your faith, but look at the comments. Everything I say is based on evidence. He just got busted plagiarising. He even said there were 1,000,000 nerves per eye. Doesn't that sound like an awfully round number to you? Each arm only has 3. Each eye has 1. This is really basic science. If you don't believe me, research it for yourself. You can disect an eye. Sorry, but you can't change the evidence.
blood clotting or the complexity of the eye are not the only evidences ID has, there are several more, from the unbelievably low probability of there being a life permitting universe let alone a life permitting planet to the smallest and most irreducible complex mechanism the bacterial flagellum..
evolution has not happened, darwin himself stated, if my theory were to be true, there should be findings of thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils all over.. there is not one!
ID proponents have been asked over and over to present evidence. Recently at the Dover trial they were asked to, and they to and they had nothing to say. Why not present it then?
I hear you keep insisting evolution hasn't happened, but where's your reasoning? It's been directly witnessed and fits all the evidence. The scientific community accepts this, on the other hand there are a few guys like you and Enoch who thinks the eye has a million nerves.
listen, id like to ask you a question.. but i have to insist, leave the topic of evolution behind, id rather not debate over it, caz frankly im just sick of going over the same stuff over and over again, iv heard it all and im not impressed.. just like your not impressed with ID, i assume..
anyhow, let me ask you, do you believe in Jesus? just a simple yes or no?
Sorry but science isn't going anywher. Deny it all you like, but the truth is the truth. If you like ID then it's high time to prsent some evidence to support it. You seem like a nice guy,just a victim of propaganda.
"anyhow, let me ask you, do you believe in Jesus?"
How do you mean? Do I think there was a guy called Jesus? Sure, there may have been, no one knows.
well.. thank you for your kind words, and you too seem like a nice guy, but i very much disagree with who the victim is.. like i said before, there is more evidence then just the human eye, go look up "evidence for intelligent design" and click the first link.. this is the bacterial flagellum, im not sure if you've heard of it, but this my friend is a mechanism, so highly complex, scientists call it an "irreducible complexity" .. its exactly like a boat motor!
There really isn't all this evidence? If there were then surely the ID proponents would have published it, presented it at trials they've had. They once claimed lightning was too complex to be natural, but they were wrong. Supposing an intelligent creator is simply giving up.
There are also 1000s of transitional fossils. I've seen them myself. Ask any scientist.
@Ozzyman200 No transitions. I can't believe you actually said that. You mean ask any Atheist, lol And what is your criteria for scientist? Anyone not a believer. lol It is a shell game. You are either ignorant or a shell shuffler. All the out of place artifacts took away your time needed for evolution long ago. And the only responce to them(50,000) is liar liar pants on fire. Atheists fudge the data, and then point fingers. conspiracy? yes I think so.
"No transitions. I can't believe you actually said that."
I don't remember saying that, sorry. Can you remind me what I said?
You can easily look up the definition of a scientist. We are people who look for the truth. We look at reality and figfure out how it works. Scientists tend to be atheists because of this. There's nothing to be afraid of about science.
but yet these evolutionist still throw anything they can at this mechanism to show it can have evolved, and if you seriously go see the theory's they come up with, any rational person could see its laughable.. but hey you believe in evolution so you might actually go with it... anyways you said "its been directly witnessed", evolution has been directly witnessed? please give me the link to where i can see this evidence!!... one of evolutions biggest fails is there are no
transitional fossils, lol please dont tell me there are, iv done the research, iv asked close to literally 50 people, who are intelligent mind you.. and they all have said there are no transitional fossils, and these people weren't all creationist, the evolutionists iv asked said to me there are fossils of which we think may be transitional but confirmation to it being a change in species has not be established.. please dont allow it to suffocate your mind
its simple and plain, there are no transitional fossils.... right about now you probably see me as being a laymen or just plain ignorant of the theorys in your head you call fact, my friend believe me, at one point in my life when i started my journey in knowing what the truth is, i opened my mind to everything, and evolution simply lacks a lot of evidence, i dont see how anyone can deny that!
but wait lets move on, i would like to ask you, do you believe a guy named
@Ozzyman200 Yes Ozzy, I'm so sorry I rounded it off and wasn't more specific for you. "Each optic nerve contains around 1.2 million nerve fibers" Source Wkipedia under 'optic nerve'. You said I was plagiarizing... from a site I hadn't been to in close to 2 months. And what information have you shared that u didn't read from elsewhere? I have a personal library of about 2000 books(hope you don't mind me rounding it off :) ) to refer too. I believe you have been wrong on every count. lol
1) There are 1000s of transitional fossils. They are in museums. Many of them are free. Go see for yourself. Ask any scientist, including ID proponents.
2) ID proponents have still not proven the flagellum is irredicibly complex. They said that about the eye once.
3) Many mutations in nature and in labs have been observed. Some of these are beneificial and add information. See the Mrcaru lizards for example.
@Ozzyman200 I have spent 1000's of hours doing research.
1) There is not one transitional fossil.
2) Evolutionists have not proven that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex or given any method of how it could have evolved, have only show that about 20 of over 100 parts are 'similar' to parts used in other functions.
3) Evolutionists have no idea how the eye even could have evolved
4) Do some research!! Dawkins could not think of even ONE mutation where NEW useful information was added
@Ozzyman200 3) 3) In the human eye 1,000,000 nerves from the eye grow toward the brain and 1,000,000 grow from the brain toward the eye and they all meet and join up exactly. Not one theory of how this could be possible. Many other problems. Ideas are not evidence! Show me your research.
4) Then why didn't he say what that new useful information was when asked on camera? What is it? I quote, "Put up or shut up."
3) "In the human eye 1,000,000 nerves from the eye grow toward the brain"
No, very wrong. Each eye has 1 nerve going to the brain. How can you get something that simple that wrong? Do you see the irony of being out by a factor of 1000000, and then telling others to research? Evolution explains this. You can't.
4) He has, many times. Just because you haven't seen him do it, don't assume it hasn't happened. I, a non-biologist, did it, so you can bet an Oxford biology professor can.
@Ozzyman200 5) "DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards still were genetically identical to the source population. The phenotypical changes can easily be explained by adaptation to distinct environmental condition. " If those lizards were returned to their original environment they would revert to their original size and features. No new species, they can still interbreed, no new information.
Science is about evidence, not speculation, exaggeration, story telling, imagination!
5) You're funny. That's just straight off the web, not a scientific paper. Don't believe everything you read. The research actually showed they were different. DNA analysis showed they had evolved from the original ancestors.
You are just making up your statements. 4 out of 5 are demonstrably false. You claim you are right where the scientific community is wrong. Wow. Sorry, but science is about evidence and until you can present some, you can't be taken seriously on science.
@Ozzyman2000 1)Name one transitional fossil and prove it is transitional!!
2) The evolutionists first made the claim that complex, interrelated, multilevel, self-adjusting, self-replicating machines/organisms came from, originally non-life, then other unknown machines without any evidence or even method of how this could happen. Why shouldn't they first prove this can happen and reproduce it in the laboratory? I believe IDer's have proven their point... blood clotting for instance.
@enoch1844 ID always gets shot down because your evidence is always wrong. ill give you one example right now, you mentioned blood clotting. the blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. there are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. the duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions shows it can evolve gradually.
You are wrong in almost everything you say, as I have demonstrated. You are an angry little chap.
1) You could do the research but no, you have to demand some guy on the internet does it for you. Very well, if it would kill you, Parahippus is well known. It's about 20 my old, and is known is known to be transitional by its age and its form relative to those close in its lineage. Nothing is proven in science of course, which shows how little you know science.
2) No, evolution makes no such claim. It explains speciation. You're confusing it abiogensis. WHy don't you look up what evolution is before trying to refute it. IDers have yet to demonstarte anything in the lab. We've all seen blood clotting, but they haven't demonstrated that it requires ID. Until ID can provide some evidence for thir position its no wonder scientists reject the idea.
@Ozzyman200 Exactly!! "Don't believe everything you read." Couldn't say it better myself. LOL! I'm thinking you are making up your statements. You say, "The research actually showed they were different" when apparently...
"they only analysed mitochondrial DNA to confirm ancestry of the source population." And this is not evidence that one species can change into another. Present proof that they can. That is science. I can't take you serious until you do. Saying they can is not science.
Lol, you just got busted plagiarising, and now you're asking other to research. My research comes from scientific papers from people actually there with the lizards. You just copied yours.
Bottom line, you can;t just make this stuff up. Science is based on evidence, not just fantasy. Scientists carefully check everything. You online copying and pasting stuff doesn't make science. Put up or shut up.
@Ozzyman200 Yes... scientific papers from people with a bias and agenda wanting money from sources that will only fund those following the status quo of evolution and which YOU SIMPLY COPY from, blindly believing them because they have a bunch of letters behind their name.
Nebraska man was built on evidence??? lol Lucy, archaeoraptor, Piltdown Man, Miller/Urey Experiment, Haekel's embryo's, peppered moth's, Darwin's finchs, etc., all faked or proven not to support evolution but still used!
Oh dear, a conspiracy theorist. Note you never replied to the evidence I presented. As a conspiracy theorist, how are you any different from flat earthers, geocentrists, climate change deniers, UFOlogists, etc? Look at the evidence for yourself. Your capslock still seems to be broken.
You are the only one busted copying straight from the net here. This is why science has shown you wrong so much.
@Ozzyman200 Not a theory! Published and factual. Some even were reprimanded by congress 4 censoring and pushing their own evolutionist agenda. Do research.. and watch Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.
There is more evidence 4 ID by a long shot. What evidence did you present? Parahippus? Where is the evidence that it is transitional? Nylonase? Just a duplication... no new information from non ID sources.
You obviously don't know the word theory. Gravity is a theory, doesn't make it wrong.
"Do research.. and watch Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed."
Oh that's hilarious. That was just propaganda. They even expelled a scientist from the film from the premiere. If you call that research that explains why you thought there were a million eye nerves.
If there really is evidence for ID, then where is it? They've had plenty of time to come up with something.
The age, and how it fits phenotypically with the other fossils around it and DNA. Scientists have been presenting evidence for evolution for over a century now.
"Caplocks r working just fine." Yes, because capslock makes everything true.
You plagiarised. That's dishonest. We kick out students for doing that. If all you do is copy and paste, how do you know it's true?
@Ozzyman200 Stop personally attacking. You should worry more about What Darwinism almost accomplished. But no, this evil lying Christian must be stopped! Right? You are why he is doing this video. If you can't shut us up, you'll kill us, it's only logical to an Atheist. So. who came back from the dead to let you know you found universal truth? You teach? All you do is make kids Atheist? You had better pray you're right Doc. Cause I feel real bitter, thinking about it now. And want to stop it.
When have I ever persnoally attacked anyone? I never do, don't see the point. You seem to have it in for Darwinism which has never caused any evil. Many evil Christians must indeed be stopped. There are also many wonderful Christians.
The religious factions tend to kill to solve their problems I agree, but that's not the athiest way. We tend to just use education, we teach, we present facts, and that tends to make kids atheists.
Ah rewriting history here. You're not the only one here afraid of textbooks apparently. Instead of counting, why not do something? Well, can you give an example of even one act of evil due to atheism? Live and let live.
@Ozzyman200 there are over 100,000,000 examples of Atheist evils. If you deny it. You are a lying Atheist. For only they deny what they did and are doing. Afraid of lies in the textbooks. ie haeckel's drawings are still there and taught as evidence. You want more examples of our own books with lies? Yet you seem to take up arms against powerless internet poster. Why don't you care about lies teachers are teaching? don't they actually effect society? no, you are worried about a blogger. lol
"there are over 100,000,000 examples of Atheist evils."
Ah very telling. You've said that twice now, but you haven't been ab;e to give even one example. Haeckel was Catholic. You need to go read a textbook yourself.
@Ozzyman200 I've read books explaining how Atheism is the one and only cause of mass extermination. Now if all you read are Atheists protecting their philosophy, how do you call that educated. You Atheists constantly demean others' education, but are uneducated about anything putting death at Atheism's doorstep. You protect it as dogmatically as those you accuse of being dogmatic. example of Atheistic thought, Darwins book. "And the preservation of the favored races. You don't care who died.
"I've read books explaining how Atheism is the one and only cause of mass extermination"
I daresay there are such books. There are also religious books that put all the Earth's evils squarely at the doorstep of Jews, blacks, Asians, atheists, etc. Nothing but prejudice. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. How can a lack of belief ever be a cause of good or evil? Just doesn't make any sense. I'm a non-smoker, but this has never caused me to do any evil.
Hitler was a CREATIONIST who HATED EVOLUTION AND BURNED DARWIN'S BOOKS. He was JUST LIKE YOU.
Hitler could not STAND the idea that his 'master race' had come from lowly apes. His ideas of racial purity based on centuries-old knowledge of ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, breeding for purity which has been practiced since the dawn of agriculture, you oaf.
He was easily able to rally Europe's christians to eagerly slaughter the Jews, after 1000+ years of entrenched BIBLE-BASED anti-Semitism.
Evidence for intelligent design is literally EVERYWHERE, such as inferring that a "Stop" sign actually means stop, and isn't a random piece of metal with some patterns on it. It is even used in the sciences. People at SETI (the search for extra-terrestial life) search the signals we receive from space, and see if any potential messages arise. This is the search for.......intelligent design.
People soil their drawers when this threatens the sacred cow of Darwinsim.
"Evidence for intelligent design is literally EVERYWHERE"
Really? Then why when challenged for some do ID proponents never give any? Why when asked in court did they give nothing? Why hasn't the scientific community found any yet? Why not publish it?
ID is just creationism through the back door. Very dishonest. It's unscientific because it's unfalsifiable.
@Ozzyman200 You are a teacher? One of them? hmm the public is beginning to think you folks are hostile to our civilization. You want to make civilization properly no Doc? Come on man let's get into your motivations to discredit people. Where is your peer review papers? Or are you trusting what you've been taught? Yea, there very people that throw around the devince code, may be the sources of real conspiracy against humanity. And I for one think many teachers are remnats of the fifth column
A lecturer, not actually qualified as a high scool teacher technically. All I do is present the truth and correct people when they lie. That is the job of the teacher and we make no apologies for it. We care about the truth.
I have published many peer reviewed papers but none of them are really relevent here. Why do you ask? That's what I like about science, there's no conspiracy, we just get to the facts.
@Ozzyman200 Facts? Atheists made a static and infinite universe a fact, but was it? No. Why would they say that if it was possible they were wrong? You see, you are doing the same thing. I won't call you a liar as you freely call others you disagree with. After all, you could both just be misinformed or deluded by your ideology. Text books are full of lies. Because they know and won't remove them. Why take the fight here? we choose to listen. Why aren't you angry that kids are taught lies? gotya
Ah fear of education. This is why we need more schools.
"Facts? Atheists made a static and infinite universe a fact, but was it?"
Where is your evidence to back up this bizarre claim? You're very quick to denounce science, but you won't examine your own claims. You have yet to produce any evidence or reasoning to back up your bizarre claims. Well, the ball is in your court.
@Ozzyman200 I don't denounce science. I think Atheists lie and deceive. I want science taught, but you folks teach Atheism. Bizarre? ok. let's jump to the 21st century. Junk DNA? Now call me names because I think it isn't junk. Junk DNA is a fact right? cmon, you don't have to be afraid to deny it yet. lol I don't like your tone or condescension. You should go back to red square and preach into the echo chamber. Tell me this. where are the communists whom aren't Atheist? 100,000,000 dead
That's what you think, but it's merely an opinion. It certainly makes sense that someone wbho fear science fears facts. You have yet to back up your odd claims with any evidence. That's anti-science.
I'm an atheist and a conservative. Now, again, can you give even one example of atheism causing any evil? Even one?
Atheism is just open-mindedness. Put your prejudice aside, at least for Christmas, just live and let live.
@Ozzyman200 Atheists lie because there is no objective morality in there belief. An example of the result of knowing there is no God is extermination. example? Lenin. Atheism is about as closed minded as a man can be. You are closed minded and don't even realize it. You can't say there is no God. That's dishonest man. I am the agnostic that chooses to believe. Anyone who says they know there is or isn't a God is dishonest. At least intellectually speaking.
"You are closed minded and don't even realize it"
You keep saying that but as yet you've offered no evidence, no examples, no reasoning to back it up. That is a very strong sign of dogma.
"Anyone who says they know there is or isn't a God is dishonest"
Absolutely. That's why I'm an atheist. I think we have a misunderstanding here. You thought I was claiming there are no gods? I'm not at all. I just don't claim there are any. Same as you at least in that.
Hitler was anything BUT a fan of Darwin. He spoke against secular education AND The Origin of Species was on the nazi banned books list. Also, evolution prefers biodiversity. Something Hitler's ideas went against.
my inner theologian was deeply offended by his calling dualism the christian perspective, when Christianiy is mostly known for "resurrection of the body" after death. The rest of me as just wondering what a lack of belief in souls (which could be caused as much by twins as evolution, so many problems with substance dualism!) has to do with the Holocaust or the NAZIs and was enlightened to learn.... nothing in this vein.
he admits Malthus (an economist) predated Darwin, which he must because he inspired Darwin but acts as though capitalism was caused by Darwin.
He admits the (highly christian) southern states had a eugenics movement - but does't in any way ...link it to evolution!
Quotes the philosopher Peter Singer (Who was born after 1945) and acts like his philosophy (utilitarianism, which is about 150 years older than Darwin) was inspired by Darwin.
He says Darwin proposed genetic extermination, by saying evolution will "eliminate" savagery; as though he meant deliberately exterminating them rather than their genes becoming low in the population.
Acts as though Christianity was one monoli...thic ideology controlling Europe.
Completely shows his ignorance of evolution by saying it has a purpose (because Darwin can be QUOTE-MINED with his famous final phrase of the origin to sound like it)
at 37 minutes in, while discussing the views of a lawyer from the 1920s, who was somehow a specialist in evolutionary biology because he defended it in the 'scopes monkey trial',you know where evoluton was being banned in those stated doing euthenasia and racism because of darwin apparently, he reveals that he has ONE chapter in his book on NAZIs and their link to evolution.
Its sickening that an author who by all accounts should know better has desecrated the bodies of the holocaust victims in a cheap attack on Darwin, for Discovery Institute (funded by a holocaust denier) dirty money. Spreading ignorance of the real causes of the holocaust is the surest way to ensure it does happen again.
He tosses in a comment about how evolution is "survival of the fittest" (a phrase Darwin had nothing to do with) and derides the idea of social behavior being evolutionarily successful, as a quaint Victorian idealism, showing his ignorance of evolutionary game theory and possibly of microevolutionary mechanisms as a whole.
Tosses in a you can never abort a baby no matter how horificaly it will suffer and how soon it will die because of an uncurable genetic disease its got. And disparages choice - i thought christians were the 'free will' fags?
and calls jim watson a "Darwinist" despite him not being an evolutionary biologist ( does believing in DNA make you a NAZI?) showing no knowledge of the distinction between sciences, acts as though science is based on the authority of scientists not evidence, uses genetics as a synonym for eugenics (wtf), acts like eugenics is holocaust when its just sterilizing people with serious inherited diseases and as though the attacks on eugenics aren't criticized mainly on scientific grounds.
Tosses tolerence of abortion and euthanasia into the "evil things Darwin caused" pile, on the basis of a few spurious quotes from philosophers, tacitly comparing them to the holocaust - then randomly threatens to euthenise Dawkins - just to name drop him for random reasons. Glad there's no historical merit to this bull at all, i wonder if darwin DID influence either? I know lamarkian ideas led to the crop faliures in soviet russia..
ust as racism and eugenics predate Darwin, so too do "moral relatavism," though none of these caught on outside ivory towers so to act as though they were the cause of the holocaust?
The most bizzare accusation is that Darwinism shows we'r...e not equal - as if not being clones wasn't enough for that - it makes him sound like some sort of communist? Not treating everyone perfectly equally, then your a nazi?
Ignores the pre-Darwinian roots of racism, acting as though races were treated perfectly equally slavery, as though tribal conflict / nationalism was unknown in the middle ages, and as though religion had nothing to do with pogroms of the "Christ killers"
So its no surprise he leaves out how artificial (inot natural) selection which had been known for ages influenced Hitler. Infuriatingly he uses 'Darwinist' to refer to Lamarkians
He quotes no key NAZI party members or even evolutionary biologists (other than Heckel) but instead seeks to show evolution undermines our theoretically absolute Christian morality - which apparently guaranteed a perfect society without war or crime before Darwin screwed it all up, because theoretical morals supposedly influence our practical behavior, and of course they were not in any way being undermined by the discovery of so many new cultures, the rapid social change of 19th C, etc.
I criticized creationism for some time but realized he rarely read or watch professional ID proponents, only sees clips of their most famous (and outrageous) defenders, from critics. Since it was part of CASE university's series on Darwin, I expected "darwin to hitler" to provide a historically accurate accou...nt to rend me of this potential bias, how wrong i was. Recomend anyone tempted by ID to watch this, which is no where labeled as being paid for by the discovery institute though it is.
39 minutes in - did this guy really say the forced euthanasia campaign was "inequality on a lower level" than the holocaust?
Is it just me or does he not link Darwin to Hitler at all - he just shows that Hitler was a baaaaad man who did baaaaad things such a hard scholarly task.
This guy is funded by the inteligent design movement - he's burning the holocaust's memory in the anti-intilectual fire of Creationism. This guy didn't name names or quote people except irrelevant philosophers - he showed nazis were racist, and philosophy.
Is he a communist or something - if you don't believe all humans are equal in all respects, then your a Darwinist, and probably support Eugenics?
Social instincts *are* evolved into species from vampire bats to doves, game theory ftw.
@unassumption I was speaking about Stalin and the Communist system of that day. Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? I stand by my point that countries that were or are officially atheist were or are not bastions of freedom. I'm sure the same could be said for other countries such as Muslim countries who practice sharia law. I don't support theocracies of any sort even as a Christian but I know that the twentieth century was by far the bloodiest and was not ruled by religious doctrines.
So repressing homosexuality is contributing to aids. Ok buddy sure man. China is one of the most over populated countries in the world and they are not controlled by church doctrine and are know for persecuting Christians and religious beliefs in general and have adopted atheism. You might want to think this through before you post.
@squid4947 hahahaha.... pan-genus biological evolution by natural selection has been totally debunked. It is hillarious that in today's age of scientific enlightenment there are still people like you who believe it. You have a terrible mental disorder... for good measure you should seek counselling.
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitler was not only a self-professed Christian who explicitly stated that his reason for killing the Jews was directly because of his religious ideology, BUT he also attacks Darwin, says he's wrong, and goes on to profess himself as a CREATIONIST!
"For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties."
"The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger."
Ecologicalification 3 weeks ago
Wow, it's like history class without the facts! Apparently this guy has never heard of the ancient Spartans who practiced a form of eugenics a few thousand years before Darwin was born. Nor has he heard about the various debates on race going on in England while Darwin was still growing up. Hell, he probably hasn't read a single page of Mein Kamph or any of Darwin's books.
alienisuntverus 1 month ago 4
@ReturnOfTheJam
The theory of evolution is science and is a fact (not only a theory). It is true that it creates serious doubt that a god exists at all. However it is not Darwin's fault that religions are wrong. You folks are trying to subvert science in order to support crazy ideas - the creator of the Universe was born of a virgin 2000 years ago, healed with magic, resurrected from the dead, teleported before his disciples and flew to heavens. You are entirely irrational and illogical!
lachezar43 1 month ago
@ReturnOfTheJam "Darwinism" - evolution by natural selection - is most strongly supported by 99+ % of working professional biologists. You forgot to mention Kenneth Miller, a catholic biologist. But you wouldn't know this unless you spent the time & energy to actually study modern biology from textbooks written by those who have real degrees in the field.
prschuster 2 months ago
@prschuster Correction. Evolution is fine. How can anyone refute the evidence? Still, don't confuse factual evolution with Darwinism. One is a viable theory; one is not.
Patience1138 2 months ago
@Patience1138 Evolution is well accepted by the scientific community but social Darwinism is a pseudoscience.
prschuster 2 months ago
@prschuster Social Darwinism, a concept specifically rejected by Darwin, is not a science at all, but a technology. It assumes we can know enough about the human geneome and the interactions of all it's parts, and about the future environment so that we can make wise decisions about what might be desirable. Even a moments consideration will show this is impossible, a mistaken creed. It cannot be possible to predict what genes are 'desirable'.
gamesbok 3 days ago
@ReturnOfTheJam Dr Weikart is basing his argument on the prior acceptance of anti-evo pseudoscience that is already widespread among non-biologists, along with the pseudoscience of "social darwinism" which misapplies natural selection to social & political systems. That's 2 pseudosciences combined into one package. Go to any accredited college and ask the head of the biology dept whether evolution by natural selection is accepted by professional biologists.
prschuster 2 months ago
What a brilliant idiot. I love how creationist go to great legths to not fully understand the arguments they make. I also enjoy the ignorance of ignoring their historical religous persecusion towards other cultures, And quote mining out of context is such an honest way of debating these issues.
sydtocreation 2 months ago
Comment removed
sydtocreation 2 months ago
Evolution by natural selection is a theory in science. It's not a social theory, so anything a history professor says about its social impact is pure social construction. If you want to refute a well accepted theory in biology, get an advanced degree in biology - not the social sciences.
prschuster 2 months ago
I hate it when people do this.
Yes, eugenics relies on belief in evolution. This doesn't make belief in evolution bad, or evolution itself false.
Let me put it more simply.
Yes, pushing elderly women off cliffs relies on belief in gravity. This doesn't make belief in gravity bad, or gravity itself false.
scoreunder 3 months ago
@scoreunder Actually, eugenics has nothing to do with evolution in the first place. It's about social engineering - not natural selection. In fact, it has more to do with intelligent design than anything.
prschuster 2 months ago
Comment removed
prschuster 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@scoreunder I wouldn't even go so far as to say that eugenics relies on a belief in evolution. It relies more on plant & animal breeding, which are ancient arts that predate any such theory in science. Look at our domestic animals and food crops. They're all the result of selective breeding. Eugenics just took this to a new level with human engineering. No "Darwinism" is required here.
prschuster 2 months ago
@prschuster How is your comment already flagged as spam after 2 hours. Seriously, wtf.
scoreunder 2 months ago
@scoreunder Somebody out there doesn't like me.
prschuster 2 months ago
Darwinism = Fascism = Dogma = Racism = Atheism = Dawkins = Hate
Entropy56 4 months ago 3
@Entropy56
Go on wikipedia and look each of those up. You're dumb. That's all there really is to say on the matter.
scoreunder 3 months ago
Comment removed
Entropy56 4 months ago
Look guys, god never existed, in fact, religion will be laughed at by thousands of humans in the very near future, it's sad that some people can't understand that we are just highly intelligent monkeys whose only purpose in life is to breed to make more monkeys, get it!
taliskerscotth 5 months ago
@taliskerscotth No, religion will not be laughed at. Those civilizations with strong religiousness will conquer and destroy the godless ones. Not through weapons or tech but birth rates. PS. I´m not religious.
xaviqaz 4 months ago
Basically a big ad hominem. Even if the talk wasn't complete bollox it is irrelevant. Having nasty people believe in something doesn't alter whether it is true or not.
chrisofnottingham 5 months ago
Great lecture. I wanted ot post my video connecting Darwin to Hitler as response by you don't allow video responses. I think I get to the meat quicker than that professor, and I'm not as polite!
theantisauronist 6 months ago
@sculpt2live Moses was pretty keen on raciad genocide, and I don't believe he read Darwin.
gamesbok 6 months ago
This talk is insane, the logic used to answer these questions are so idiotic. 1. Person x believed in Darwin 2. Person x had an opinion y 3. If Darwin is correct, opinion y is also correct.
iasedu 6 months ago
Darwinists? WTF? What about factists?
iasedu 6 months ago
@sculpt2live The very reliability and authenticity of the table talk itself is coming under question by contemporary historians like Richard Carrier. So it's definitely not a good source to use to assert Hitler's anti-christian sentiments.
Drgamedood 7 months ago
@sculpt2live He does realize that the table talk has him making statements like
"We don't want to educate anyone in atheism. Table-Talk [p. 6]"
"An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)... Table-Talk [p. 59]"
"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 [p. 86]"
Right?
Drgamedood 7 months ago
@Drgamedood "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
"...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."-
26 July 1942 in 'Hitler's Table Talk'
gamesbok 6 months ago
@gamesbok lulz, yep. not only did hitler affirm that he believed in a creator and rejected atheism, but also rejected evolution as well.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@sculpt2live WRONG! HITLER WAS INFACT ATHEIST RESEARCH BEFORE YOU SPEAK AND PROVE YOUR IGNORANCE!
LordEli 7 months ago
Coming soon from a church near you: Intelligent geocentrism.
alienisuntverus 9 months ago
who cares whether Hitler was a Christian or a Darwinist? He was so COOL!
jradetzky 10 months ago
"I am a Christian and this is a Christian Nation, our Nation, we must drive those who oppose us from the Fatherland and make it pure once more, we do what we do in Gods name"
Adolf Hiltler, Munich 1938
mrpamayer 10 months ago
@mrpamayer
Well if Hitler said it, then I guess he meant it. It's not like dictators ever use propaganda to get their way.
SteinUndStahl666 9 months ago
@SteinUndStahl666 My point exactly.
mrpamayer 9 months ago
@SteinUndStahl666 Except we have private statements where he glorifies christ. So your point is moot.
Drgamedood 9 months ago
@Drgamedood
And we also have private statements where he condemns Christianity, as well as plenty examples of him trying to remove Christianity from public life.
It's called being a politician, Hitler was good at it.
SteinUndStahl666 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SteinUndStahl666 //And we also have private statements where he condemns Christianity//
Yea, he criticised christianity as an organized religion. But wholeheartedly believed in Christ.
//as well as plenty examples of him trying to remove Christianity from public life.//
Such as? It seems clear that the nazi's made many attempts to inject christianity into the third reich.
Drgamedood 9 months ago
Comment removed
Drgamedood 9 months ago
This guy has hidden agenda written all over him, what we call scientist he call Darwinist, here in the UK everyone (apart from a few crackpots), churchgoing or not, accepts scientific concepts, gravity, magnetism, plate tectonics, evolution etc, etc, but I have never met a 'Darwinist'
mrpamayer 10 months ago
Blaming Darwin for Nazi's Eugenics program is like blaming the inventor of the machete for the Rwandan Genocide. Darwin was making scientific observations on nature. Basically whatever species has the most offspring will survive and their traits will be passed down. He never mentioned that you must kill all other species for yours to succeed. You might as well blame God, too.
AnnaLang17 10 months ago
@EqualAndFree well no its not in human nature to sniff each others butts. whatever happens in nature doesnt make it right in 1st world country i agree but neither is sniffing cocaine and having sex with 15 year olds
teedonster 11 months ago
@EqualAndFree well i agree with you darwinism is based on fact but people turning it into a religion like survival of the fittest, although true it doesnt really fit our modern way of living.
but at least their not creationists who rely on 2000 year old desert scribblings
teedonster 11 months ago
@EqualAndFree darwinism is just another religion but at least this religion is based on fact. i still prefer listening to science 1st
teedonster 11 months ago
Hitler was neither a faithful churchgoing Christian nor a man with sound scientific Darwinian knowledge--he was just messed
jradetzky 1 year ago
@carlmelanson1 Amazing!!! But I would like to think that these views are a natural consequence of you forgetting to take your Thorazine a few hours before you wrote this. I hope that you get better soon and that they don't euthanize you for having inferior thinking.
steevyization 1 year ago
BILGE,BILGE,BILGE...the only way this jerk keeps his position is that the fools gave him tenure.
Aarbutusfigeroa 1 year ago
the Chinese and Indians will beat the crap out of white Europeans and Americans in this century
That IS natural law
jradetzky 1 year ago
@jradetzky Not all of them, whilst China and India are becoming economic superpowers the inequalities within each nation grows and grows.
mrpamayer 10 months ago
actually, we're far worse than animals, that's why we need to invent things like morality and stuff to keep us from killing each other off
jradetzky 1 year ago
@jradetzky we didnt invent morality, man has evolved to have compassion and take care of our sick and needy, we stopped being so animalistic about a million years ago, but war(s) bring out the worst in us.
AnnaLang17 10 months ago
"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure"--Adolf Hitler
jradetzky 1 year ago
Heil Hitler!
jradetzky 1 year ago
why are we here? what is our purpose? if we're here to just live, we're no different than machines.
whatafart 1 year ago
i like the "we're just here because mom and dad forgot to go the drugstore" idea. also let's not forget because of a BIG BANG everything happened. how is chaos ordered unless drive by an outside source? chaos creates chaos. the bible is fallible because it is written by men? yeah we know it was written by men who were inspired by God. what did you expect it to be written by cattle?
whatafart 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@whatafart {how is chaos ordered unless drive by an outside source?}
Google Images: window frost
Did God do that, or is it explainable by simple physics and geometry?
mindprism 1 year ago
evidence can be tampered with. evidence is also hypothetical. can you see a person's thoughts? can you fathom exactly what happens after death? is it so wrong to think perhaps after this life there will be a here after? so wrong to think that when we die we're not into abyss forever? it could slap you in the face, and you wouldn't even blink with all your hate. hate of something you don't believe in. hate of those who follow it. just plain hate. are you really happy?
whatafart 1 year ago
@carlmelanson1 This is why I hate Atheism. And not a one of you atheists will disagree with him on moral grounds. Atheism are why blacks may seem inferior to you my brother. For we are all brothers. Something the genius of Atheism cannot comprehend. Our black brothers built the sphinx. Now get a bunch of your racist Atheist friends and duplicate it. lol Some of the lowest IQ's I witness come from we white folks. Some of the brightest people I know are black. Why not all stand against annunaki?
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
Hitler was Catholic, should of made a video from Jesus to Hitler..
TheJackson1974 1 year ago
@TheJackson1974 agreed
lordtusk666 1 year ago
This guy is so intemperate, so breathless and emotional, even if he weren't stupid he'd be unbearable.
1legerdemain1 1 year ago
everybody evolved from slime
whatsbeendone 1 year ago
@whatsbeendone You got pictures of that fact? lol You know what happens when we ass u me, right? :)
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
A LOT of this is what Kent Hovind said a long time ago.
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. - Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922, published in My New Order
... 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
DaDoctaBoom 1 year ago
A tidy way for Catholics to pretend they had nothing to do with it. America is a secular nation, it's founding fathers never expressed anything other than contempt for Christianity, why haven't Americans taken up Naziism? Could it possibly be because it is illegal for them to sign any kind of agreement or "CONCORDAT" with any religious organization such as the Vatican?
gcgwgc 1 year ago
Lol, Hitler was a fundamentalist creationist christian.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
That's one liberal misconception misrepresentation sweeping statement.
A "fundamentalist creationist christian" is a guy u get like Dr. Hovind or Ken Ham.
Hitler based A LOT of his theories on evolutionism that the Jews were an inferior race, & wanted to kill them off to help speed up the process of Darwin's theory (very manipulative & dangerous.) AND he used a lot of anti-Semitic Catholic doctrine, I agree.
But Catholicism is FAR from biblical Christianity.
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV
No, it's backed up by evidence. Look into it yourself. Inmate Hovind is just a propaganda victim and propagator. Even Ken Ham doesn't deny evolution. He's a scientist. Hovind has no qualifications and very little knowledge in science. Hitler based his ideas on the bible, and was a Christian, hence the holocaust. You might not like Darwinian evolution, but you can't deny it's true and has as yet caused no harm.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
Look who's talking in calling Christian creation scientists "denialists".
THEY are always giving u the evidence.
But u don't want it.
U just like to stick to your on conjured-up preconceived ideas, & stick to those as "facts".
Eye2EyeIIIV 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eye2EyeIIIV
See, whenever i ask for evidence, no one ever presents any, they just say things like "THEY are always giving u the evidence.", but never actually say what it is. They don't dare because the truth is scatry to them. If what you claim is true, then why so scared of givng evidence? Give it a try with an open mind. You might be surprised what you find.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
can you give me one transitional fossil to back up evolution.. and when you cant... go and look up "the bacterial flagellum".. and see what they call this thing, this mechanism is so complex that it just simply could NOT have evolved.. i do deny evolution, and you can think what you want to think, i dont care one bit, i look for the truth and when presented i take it.. darwin said it himself "there should be thousands of transitional fossils and if not found my theory fails"
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt
There are 1000s upon 1000s of transitional fossils, there are museums full of them. Please research this yourself. I assure you you do not know better than the entire scientific community which, to put it very mildy, has an incredibly good track record. Evolution has been observed over and over again, the evidence is overwhelming.
The bacterial flagellum was debunked by scientists many years ago. Go look up it. You are free to deny science if you want, that is your choice.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 Oh, please!!! There is not even a single proven transitional fossil!!! Name one. And contrary to the bacterial flagellum being debunked, it has been given further difficulties. Initially it was thought there were only 40 some parts integral to it. Now it is known there are over a hundred and only about 20 have been shown to be 'similar' (some only vaguely) to other components. Not one mutation has been shown to produce any new information, new function, body parts... only loss.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
thank you enoch!!
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt Thank YOU! Fruit smoothies? Green smoothies?? Re: your name....
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
i read all your comments with "ozzyman" and i couldn't have said it better, it seems like no matter what evidence we have to back up ID its just not good enough to show them the truth, i feel these people just eat up anything dawkins and hitchens speak...
in response to your last comment.. lol since you backed me up and spoke better then i could to that guy, you can have any kind of smoothie you want my friend lol
I'd like to ask though, are you Christian?
once again thank you!!
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt Thanks! So true. For most, anything to avoid acknowledging sin, guilt, judgment, need of a Saviour or change of life.
So that should clinch it... Jesus is my Best Friend. And my favorite smoothie is the one I just finished.. pomegranate, lemon, raspberry, blackberry, blueberry, strawberry, with a few dates, spinach, and some green powder. Hmmm hmmm!
And God's blessings!!!
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
amen brother.. your first sentence was perfect in defining an atheist! you want to hear something funny, i actually brought this up at my youth group meeting last night.. "no matter what proof we find for ID, atheist disregard it and throw anything they can at us! but yet my friend, to them we are the close minded ones, the ones that have blind faith in a deity and no common sense what so ever lol.. but my mind is completely open, for its the truth i seek, and after overwhelming
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@enoch1844
evidence and reason, i sit here comfortably knowing Jesus of Nazareth died for my sins and then resurrected.. Im always happy to meet people like you enoch, God bless, and may he continue you to speak through you!
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt Same here. Thanks for the encouragement again. Keep growing, learning, sharing, drawing nigh to heaven till we are there!
enoch1844 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt
You're siding with a guy who's been wrong on every count. I'm sure you have your faith, but look at the comments. Everything I say is based on evidence. He just got busted plagiarising. He even said there were 1,000,000 nerves per eye. Doesn't that sound like an awfully round number to you? Each arm only has 3. Each eye has 1. This is really basic science. If you don't believe me, research it for yourself. You can disect an eye. Sorry, but you can't change the evidence.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
blood clotting or the complexity of the eye are not the only evidences ID has, there are several more, from the unbelievably low probability of there being a life permitting universe let alone a life permitting planet to the smallest and most irreducible complex mechanism the bacterial flagellum..
evolution has not happened, darwin himself stated, if my theory were to be true, there should be findings of thousands upon thousands of transitional fossils all over.. there is not one!
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt
ID proponents have been asked over and over to present evidence. Recently at the Dover trial they were asked to, and they to and they had nothing to say. Why not present it then?
I hear you keep insisting evolution hasn't happened, but where's your reasoning? It's been directly witnessed and fits all the evidence. The scientific community accepts this, on the other hand there are a few guys like you and Enoch who thinks the eye has a million nerves.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
listen, id like to ask you a question.. but i have to insist, leave the topic of evolution behind, id rather not debate over it, caz frankly im just sick of going over the same stuff over and over again, iv heard it all and im not impressed.. just like your not impressed with ID, i assume..
anyhow, let me ask you, do you believe in Jesus? just a simple yes or no?
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@JusJuiceIt
Sorry but science isn't going anywher. Deny it all you like, but the truth is the truth. If you like ID then it's high time to prsent some evidence to support it. You seem like a nice guy,just a victim of propaganda.
"anyhow, let me ask you, do you believe in Jesus?"
How do you mean? Do I think there was a guy called Jesus? Sure, there may have been, no one knows.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
well.. thank you for your kind words, and you too seem like a nice guy, but i very much disagree with who the victim is.. like i said before, there is more evidence then just the human eye, go look up "evidence for intelligent design" and click the first link.. this is the bacterial flagellum, im not sure if you've heard of it, but this my friend is a mechanism, so highly complex, scientists call it an "irreducible complexity" .. its exactly like a boat motor!
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt
There really isn't all this evidence? If there were then surely the ID proponents would have published it, presented it at trials they've had. They once claimed lightning was too complex to be natural, but they were wrong. Supposing an intelligent creator is simply giving up.
There are also 1000s of transitional fossils. I've seen them myself. Ask any scientist.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 No transitions. I can't believe you actually said that. You mean ask any Atheist, lol And what is your criteria for scientist? Anyone not a believer. lol It is a shell game. You are either ignorant or a shell shuffler. All the out of place artifacts took away your time needed for evolution long ago. And the only responce to them(50,000) is liar liar pants on fire. Atheists fudge the data, and then point fingers. conspiracy? yes I think so.
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever
"No transitions. I can't believe you actually said that."
I don't remember saying that, sorry. Can you remind me what I said?
You can easily look up the definition of a scientist. We are people who look for the truth. We look at reality and figfure out how it works. Scientists tend to be atheists because of this. There's nothing to be afraid of about science.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
but yet these evolutionist still throw anything they can at this mechanism to show it can have evolved, and if you seriously go see the theory's they come up with, any rational person could see its laughable.. but hey you believe in evolution so you might actually go with it... anyways you said "its been directly witnessed", evolution has been directly witnessed? please give me the link to where i can see this evidence!!... one of evolutions biggest fails is there are no
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
transitional fossils, lol please dont tell me there are, iv done the research, iv asked close to literally 50 people, who are intelligent mind you.. and they all have said there are no transitional fossils, and these people weren't all creationist, the evolutionists iv asked said to me there are fossils of which we think may be transitional but confirmation to it being a change in species has not be established.. please dont allow it to suffocate your mind
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
its simple and plain, there are no transitional fossils.... right about now you probably see me as being a laymen or just plain ignorant of the theorys in your head you call fact, my friend believe me, at one point in my life when i started my journey in knowing what the truth is, i opened my mind to everything, and evolution simply lacks a lot of evidence, i dont see how anyone can deny that!
but wait lets move on, i would like to ask you, do you believe a guy named
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
alexander the great once existed?
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 Yes Ozzy, I'm so sorry I rounded it off and wasn't more specific for you. "Each optic nerve contains around 1.2 million nerve fibers" Source Wkipedia under 'optic nerve'. You said I was plagiarizing... from a site I hadn't been to in close to 2 months. And what information have you shared that u didn't read from elsewhere? I have a personal library of about 2000 books(hope you don't mind me rounding it off :) ) to refer too. I believe you have been wrong on every count. lol
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
Would it kill you to do some research?
1) There are 1000s of transitional fossils. They are in museums. Many of them are free. Go see for yourself. Ask any scientist, including ID proponents.
2) ID proponents have still not proven the flagellum is irredicibly complex. They said that about the eye once.
3) Many mutations in nature and in labs have been observed. Some of these are beneificial and add information. See the Mrcaru lizards for example.
Science is about evidence.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 I have spent 1000's of hours doing research.
1) There is not one transitional fossil.
2) Evolutionists have not proven that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex or given any method of how it could have evolved, have only show that about 20 of over 100 parts are 'similar' to parts used in other functions.
3) Evolutionists have no idea how the eye even could have evolved
4) Do some research!! Dawkins could not think of even ONE mutation where NEW useful information was added
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
Wow, you're fast.
1) That is your claim. Demonstrate it
2) No, the onus is on ID proponents to show it's irreducibly complex as they are making the claim. Put up or shut up.
3) False, they have several excellent ides. You haven't done your research.
4) False again. Dawkins can and has, in print. You need to do some research or you will keep making huge mistakes like this.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 3) 3) In the human eye 1,000,000 nerves from the eye grow toward the brain and 1,000,000 grow from the brain toward the eye and they all meet and join up exactly. Not one theory of how this could be possible. Many other problems. Ideas are not evidence! Show me your research.
4) Then why didn't he say what that new useful information was when asked on camera? What is it? I quote, "Put up or shut up."
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
3) "In the human eye 1,000,000 nerves from the eye grow toward the brain"
No, very wrong. Each eye has 1 nerve going to the brain. How can you get something that simple that wrong? Do you see the irony of being out by a factor of 1000000, and then telling others to research? Evolution explains this. You can't.
4) He has, many times. Just because you haven't seen him do it, don't assume it hasn't happened. I, a non-biologist, did it, so you can bet an Oxford biology professor can.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 5) "DNA analysis confirmed that the Pod Mrcaru lizards still were genetically identical to the source population. The phenotypical changes can easily be explained by adaptation to distinct environmental condition. " If those lizards were returned to their original environment they would revert to their original size and features. No new species, they can still interbreed, no new information.
Science is about evidence, not speculation, exaggeration, story telling, imagination!
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
5) You're funny. That's just straight off the web, not a scientific paper. Don't believe everything you read. The research actually showed they were different. DNA analysis showed they had evolved from the original ancestors.
You are just making up your statements. 4 out of 5 are demonstrably false. You claim you are right where the scientific community is wrong. Wow. Sorry, but science is about evidence and until you can present some, you can't be taken seriously on science.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman2000 1)Name one transitional fossil and prove it is transitional!!
2) The evolutionists first made the claim that complex, interrelated, multilevel, self-adjusting, self-replicating machines/organisms came from, originally non-life, then other unknown machines without any evidence or even method of how this could happen. Why shouldn't they first prove this can happen and reproduce it in the laboratory? I believe IDer's have proven their point... blood clotting for instance.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844 ID always gets shot down because your evidence is always wrong. ill give you one example right now, you mentioned blood clotting. the blood clotting systems appears to be put together by using whatever long polymeric bridges are handy. there are many examples of complicated systems made from components that have useful but completely different roles in different components. the duplication of parts and co-opting of parts with different functions shows it can evolve gradually.
ihmen 1 year ago
@enoch1844
You are wrong in almost everything you say, as I have demonstrated. You are an angry little chap.
1) You could do the research but no, you have to demand some guy on the internet does it for you. Very well, if it would kill you, Parahippus is well known. It's about 20 my old, and is known is known to be transitional by its age and its form relative to those close in its lineage. Nothing is proven in science of course, which shows how little you know science.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@enoch1844
2) No, evolution makes no such claim. It explains speciation. You're confusing it abiogensis. WHy don't you look up what evolution is before trying to refute it. IDers have yet to demonstarte anything in the lab. We've all seen blood clotting, but they haven't demonstrated that it requires ID. Until ID can provide some evidence for thir position its no wonder scientists reject the idea.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 Exactly!! "Don't believe everything you read." Couldn't say it better myself. LOL! I'm thinking you are making up your statements. You say, "The research actually showed they were different" when apparently...
"they only analysed mitochondrial DNA to confirm ancestry of the source population." And this is not evidence that one species can change into another. Present proof that they can. That is science. I can't take you serious until you do. Saying they can is not science.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
Lol, you just got busted plagiarising, and now you're asking other to research. My research comes from scientific papers from people actually there with the lizards. You just copied yours.
Bottom line, you can;t just make this stuff up. Science is based on evidence, not just fantasy. Scientists carefully check everything. You online copying and pasting stuff doesn't make science. Put up or shut up.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 Yes... scientific papers from people with a bias and agenda wanting money from sources that will only fund those following the status quo of evolution and which YOU SIMPLY COPY from, blindly believing them because they have a bunch of letters behind their name.
Nebraska man was built on evidence??? lol Lucy, archaeoraptor, Piltdown Man, Miller/Urey Experiment, Haekel's embryo's, peppered moth's, Darwin's finchs, etc., all faked or proven not to support evolution but still used!
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
Oh dear, a conspiracy theorist. Note you never replied to the evidence I presented. As a conspiracy theorist, how are you any different from flat earthers, geocentrists, climate change deniers, UFOlogists, etc? Look at the evidence for yourself. Your capslock still seems to be broken.
You are the only one busted copying straight from the net here. This is why science has shown you wrong so much.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 Not a theory! Published and factual. Some even were reprimanded by congress 4 censoring and pushing their own evolutionist agenda. Do research.. and watch Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed.
There is more evidence 4 ID by a long shot. What evidence did you present? Parahippus? Where is the evidence that it is transitional? Nylonase? Just a duplication... no new information from non ID sources.
Caplocks r working just fine.
Yes, I copy when it says better than I could.
enoch1844 1 year ago
@enoch1844
"Not a theory! Published and factual."
You obviously don't know the word theory. Gravity is a theory, doesn't make it wrong.
"Do research.. and watch Expelled, No Intelligence Allowed."
Oh that's hilarious. That was just propaganda. They even expelled a scientist from the film from the premiere. If you call that research that explains why you thought there were a million eye nerves.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago 13
@Ozzyman200 Personal attack
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@enoch1844
If there really is evidence for ID, then where is it? They've had plenty of time to come up with something.
The age, and how it fits phenotypically with the other fossils around it and DNA. Scientists have been presenting evidence for evolution for over a century now.
"Caplocks r working just fine." Yes, because capslock makes everything true.
You plagiarised. That's dishonest. We kick out students for doing that. If all you do is copy and paste, how do you know it's true?
Ozzyman200 1 year ago 11
@Ozzyman200 Stop personally attacking. You should worry more about What Darwinism almost accomplished. But no, this evil lying Christian must be stopped! Right? You are why he is doing this video. If you can't shut us up, you'll kill us, it's only logical to an Atheist. So. who came back from the dead to let you know you found universal truth? You teach? All you do is make kids Atheist? You had better pray you're right Doc. Cause I feel real bitter, thinking about it now. And want to stop it.
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever
When have I ever persnoally attacked anyone? I never do, don't see the point. You seem to have it in for Darwinism which has never caused any evil. Many evil Christians must indeed be stopped. There are also many wonderful Christians.
The religious factions tend to kill to solve their problems I agree, but that's not the athiest way. We tend to just use education, we teach, we present facts, and that tends to make kids atheists.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 100,000,000 executed and counting. Yea you Atheists are real angels.
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever
Ah rewriting history here. You're not the only one here afraid of textbooks apparently. Instead of counting, why not do something? Well, can you give an example of even one act of evil due to atheism? Live and let live.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 there are over 100,000,000 examples of Atheist evils. If you deny it. You are a lying Atheist. For only they deny what they did and are doing. Afraid of lies in the textbooks. ie haeckel's drawings are still there and taught as evidence. You want more examples of our own books with lies? Yet you seem to take up arms against powerless internet poster. Why don't you care about lies teachers are teaching? don't they actually effect society? no, you are worried about a blogger. lol
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever
"there are over 100,000,000 examples of Atheist evils."
Ah very telling. You've said that twice now, but you haven't been ab;e to give even one example. Haeckel was Catholic. You need to go read a textbook yourself.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 I've read books explaining how Atheism is the one and only cause of mass extermination. Now if all you read are Atheists protecting their philosophy, how do you call that educated. You Atheists constantly demean others' education, but are uneducated about anything putting death at Atheism's doorstep. You protect it as dogmatically as those you accuse of being dogmatic. example of Atheistic thought, Darwins book. "And the preservation of the favored races. You don't care who died.
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever
"I've read books explaining how Atheism is the one and only cause of mass extermination"
I daresay there are such books. There are also religious books that put all the Earth's evils squarely at the doorstep of Jews, blacks, Asians, atheists, etc. Nothing but prejudice. Atheism is simply a lack of belief. How can a lack of belief ever be a cause of good or evil? Just doesn't make any sense. I'm a non-smoker, but this has never caused me to do any evil.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever
Hitler was a CREATIONIST who HATED EVOLUTION AND BURNED DARWIN'S BOOKS. He was JUST LIKE YOU.
Hitler could not STAND the idea that his 'master race' had come from lowly apes. His ideas of racial purity based on centuries-old knowledge of ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, breeding for purity which has been practiced since the dawn of agriculture, you oaf.
He was easily able to rally Europe's christians to eagerly slaughter the Jews, after 1000+ years of entrenched BIBLE-BASED anti-Semitism.
DocReasonable 9 months ago
@Ozzyman200
Evidence for intelligent design is literally EVERYWHERE, such as inferring that a "Stop" sign actually means stop, and isn't a random piece of metal with some patterns on it. It is even used in the sciences. People at SETI (the search for extra-terrestial life) search the signals we receive from space, and see if any potential messages arise. This is the search for.......intelligent design.
People soil their drawers when this threatens the sacred cow of Darwinsim.
29condorito 9 months ago
@29condorito
"Evidence for intelligent design is literally EVERYWHERE"
Really? Then why when challenged for some do ID proponents never give any? Why when asked in court did they give nothing? Why hasn't the scientific community found any yet? Why not publish it?
ID is just creationism through the back door. Very dishonest. It's unscientific because it's unfalsifiable.
Ozzyman200 9 months ago
@29condorito Intelligent design is a fact, we can see it happening all over the world, the problem is it cannot be applied to the origins of life.
mrpamayer 9 months ago
@Ozzyman200 You are a teacher? One of them? hmm the public is beginning to think you folks are hostile to our civilization. You want to make civilization properly no Doc? Come on man let's get into your motivations to discredit people. Where is your peer review papers? Or are you trusting what you've been taught? Yea, there very people that throw around the devince code, may be the sources of real conspiracy against humanity. And I for one think many teachers are remnats of the fifth column
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever
A lecturer, not actually qualified as a high scool teacher technically. All I do is present the truth and correct people when they lie. That is the job of the teacher and we make no apologies for it. We care about the truth.
I have published many peer reviewed papers but none of them are really relevent here. Why do you ask? That's what I like about science, there's no conspiracy, we just get to the facts.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 Facts? Atheists made a static and infinite universe a fact, but was it? No. Why would they say that if it was possible they were wrong? You see, you are doing the same thing. I won't call you a liar as you freely call others you disagree with. After all, you could both just be misinformed or deluded by your ideology. Text books are full of lies. Because they know and won't remove them. Why take the fight here? we choose to listen. Why aren't you angry that kids are taught lies? gotya
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever
"Text books are full of lies"
Ah fear of education. This is why we need more schools.
"Facts? Atheists made a static and infinite universe a fact, but was it?"
Where is your evidence to back up this bizarre claim? You're very quick to denounce science, but you won't examine your own claims. You have yet to produce any evidence or reasoning to back up your bizarre claims. Well, the ball is in your court.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 I don't denounce science. I think Atheists lie and deceive. I want science taught, but you folks teach Atheism. Bizarre? ok. let's jump to the 21st century. Junk DNA? Now call me names because I think it isn't junk. Junk DNA is a fact right? cmon, you don't have to be afraid to deny it yet. lol I don't like your tone or condescension. You should go back to red square and preach into the echo chamber. Tell me this. where are the communists whom aren't Atheist? 100,000,000 dead
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever
"I think Atheists lie and deceive."
That's what you think, but it's merely an opinion. It certainly makes sense that someone wbho fear science fears facts. You have yet to back up your odd claims with any evidence. That's anti-science.
I'm an atheist and a conservative. Now, again, can you give even one example of atheism causing any evil? Even one?
Atheism is just open-mindedness. Put your prejudice aside, at least for Christmas, just live and let live.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200 Atheists lie because there is no objective morality in there belief. An example of the result of knowing there is no God is extermination. example? Lenin. Atheism is about as closed minded as a man can be. You are closed minded and don't even realize it. You can't say there is no God. That's dishonest man. I am the agnostic that chooses to believe. Anyone who says they know there is or isn't a God is dishonest. At least intellectually speaking.
easymoney4ever 1 year ago
@easymoney4ever
"You are closed minded and don't even realize it"
You keep saying that but as yet you've offered no evidence, no examples, no reasoning to back it up. That is a very strong sign of dogma.
"Anyone who says they know there is or isn't a God is dishonest"
Absolutely. That's why I'm an atheist. I think we have a misunderstanding here. You thought I was claiming there are no gods? I'm not at all. I just don't claim there are any. Same as you at least in that.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
what the guy below me said (enoch1844)..
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@JusJuiceIt
Nope, he was wrong on every count. You can check the research for yourself.
Ozzyman200 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
and also, what a very very stupid thing to say, "hitler was a christian"... go read the new testament and see what being a christian is really like..
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
@Ozzyman200
"my theory fails".... didnt mean to say "my" i meant to say "the"
JusJuiceIt 1 year ago
Hitler was anything BUT a fan of Darwin. He spoke against secular education AND The Origin of Species was on the nazi banned books list. Also, evolution prefers biodiversity. Something Hitler's ideas went against.
alienisuntverus 1 year ago
my inner theologian was deeply offended by his calling dualism the christian perspective, when Christianiy is mostly known for "resurrection of the body" after death. The rest of me as just wondering what a lack of belief in souls (which could be caused as much by twins as evolution, so many problems with substance dualism!) has to do with the Holocaust or the NAZIs and was enlightened to learn.... nothing in this vein.
unassumption 1 year ago
he admits Malthus (an economist) predated Darwin, which he must because he inspired Darwin but acts as though capitalism was caused by Darwin.
He admits the (highly christian) southern states had a eugenics movement - but does't in any way ...link it to evolution!
Quotes the philosopher Peter Singer (Who was born after 1945) and acts like his philosophy (utilitarianism, which is about 150 years older than Darwin) was inspired by Darwin.
unassumption 1 year ago
He says Darwin proposed genetic extermination, by saying evolution will "eliminate" savagery; as though he meant deliberately exterminating them rather than their genes becoming low in the population.
Acts as though Christianity was one monoli...thic ideology controlling Europe.
Completely shows his ignorance of evolution by saying it has a purpose (because Darwin can be QUOTE-MINED with his famous final phrase of the origin to sound like it)
unassumption 1 year ago
at 37 minutes in, while discussing the views of a lawyer from the 1920s, who was somehow a specialist in evolutionary biology because he defended it in the 'scopes monkey trial',you know where evoluton was being banned in those stated doing euthenasia and racism because of darwin apparently, he reveals that he has ONE chapter in his book on NAZIs and their link to evolution.
unassumption 1 year ago
Its sickening that an author who by all accounts should know better has desecrated the bodies of the holocaust victims in a cheap attack on Darwin, for Discovery Institute (funded by a holocaust denier) dirty money. Spreading ignorance of the real causes of the holocaust is the surest way to ensure it does happen again.
unassumption 1 year ago
He tosses in a comment about how evolution is "survival of the fittest" (a phrase Darwin had nothing to do with) and derides the idea of social behavior being evolutionarily successful, as a quaint Victorian idealism, showing his ignorance of evolutionary game theory and possibly of microevolutionary mechanisms as a whole.
unassumption 1 year ago
Tosses in a you can never abort a baby no matter how horificaly it will suffer and how soon it will die because of an uncurable genetic disease its got. And disparages choice - i thought christians were the 'free will' fags?
unassumption 1 year ago
and calls jim watson a "Darwinist" despite him not being an evolutionary biologist ( does believing in DNA make you a NAZI?) showing no knowledge of the distinction between sciences, acts as though science is based on the authority of scientists not evidence, uses genetics as a synonym for eugenics (wtf), acts like eugenics is holocaust when its just sterilizing people with serious inherited diseases and as though the attacks on eugenics aren't criticized mainly on scientific grounds.
unassumption 1 year ago
Tosses tolerence of abortion and euthanasia into the "evil things Darwin caused" pile, on the basis of a few spurious quotes from philosophers, tacitly comparing them to the holocaust - then randomly threatens to euthenise Dawkins - just to name drop him for random reasons. Glad there's no historical merit to this bull at all, i wonder if darwin DID influence either? I know lamarkian ideas led to the crop faliures in soviet russia..
unassumption 1 year ago
ust as racism and eugenics predate Darwin, so too do "moral relatavism," though none of these caught on outside ivory towers so to act as though they were the cause of the holocaust?
The most bizzare accusation is that Darwinism shows we'r...e not equal - as if not being clones wasn't enough for that - it makes him sound like some sort of communist? Not treating everyone perfectly equally, then your a nazi?
As someone on DI's payroll he had to quotemine.
unassumption 1 year ago
Ignores the pre-Darwinian roots of racism, acting as though races were treated perfectly equally slavery, as though tribal conflict / nationalism was unknown in the middle ages, and as though religion had nothing to do with pogroms of the "Christ killers"
So its no surprise he leaves out how artificial (inot natural) selection which had been known for ages influenced Hitler. Infuriatingly he uses 'Darwinist' to refer to Lamarkians
unassumption 1 year ago
He quotes no key NAZI party members or even evolutionary biologists (other than Heckel) but instead seeks to show evolution undermines our theoretically absolute Christian morality - which apparently guaranteed a perfect society without war or crime before Darwin screwed it all up, because theoretical morals supposedly influence our practical behavior, and of course they were not in any way being undermined by the discovery of so many new cultures, the rapid social change of 19th C, etc.
unassumption 1 year ago
I criticized creationism for some time but realized he rarely read or watch professional ID proponents, only sees clips of their most famous (and outrageous) defenders, from critics. Since it was part of CASE university's series on Darwin, I expected "darwin to hitler" to provide a historically accurate accou...nt to rend me of this potential bias, how wrong i was. Recomend anyone tempted by ID to watch this, which is no where labeled as being paid for by the discovery institute though it is.
unassumption 1 year ago
39 minutes in - did this guy really say the forced euthanasia campaign was "inequality on a lower level" than the holocaust?
Is it just me or does he not link Darwin to Hitler at all - he just shows that Hitler was a baaaaad man who did baaaaad things such a hard scholarly task.
unassumption 1 year ago
This guy is funded by the inteligent design movement - he's burning the holocaust's memory in the anti-intilectual fire of Creationism. This guy didn't name names or quote people except irrelevant philosophers - he showed nazis were racist, and philosophy.
Is he a communist or something - if you don't believe all humans are equal in all respects, then your a Darwinist, and probably support Eugenics?
Social instincts *are* evolved into species from vampire bats to doves, game theory ftw.
unassumption 1 year ago
@unassumption I was speaking about Stalin and the Communist system of that day. Have you ever read the Communist Manifesto? I stand by my point that countries that were or are officially atheist were or are not bastions of freedom. I'm sure the same could be said for other countries such as Muslim countries who practice sharia law. I don't support theocracies of any sort even as a Christian but I know that the twentieth century was by far the bloodiest and was not ruled by religious doctrines.
benthemiester 1 year ago
So repressing homosexuality is contributing to aids. Ok buddy sure man. China is one of the most over populated countries in the world and they are not controlled by church doctrine and are know for persecuting Christians and religious beliefs in general and have adopted atheism. You might want to think this through before you post.
benthemiester 1 year ago
@squid4947 hahahaha.... pan-genus biological evolution by natural selection has been totally debunked. It is hillarious that in today's age of scientific enlightenment there are still people like you who believe it. You have a terrible mental disorder... for good measure you should seek counselling.
prosperousindividual 1 year ago
@squid4947
Evolution is a MYTH invented by people that were desperately looking for a way to deny what really happened: creation.
herbs814 1 year ago
LOL.
WeatherManToBe 1 year ago