Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Darwinism Has Led To The Holocaust And Genocide Of Blacks

[Darkstorn]

Are you are brainwashed?

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Darwinism Has Led To The Holocaust And Genocide Of Blacks"

If it makes you feel any better about yourself, sure, i'm brainwashed.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Those things can be measured, although not all claims made by all people are factual.
And then too, there are theories behind how those things function, all very new & very complex.
So applying laws of heat transfer & chemistry to predicting the future will be a long work in progress.

we can measure how much faster and healthier and more drought resistant plants grow with the couple of extra molecules CO2 in 10000 of air we have added
There is no way to measure any significant far less deleterious effect on global temperature by this tiny forcing, that only exists in computer simulations

Evolution is also not so useful in predicting the future (except in some simple cases)

It hasn't exactly had a stellar record predicting the past either.

[Piltdown man] This was a fraud, which scientists debunked.

after it was a fact for 40 years, could never happen today though!?

There is no such thing as "immutable laws of physics.
All such things are subject to change as our abilities & understandings improve.

exactly!

I think you're confusing some things here......
Science is not about inerrant absolute truths for eternity.
It is a continual work in progress, with information & theories of one time being replaced by their betters as things progress.

You are preaching to the choir here!
tell that to Dawkins, or James Hanson, or anyone else representing 'science' who screams 'denier' if you dare to suggest the theory may not be absolute unquestionable truth for eternity!

To expect science to be error free is misunderstand what it is. It is full of error & less than full understanding. And it is part of the method to continually debunk what is no longer the most useful understanding.

Agree again, that's where minority dissent, 'deniers' like Galileo,Lemaitre, Planck, Spencer, Behe come in. By definition academic consensus resists progress beyond that consensus
Planck noted that those scientists representing conventional consensus, never change their minds, you have to wait for them to die for science to progress!

This differs from many religions, which claim to have the eternal inerrant truth.
And many of these "truths" have turned out to be very wrong & evil....without
naming names & pointing my finger.

Most people of faith, unlike many 'scientists' acknowledge their beliefs, their faith as such.

I've no problem with science, I am a big fan, I have trouble with it's greatest historical impediment- institutionalized, ideological, dogmatic, academic consensus

 

[Revoltingest]

It hasn't exactly had a stellar record predicting the past either.

It beats all competitors.
The competing theory that Earth is only 10K years old failed miserably.
And the one that Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle is faring poorly too.
Go science!

after it was a fact for 40 years, could never happen today though!?

Science is practiced by miserable puny humans, with all their failings.
So there will always people here or there who perpetrate fraud.
But science is a method which self corrects, with theories being over-turned regularly.

Note that this problem exists in any field practiced by humans.
Even religious practitioners & pontificators commit fraud.
It's true!
I have proof....

.....that's where minority dissent, 'deniers' like Galileo,Lemaitre, Planck, Spencer, Behe come in. By definition academic consensus resists progress beyond that consensus
Planck noted that those scientists representing conventional consensus, never change their minds, you have to wait for them to die for science to progress!

Many things are overturned during a scientists lifetime.
Btw, Behe is one of my favorite comedians.

Most people of faith, unlike many 'scientists' acknowledge their beliefs, their faith as such.

I've no problem with science, I am a big fan, I have trouble with it's greatest historical impediment- institutionalized, ideological, dogmatic, academic consensus

I'm glad you added that.
Science was beginning to think you didn't like it anymore.
(It's sensitive.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

It beats all competitors.
The competing theory that Earth is only 10K years old failed miserably.
And the one that Earth rides on the back of a giant turtle is faring poorly too.
Go science!

Science is practiced by miserable puny humans, with all their failings.
So there will always people here or there who perpetrate fraud.
But science is a method which self corrects, with theories being over-turned regularly.

Note that this problem exists in any field practiced by humans.
Even religious practitioners & pontificators commit fraud.
It's true!
I have proof....

Many things are overturned during a scientists lifetime.
Btw, Behe is one of my favorite comedians.

I'm glad you added that.
Science was beginning to think you didn't like it anymore.
(It's sensitive.)

So in summary I think we agree, something being declared a scientific theory or even touted as a fact, doesn't really say much about whether or not it's actually true

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Not getting involved in the rest of the political wrangling, just thought I'd pull you up on one minor thing:

Calling someone delusional is not an ad hominem logical fallacy. The fallacy works like this: "Person 'x' says we should pick the blue uniform, but I happen to know that person 'x' picks their nose in public, so we should pick the red uniform". They are not doing that - they are calling into question your mental state given the validity of the propositions you have presented. Ergo, they are not making a personal attack to discredit your argument, they are analyzing your argument and using it to make a personal judgement of you. Right or wrong, it is still not an ad hominem.

Argumentum Ad Hominem: "a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Out of the mouths of babes, the insane, or the Devil himself, the Truth is the Truth.

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Darwinism Has Led To The Holocaust And Genocide Of Blacks"

Indeed, the misuse or misinterpretation of evolution has led to genocide and much more. If genuine scientific investigation of racial/gender differences is allowed to be conducted out from under the threat of being socially ostracized, I think we'll find that there are positive and negative differences, spread out over a wide range of characteristics of the varying races and genders, just the same as they are for individuals.

What if we found an isolated tribe in the Amazon that demonstrated greater memory capabilities than any other group (race) in the world. Under the current strident conditions, it would be politically incorrect to say so.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Argumentum Ad Hominem: "a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."

Out of the mouths of babes, the insane, or the Devil himself, the Truth is the Truth.

You do realize that doesn't support your assertion of ad hominem, right? I already explained that it's when you attack the character or motive of a person rather than attack the substance of the argument itself. Since the poster clearly attacked your argument, it is not an ad hominem attack, and the assertion that you are delusional is not a personal attack but a conclusion of your mental state drawn from the argument itself - it is not an ad hominem, unless they are evoking it as a negative personality trait to dismiss the rest of your argument.

Ergo, saying "You believe 'x', but you once also once stated that you believed in pixies when you were younger and admitted you were delusional, so we shouldn't believe you with regards to 'x'" would be an example of an ad hominem.

Conversely, saying "You are delusional because the support for proposition 'x' is ill-founded and demonstrably poorly constructed" is not an ad hominem.

Another good example of an ad hominem is this little quote here:

"More attempts at intimidation from someone coming from the inbred environs of academia, media and the power establishment."

See the distinction? The above quote isn't making any reference to the argument being made, it simply calls into question the validity of the argument by casting aspersions about the motives, intent or background of the person making the argument. It's a perfect example of an ad hominem fallacy.

Keep in mind that the above two examples are purely hypothetical, and I have no idea if they actually apply to the debate you're having. They're purely to illustrate the correct and incorrect use of the fallacy.

I suggest you learn what logical fallacies actually entail before evoking them in future, otherwise you make yourself look desperate and ignorant.

 

[viole]

The point isn't to disprove natural selection here. The point is to show Darwin was wrong about the racist and genocidal drivers of natural selection. It wasn't the strongest, fastest, smartest, but strictly based on those who could pass on their genes the most. That's how he defined survival of the fittest. Just that concept alone led to social Darwinism and negative eugenics of the Nazis. Maybe he should have just stuck with the strongest, fastest, smartest, etc.

Nope. He must stick to what he considers true. Do you compromise truth because of what men might do with it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yeah....let's call it "procedurally-accurate" science, as opposed to "extrapolation" science!

Or you could take some science classes and learn about this subject that has become so clearly you are not well informed well of or understanding.
Believe it or not, the scientist's "tool box" is filled with various types of research methods and models, various approaches to studying an observable phenomena, and other scientists are encouraged to join in and find flaws and shortcomings, or maybe even replicate the study. And one of the greatest things about science is that it is well equipped and suited to replace ideas that have been proven wrong with new data and evidence. The Bible, on the other hand, for thousands of years and still today claims all the languages of the world can be traced back to a single origin of time and place, even though we know today that is not how language developed and evolved. Nor has the Bible updated its claims of various points being up high enough to see the entire world. Again, not possible, and the Bible has not changed this. Science, on the other hand, discarded ideas of stress causing stomach ulcers once it was adequately (and recklessly) demonstrated that a certain bacteria is to blame and now medicine does not accept stress as a cause of ulcers (though something that does exacerbate them). Science has updated and discovered new treatments and cures and learned much about health, diseases, and infection, while the Bible still states when someone is cured of leprosy you're supposed to have bird's blood slung all over the place, which we know today is terribly unsanitary and runs an elevated risk of spreading other diseases.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You do realize that doesn't support your assertion of ad hominem, right? I already explained that it's when you attack the character or motive of a person...

STOP RIGHT THERE. The definition says, "attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person..." The underlined part of which you left out...again, and ignored it...again. You then proceed with the circular argument that I'm delusional because I'm obviously wrong because I'm delusional.......etc. All you've done is shoot your own credibility between the eyes. And please note, I've presented evidence while not descending into the depths of taking cheap shots (repeating questions that have been answered) and name calling.

We're done here.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

...other scientists are encouraged to join in and find flaws and shortcomings...

Tell that to Richard Sternberg!

 

[Revoltingest]

So in summary I think we agree, something being declared a scientific theory or even touted as a fact, doesn't really say much about whether or not it's actually true

"True" is for a priori matters.
Science is merely useful.
And religion is......uh....at best, entertaining.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

STOP RIGHT THERE. The definition says, "attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person..." The underlined part of which you left out...again, and ignored it...again.

Speaking of leaving things out, the full quote is this:

"I already explained that it's when you attack the character or motive of a person rather than attack the substance of the argument itself."

I even put the important part in bold so that you couldn't possibly miss it. And yet here you are, missing it. You could almost say you're just being deliberate in your dishonesty.

You then proceed with the circular argument that I'm delusional because I'm obviously wrong because I'm delusional.......etc.

Actually, I never asserted any such thing. All I did was explain why this particular instance of someone calling you delusional isn't an ad hominem fallacy. It seems we can add "circular arguments" to the list of logical fallacies you fail to grasp and yet feel you can evoke.

All you've done is shoot your own credibility between the eyes. And please note, I've presented evidence while not descending into the depths of taking cheap shots (repeating questions that have been answered) and name calling.

We're done here.

You're just a hypocrite who can't admit when he's beaten. I miss the days when right-wingers used to actually have a philosophy and a position to defend. These days it just seems to purely be about bravado...

 

[Darkstorn]

And please note, I've presented evidence while not descending into the depths of taking cheap shots (repeating questions that have been answered) and name calling.

Yet you haven't shown evidence to support THIS statement.

I disagree with it.

We're done here.

You always seem to be done whenever someone catches you making a huge blunder like that, yes.

But yes, i was calling you delusional based on your argument: It contained something that is not... Let's just say universally accepted. You make comparisons between fascism, socialism and nazism. In fact, i'm pretty sure you're trying to imply ALL socialists are almost as bad as nazis.

Fascism is nationalism. YOU are acting like a nationalist.

I am FULLY prepared to stand by my claims of you being delusional. I still think so. You are being delusional with your inane claims.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yet you haven't shown evidence to support THIS statement.

I disagree with it.

You always seem to be done whenever someone catches you making a huge blunder like that, yes.

But yes, i was calling you delusional based on your argument: It contained something that is not... Let's just say universally accepted.

Yes, when people pick up where they left off like I never said anything, I move on.

You make comparisons between fascism, socialism and nazism. In fact, i'm pretty sure you're trying to imply ALL socialists are almost as bad as nazis.

So you admit you think I'm implying something, but you don't know. Well you're wrong. I'm hardly saying that all socialists commit genocide, and most don't set out to become oppressive--it, with the help of a few very evil leaders, sneaks up on them. The problem is so many people let them get away with stroking their egos, and next thing you know, we're in a police state--which they play down by calling it Big Brother.

Fascism is nationalism. YOU are acting like a nationalist.

Nationalism is the support of a governed nation, and is nothing more than the opposite of anarchy. I further stipulate that all nations should be governed by the rule of law, where the laws protect the EQUAL rights of ALL. Almost no nations in history have been run under that principle. Almost all have had legal double standards protecting an elite class, or oppressing a lower class. The US violated that from the start with racism and misogyny, but then the oligarchs came out of the smoke filled woodwork, and with media providing cover, took over. If I could do something about it I would, but I know that socialism fosters an elite class quicker than anything but an outright monarchy.

You want to find my core hatred, it's for those officials who actually think like those I posted earlier, justifying using emotional environmental issues (or whatever manufactured crisis) to conquer capitalism--and the useful idiot, revenge seeking, lazy-***, gimme more, myrmidons eat it up and sell their votes to the highest bidder, until they loose the franchise.

I am FULLY prepared to stand by my claims of you being delusional. I still think so. You are being delusional with your inane claims.

Sure, you can close your eyes, cover your ears and say anything. You can say I'm delusional, but so far that's all you've done, except to say "everybody knows......"

And if you keep saying the same thing over and over like he did we'll be done here as well.

 

[Darkstorn]

Yes, when people pick up where they left off like I never said anything, I move on.

That's how you think it went? Everyone can see it right there.

You lost on logical grounds, you made untrue statements that you just couldn't back with anything, and you got caught on it. You haven't shown that my response to your post was a logical fallacy. You also haven't shown that it's an ad hominem: Your words were delusional no matter how much you want to spin it.

So it really looked like him defeating you on logical grounds, you being a sore loser, and then you trying to imagine a new reality into existence where you're the winner. It really looks like that's the reason you said you're done.

So you admit you think I'm implying something, but you don't know.

Of course i admit it, i wouldn't have said so otherwise.

Well you're wrong.

What you're about to say after this confirms that i'm not.

I'm hardly saying that all socialists commit genocide, and most don't set out to become oppressive--it, with the help of a few very evil leaders, sneaks up on them.

See? I was right. You are doing exactly what i claimed you to be doing.

The problem is so many people let them get away with stroking their egos, and next thing you know, we're in a police state--which they play down by calling it Big Brother.

Stuff like this really shouldn't be taken into a debate. You are trying to argue conspiracy theories.

Nationalism is the support of a governed nation, and is nothing more than the opposite of anarchy.

No. The opposite of nationalism is anti-nationalism. Not anarchy. You are adding more loaded weight onto a word. The word nationalism means less than what you're trying to attribute to it.

Fascism is by definition nationalistic. You cannot use the term fascism without accepting its definition.

You're now trying to imply that if you're not nationalistic, you are anarchistic. This will present problems.

I further stipulate that all nations should be governed by the rule of law, where the laws protect the EQUAL rights of ALL. Almost no nations in history have been run under that principle. Almost all have had legal double standards protecting an elite class, or oppressing a lower class. The US violated that from the start with racism and misogyny, but then the oligarchs came out of the smoke filled woodwork, and with media providing cover, took over. If I could do something about it I would, but I know that socialism fosters an elite class quicker than anything but an outright monarchy.

This seems like a pretty random rant considering the thread itself. Are you purposefully trying to make it into a crackpot conspiracy theory thread? Oh right, i keep forgetting that it already is... Sorry about that.

Anyway, nice of you to shorthand all the issues you listed there with "i would do something about it but socialism". As if it's the cause for any of that. Crazy delusional conspiracy theories.

You want to find my core hatred, it's for those officials who actually think like those I posted earlier, justifying using emotional environmental issues (or whatever manufactured crisis) to conquer capitalism--and the useful idiot, revenge seeking, lazy-***, gimme more, myrmidons eat it up and sell their votes to the highest bidder, until they loose the franchise.

But your entire argument about these issues seems to hinge on using emotionally loaded rhetoric... You are appealing to emotion with MOST of your points. Because you sure as hell didn't use facts or evidence to back your claims up.

Sure, you can close your eyes, cover your ears and say anything. You can say I'm delusional, but so far that's all you've done, except to say "everybody knows......"

I've done more. I've called you delusional based on the content of your text. The text is still there. There is proof: You said contradictory and factually incorrect things, and it's all there.

Even your claims about ME were factually incorrect. Calling you delusional is not a logical fallacy, but a logical conclusion.

And if you keep saying the same thing over and over like he did we'll be done here as well.

No one has repeated anything except you: That i used an ad hominem and a logical fallacy. You were corrected. Then you made excuses. Then you said you're done. Then you did it again. Then you said you're done ONCE AGAIN.

YOU are repeating yourself.

 

[james bond]

Yeah, I read it and my answer is the same. Do you HONESTLY think that if Hitler hadn't had Darwin's theory to misinterpret that he wouldn't have hated Jews? Do you REALLY believe that racist wouldn't have found ANOTHER reason to call for black genocide if they hadn't had Darwin's theory to miss represent?

Your attempt to try and denigrate the theory of evolution by suggesting that Darwin was a racist is quite pathetic. But then I guess when the evidence to support the theory is just so overwhelming, you evolution deniers have nothing else to rely on, other than attempting to sling mud at the messenger. It's not just pathetic, it's downright childish.

It sounds like you're finally agreeing that Darwin's racist theories influenced the Holocaust. Hitler saw something new he didn't see from pseudo-scientific racism that came prior to it. By that I mean the pseudo-scientific racism calling blacks "chimpanzees and apes" existed prior to it. Darwin's new theories just legitimized it. His theories were wrong and his racism came through in his The Descent of Man book. Darwin's theories were wrong just like Hitler's theories, the social Darwinists and Darwin's cousin Galton's eugenics was wrong.

Actually, I'm pointing out Darwin's theories were wrong by itself. The "survival of the fittest" mechanism doesn't drive natural selection. That we didn't descend from the apes. What I'm pointing out is Darwin was racist with his theories in The Descent of Man, ON TOP OF IT. Instead his theories were the drivers for negative eugenics and led to the Holocaust and black genocide.

If anyone is misrepresenting Darwin. It's you. Darwin Day shouldn't be celebrated in February just like we do not celebrate Columbus Day anymore. It's ironic that we celebrate Darwin Day in February or the same time as Black History month. Maybe it's time Black History reflects the racism of Darwin and how wrong humans descending from apes were.

 

[Darkstorn]

It sounds like you're finally agreeing that Darwin's racist theories influenced the Holocaust.

That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? He never implied anything close to that.

Actually, I'm pointing out Darwin's theories were wrong by itself.

No you're not. You're pointing out, very clearly, that YOU are wrong.

If anyone is misrepresenting Darwin. It's you.

No. It's still you.

 

[james bond]

"Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Darwinism Has Led To The Holocaust And Genocide Of Blacks"

If it makes you feel any better about yourself, sure, i'm brainwashed.

Ha ha. I'm mixing threads with my Robert Crumb one (The Book of Genesis Illustrated by Robert Crumb), but maybe Crumb will make a comic book about how Darwin's wrong theories ended up fueling the Holocaust and black genocide. I wish I had his talent, and then you will see how graphic demonic, sick and violent Darwin's graphic novel can get just by drawing history as it actually went down. No satire needed as it has the horror, the twisted scientific racism, the unspeakable crimes and horrendous murders. For pornography, we can have men having sex with chimpanzees and apes in order to produce the bipedalism.

 

[Darkstorn]

Ha ha. I'm mixing threads with my Robert Crumb one (The Book of Genesis Illustrated by Robert Crumb), but maybe Crumb will make a comic book about how Darwin's wrong theories ended up fueling the Holocaust and black genocide. I wish I had his talent, and then you will see how graphic demonic, sick and violent Darwin's graphic novel can get just by drawing history as it actually went down. No satire needed as it has the horror, the twisted scientific racism, the unspeakable crimes and horrendous murders. For pornography, we can have men having sex with chimpanzees and apes in order to produce the bipedalism.

And that somehow strengthens your point...? You called me brainwashed. And yet you post this drivel, with no shred of evidence. Just your personal, extremely dark and scary mind exposed here for all to see.

If you think that's how it really went down, then i think you're being delusional. Your accusations there are downright insanely pathetic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The facts show Jews and blacks were killed by people who used Darwinism to justify their prejudices.

Do you find that to be a valid argument against Darwin's theory?

Hitler used the Christianity to justify his genocides. Do you have any objections to Christianity on that basis?

Fossil evidence is scant. It's not something to use to conclude we descended from apes.

The fossil evidence for human from non-human evolution is robust and decisive, and it's only one category of the evidence. Human chromosome 2 is smoking gun evidence of our ape heritage.

Incidentally, we didn't just come from apes. We are apes. Great apes, specifically - members of subfamily Hominidae, the hominids. We are also members of the subtribe Hominini along with the chimps and bonobos.