Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[gsa]

But you were gaming the history of the holocaust, that is not conducive to finding the truth about it.

You think how evolutionists generally deal with the history of the holocaust in relation to evolutionary biology is honest, fair, and such?

What does evolutionary biology have the Holocaust or Social Darwinism? Pseudoscience that borrows from scientific terminology is indeed dangerous (like intelligent design), but Nazi racial theories were well outside of the field's standards. Moreover, racism was so pervasive in the 19th and early 20th centuries that it was reflected in both scientific and religious discourse. There are clear religious antecedents for Nazi racial theories in the treatment of Jewish converts in Spain, for example.

 

[gsa]

It can turn out several different ways, that is a choice. He said if evolution were run again, it could turn out differently. That is what choosing consists of. Focus on it, pursue it, go ahead. Are there comprehensive decisions, a lot of independent decisions? You tell me.

But don't you see how this demonstrates the exact opposite of what you are suggesting? If evolutionary history can go in a different "direction" it demonstrates that there is, in fact, no direction.

Imagine that there was no Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. It is highly unlikely that modern humans would be around to contemplate "turning points" in evolution, were that the case. Or imagine that there was no Neanderthal extinction, or any number of different events that would radically alter the course of evolution that ultimately did take place. The simple fact is tare unbelievably large numbers of variables that go into evolutionary change, given the role of the environment and other selection pressures. But no one is making a conscious decision to pursue a different evolutionary goal.

 

[McBell]

It's the way you asked to please tell us about the holocaust, that is gaming the issue.

Looks to me that you are scared of revealing how your bringing the holocaust into the discussion is relevant.
Thus far it appears that it is in fact YOU who are gaming the holocaust issue.

It is ofcourse just convenient for you to say that it is comparing apples with fruitcakes, undermining any sincerity about the issue.

So present why they are not.
Until you do, you seem to be rather dishonestly working a diversion tactic.

Do your credibility a huge favour and connect the two in a meaningful and or useful way.

 

[Parsimony]

I think the way evolutionists deal with the history of the holocaust very transparantly shows this prejudice, this disregard for the truth.

Can you give me an example? What is the unique way you think that evolutionists treat the Holocaust that others do not?

 

[gnostic]

Aren't people entitled to their own opinions, even if they don't make sense to you at all?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions an to their religion.

However if the make claims in matters of science or history, then they should back up with evidences or through peer review, to support their claims, otherwise their claims are bogus.

 

[gnostic]

Everyone is entitled to their opinions an to their religion.

However if the make claims in matters of science or history, then they should back up with evidences or through peer review, to support their claims, otherwise their claims are bogus.

And creationism and intelligent design shouldn't be taught in science classrooms or lecture, because neither are science.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

"... I thought you were making fun of his opinion."

Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion.

It follows that everyone is entitled to make fun of other people's opinions. In fact, if we allow that making fun of someone's opinion is a manifestation of having an opinion, then aren't we obliged to leave room for mocking?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Subjectivity matters. How aggressive are you in pursuing evidence that rejects evolution? It requires effort to pursue evidence, a morale is needed, emotional depth. You must find ways to be happy to do it.

Take a look at how aggressive evolutionists are at pursuing evidence of how things are chosen in the universe. Gould once said that evolution could have turned out differently, he called that a "turningpoint". The origin of species as by "turningpoints", which choices determine what species come to be. Pursue it, go ahead.....

There are ofcourse 0 evolutionists who consider the origin of organisms in terms of the decisions by which they come to be. And that is because of this "method" to destroy emotions in doing science. When you press down on your emotions that way, you are really only left with the most vile prejudices. And that is very clearly the emotional basis evolutionists bring to the debate.

Let's start with a basic question, Muhammad: How many books have you read about the theory of evolution, and how many lectures by evolutionary biologists have you listened to (whether online or offline)?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

You have to understand the evolutionist mindset.

Please. Enlighten us.

They go out of their way to kill their own emotions

Can you substantiate that assertion? Or are you just going to generalize?

... they do not try to cultivate any genuine feeling of fairness, honesty and such.

1.) Why do you insist on confusing fairness with appeals to emotion?

Have you never heard that justice is blind?

2.) What exactly are "feelings of honesty" ... and if they're cultivated, are they in fact honest?

...

"I have more than once observed to Lady Catherine, that her charming daughter seemed born to be a duchess, and that the most elevated rank, instead of giving her consequence, would be adorned by her.—These are the kind of little things which please her ladyship, and it is a sort of attention which I conceive myself peculiarly bound to pay."

"You judge very properly," said Mr. Bennet, "and it is happy for you that you possess the talent of flattering with delicacy. May I ask whether these pleasing attentions proceed from the impulse of the moment, or are the result of previous study?"

"They arise chiefly from what is passing at the time, and though I sometimes amuse myself with suggesting and arranging such little elegant compliments as may be adapted to ordinary occasions, I always wish to give them as unstudied an air as possible."

Mr. Bennet's expectations were fully answered. His cousin was as absurd as he had hoped ..."

~ from Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

3.) It may not matter what anyone says to the contrary regarding your views, as you've already reserved the right to judge what is and is not "genuine."

To evolutionists emotions are wrong, only facts matter.

Actually, if emotions were suspected of having a demonstrable evolutionary payoff (and I'm sure that if you scrounge around long enough you'll find research that supports such a notion), then I'd suspect you'd find the exact opposite to be true.

An evolutionist will just say whatever is most succesfull at promoting evolution theory, no matter what is honest or fair.

Whatever is most successful? Doesn't that sound suspiciously like ... evolution?

It strikes me as rather amusing that while evolution itself cannot possibly care about human constructs such as "honesty" or "fairness," you've evolved to the point where you're free to quibble over them.

Evolutionists will quite openly make up stories about the holocaust that completely favor the reputation of evolutionary biology, because....that serves the evolutionist agenda.

Again. Your argument would be best served if you'd bother to cite at least one example. Otherwise, you're simply making unsubstantiated assertions.

Allow me to demonstrate (and this is strictly by way of example):

"Creationists will make up stories about the Holocaust that completely favor the reputation of their religion, because ... that serves the creationist agenda."

See how it works? Your future cooperation in this convention will be both applauded and appreciated.

It is not just the way they reach their conclusion that is completely prejudiced, but also they are very openly prejudiced, very openly disregarding of the truth.

Once again, it appears that you've nothing to offer aside from unsubstantiated assertions. Hasn't anyone ever explained to you that this isn't an especially convincing way to argue your point?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Imagine that there was no Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event. It is highly unlikely that modern humans would be around to contemplate "turning points" in evolution, were that the case. Or imagine that there was no Neanderthal extinction, or any number of different events that would radically alter the course of evolution that ultimately did take place. The simple fact is tare unbelievably large numbers of variables that go into evolutionary change, given the role of the environment and other selection pressures. But no one is making a conscious decision to pursue a different evolutionary goal.

And so what about your emotional basis, does this constitute a sincere effort to consider how organisms are chosen to be the way they are, or is this just prattling a few prejudices? Is it in any sense a fair and honest answer how freedom is relevant in the universe?

At what decision then did the neanderthals go extinct? The whole point of a decision is that there are several ways which it can turn out. That means the decision can also turn out so that neanderthals don't go extinct.

To refer to many variables then means, many independent decisions coincidentally resulting in something.

Why would there only be these many simple decisions, and not more comprehensive decisions taking place?

 

[NulliuSINverba]

And so what about your emotional basis, does this constitute a sincere effort to consider how organisms are chosen to be the way they are, or is this just prattling a few prejudices? Is it in any sense a fair and honest answer how freedom is relevant in the universe?

Can you demonstrate that "freedom" is anything other than a human construct which is UTTERLY irrelevant to the workings of the universe?

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Can you demonstrate that "freedom" is anything other than a human construct which is UTTERLY irrelevant to the workings of the universe?

Screeching shows a lack of emotional depth.

The evolutionist mindset is dominated by thinking of organisms "struggling for" survival, and reproductive "success". Mutations which provide an "advantage", that are "good" for the organism. The "selfishness" of genes.

Evolutionists use a whole lot of terms which are normally used emotively, subjectively, but they use the terms in a matter of fact way.

To make what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact issue makes people feel high. The brain produces drugs by the way of thinking. You can just try it for yourself, assert some (scientific) factual certitude about what is good, loving and beautiful, you will feel that smug high, high like a monkey in a coconut tree.

 

[McBell]

Screeching shows a lack of emotional depth.

The evolutionist mindset is dominated by thinking of organisms "struggling for" survival, and reproductive "success". Mutations which provide an "advantage", that are "good" for the organism. The "selfishness" of genes.

Evolutionists use a whole lot of terms which are normally used emotively, subjectively, but they use the terms in a matter of fact way.

To make what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact issue makes people feel high. The brain produces drugs by the way of thinking. You can just try it for yourself, assert some (scientific) factual certitude about what is good, loving and beautiful, you will feel that smug high, high like a monkey in a coconut tree.

 

[gnostic]

Take a look at how aggressive evolutionists are at pursuing evidence of how things are chosen in the universe.

Evolution is one of the fields in biology, dealing with biodiversity and biological mechanisms that allow animals (including to humans) and plant life to adapt to changing environments, so the following generations can survive.

Since our Earth is the only known planet to support biological life form, evolution only focus on life on Earth (for now).

What does evolution to the cosmology of the universe?

Evolutionists, as you called them are not currently pursuing evidences, outside of this planet.

What on earth have you been reading to suggest this nonsense claims of yours? Or are smoking weeds or tripping on acid?

If it is the later, might if I join yah?

 

[Sapiens]

Screeching shows a lack of emotional depth.

The evolutionist mindset is dominated by thinking of organisms "struggling for" survival, and reproductive "success". Mutations which provide an "advantage", that are "good" for the organism. The "selfishness" of genes.

You, who demonstrates a complete and utter misunderstanding of evolution, abiogenesis and cosmology are now going to expound on the "evolutionist mindset" almost as though such a thing exists. Shall I, in return, expound on the Islamic Mindset?

Evolutionists use a whole lot of terms which are normally used emotively, subjectively, but they use the terms in a matter of fact way.

And your qualification to judge this is what?

To make what is good, loving and beautiful into a matter of fact issue makes people feel high. The brain produces drugs by the way of thinking. You can just try it for yourself, assert some (scientific) factual certitude about what is good, loving and beautiful, you will feel that smug high, high like a monkey in a coconut tree.

Beats the hell out of chanting, "Allah akbar!" over and over and over like an Islamist passing on the part of the course that covers landing the plane.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Can you give me an example? What is the unique way you think that evolutionists treat the Holocaust that others do not?

The evolutionists at the well known talk.origins newsgroup said they were going to make a faq about Darwinism and Nazism. Then one of the well known posters there metioned some books about nazism, saying that there was nothing in it about Darwinism. Then I went to the library and quoted some of the things in those books on Darwinism, things like, the school system was heavily influenced by darwinism, or words to that effect. etc. etc. Even one of the historians emailed the evolutionists saying that the rise of pseudobiological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution. They posted that on talk.origins, and said to agree with the historian. Then when later I used the exactsame phrasing as the historian (copy/paste), then they said it was utter nonsense.

Then for 2 years the evolutionists went on to say they were going to make a faq about Darwinism and Nazism. After 2 years they announced that there was no evidence of any link whatsoever, and that therefore the project was cancelled.

There did appear something of a faq eventually, the evolutionists of talk.origins published the book "index to creationist claims", which had a claim about Hitler. In this book the evolutionists asserted that it appeared Hitler was apparently a young earth creationist, based on a quote of Hitler in a book, where he talked about people existing for "thousands" of years. Then I pointed out that in the same book Hitler talked about hundreds of thousands of years of higher development. They then changed the claim to add that Hitler talked about hundreds of thousands of years "in another context", and that in another print it talked about millions of years, but still leaving in it the assertion that Hitler once may have believed in a young earth, so as that now the claim doesn't really make any sense.

The basis for this index to creationist claims about Hitler, was 2 postings by evolutionists who googled about Hitler for what could not have been more than 15 minutes, finding the quotes of Hitler. Now you cannot see anymore what the actual basis is of the index to creationist claims, but before the claims had references to the postings by evolutionists.

 

[Sapiens]

The evolutionists at the well known talk.origins newsgroup said they were going to make a faq about Darwinism and Nazism. Then one of the well known posters there metioned some books about nazism, saying that there was nothing in it about Darwinism. Then I went to the library and quoted some of the things in those books on Darwinism, things like, the school system was heavily influenced by darwinism, or words to that effect. etc. etc. Even one of the historians emailed the evolutionists saying that the rise of pseudobiological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution. They posted that on talk.origins, and said to agree with the historian. Then when later I used the exactsame phrasing as the historian (copy/paste), then they said it was utter nonsense.

Then for 2 years the evolutionists went on to say they were going to make a faq about Darwinism and Nazism. After 2 years they announced that there was no evidence of any link whatsoever, and that therefore the project was cancelled.

There did appear something of a faq eventually, the evolutionists of talk.origins published the book "index to creationist claims", which had a claim about Hitler. In this book the evolutionists asserted that it appeared Hitler was apparently a young earth creationist, based on a quote of lyHitler in a book, where he talked about people existing for "thousands" of years. Then I pointed out that in the same book Hitler talked about hundreds of thousands of years of higher development. They then changed the claim to add that Hitler talked about hundreds of thousands of years "in another context", and that in another print it talked about millions of years, but still leaving in it the assertion that Hitler once may have believed in a young earth, so as that now the claim doesn't really make any sense.

The basis for this index to creationist claims about Hitler, was 2 postings by evolutionists who googled about Hitler for what could not have been more than 15 minutes, finding the quotes of Hitler. Now you cannot see anymore what the actual basis is of the index to creationist claims, but before the claims had references to the postings by evolutionists.

I just did a seach of the talk.origins site for "Hitler" and I get 506 hits. Most are in The Panda's Thumb: Archives Only one is the talk.origins archive proper and that reads:

Claim CA006.1:
Adolf Hitler exploited the racist ideas of Darwinism to justify genocide.
Source:
Weston-Broome, Sharon. 2001. Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution no. 74: CIVIL RIGHTS: Provides relative to racism and education about racism. HLS 01-2652 ORIGINAL.
Response:

1. Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy: Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. (Hitler 1943, 383) The first edition of Mein Kampf suggests that Hitler may once have believed in a young earth: "this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men" (p. 65; the second edition substitutes "millions" for "thousands," and chapter 11 refers to "hundreds of thousands of years" of life in another context.) Other passages further support his creationist leanings: The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383) and What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, . . . so that our people may mature for the fulfillment of the mission allotted it by the creator of the universe. (Hitler 1943, 214) Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions could be multiplied ad nauseam. For example: Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord (Hitler 1943, 65). "[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity, given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission (Hitler 1943, 398). A campaign against the "godless movement" and an appeal for Catholic support were launched Wednesday by Chancellor Adolf Hitler's forces (Associated Press 1933). Of course, this does not mean that Hitler's ideas were based on creationism any more than they were based on evolution. Hitler's ideas were a perversion of both religion and biology.
2. The Nazi Party in general rejected Darwinism and supported Christianity. In 1935, Die Bücherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published a list of guidelines of works to reject, including: Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). (Die Bücherei 1935, 279) On the other hand, an undated "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries" includes the following on a list of literature which "absolutely must be removed": c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk. (Blacklist n.d.)
3. Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. Obviously, they did not need any contribution from Darwinism. In many instances, such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify them.
4. Evolution does not promote social Darwinism or racism or eugenics.

References:

1. "Blacklist for Public Libraries and Commercial Lending Libraries." Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter, When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
2. Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935). Quoted from University of Arizona Library, "Lists of Banned Books, 1932-1939", transl. Roland Richter, When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939
3. Hitler, A. 1943. Mein Kampf. Transl. R. Manheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. http://www.stormfront.org/books/mein_kampf/ or Crusader.net
4. Associated Press. 1933. Hitler aims blow at 'Godless' move, Lansing State Journal (Michigan), Feb. 23, 1933. Reprinted at Hitler's Religion

Further Reading:
Toland, John. 1976. Adolf Hitler. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/evc/argresp/hitler.faq and http://www.antievolution.org/people/wre/evc/argresp/hitler.add

So what is it that you are rambling on and on about?

 

[Parsimony]

The evolutionists at the well known talk.origins newsgroup said they were going to make a faq about Darwinism and Nazism. Then one of the well known posters there metioned some books about nazism, saying that there was nothing in it about Darwinism. Then I went to the library and quoted some of the things in those books on Darwinism, things like, the school system was heavily influenced by darwinism, or words to that effect. etc. etc. Even one of the historians emailed the evolutionists saying that the rise of pseudobiological racism is inconceivable without the intellectual climate of opinion that developed as a result of the Darwinian revolution. They posted that on talk.origins, and said to agree with the historian. Then when later I used the exactsame phrasing as the historian (copy/paste), then they said it was utter nonsense.

Then for 2 years the evolutionists went on to say they were going to make a faq about Darwinism and Nazism. After 2 years they announced that there was no evidence of any link whatsoever, and that therefore the project was cancelled.

There did appear something of a faq eventually, the evolutionists of talk.origins published the book "index to creationist claims", which had a claim about Hitler. In this book the evolutionists asserted that it appeared Hitler was apparently a young earth creationist, based on a quote of Hitler in a book, where he talked about people existing for "thousands" of years. Then I pointed out that in the same book Hitler talked about hundreds of thousands of years of higher development. They then changed the claim to add that Hitler talked about hundreds of thousands of years "in another context", and that in another print it talked about millions of years, but still leaving in it the assertion that Hitler once may have believed in a young earth, so as that now the claim doesn't really make any sense.

The basis for this index to creationist claims about Hitler, was 2 postings by evolutionists who googled about Hitler for what could not have been more than 15 minutes, finding the quotes of Hitler. Now you cannot see anymore what the actual basis is of the index to creationist claims, but before the claims had references to the postings by evolutionists.

So what if Hitler's ideas were influenced by Darwinian ideas? That has no effect on whether the theory of evolution is true or not. You might as well be arguing that nuclear energy isn't possible because of what happened at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. "Bad things have happened because of it. Therefore, it isn't true." That's a fallacy. Someone could just as easily argue that since religion has caused people to kill other people, religion is wrong and God doesn't exist. See what's wrong with that reasoning?

 

[gsa]

And so what about your emotional basis, does this constitute a sincere effort to consider how organisms are chosen to be the way they are, or is this just prattling a few prejudices? Is it in any sense a fair and honest answer how freedom is relevant in the universe?

I do not understand what you mean, sorry.

At what decision then did the neanderthals go extinct? The whole point of a decision is that there are several ways which it can turn out. That means the decision can also turn out so that neanderthals don't go extinct.

There was no decision on the part of the Neanderthals to go extinct. Yes, the Neanderthals did in fact die out, but there was no singular decision, individual or collective, or imposed from on high, to do so. It was a consequence of multiple factors.

To refer to many variables then means, many independent decisions coincidentally resulting in something.

Well right, kind of. Most would not be "decisions" but variables like, say, availability of food sources, water, heat conditions, etc. The end result is the byproduct of countless variables, only some of which include individual decisions on the part of organisms (or collective decisions, as the case may be).

Why would there only be these many simple decisions, and not more comprehensive decisions taking place?

What kind of comprehensive decisions are you referring to? I don't really understand.

 

[Ouroboros]

So what if Hitler's ideas were influenced by Darwinian ideas? That has no effect on whether the theory of evolution is true or not. You might as well be arguing that nuclear energy isn't possible because of what happened at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. "Bad things have happened because of it. Therefore, it isn't true." That's a fallacy. Someone could just as easily argue that since religion has caused people to kill other people, religion is wrong and God doesn't exist. See what's wrong with that reasoning?

Very true.

The Crusades and the Inquisition were both based on Christianity, which no Christian would consider that to be evidence against the validity of their faith.