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

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I'm not saying all of evolution is wrong, but parts of Darwinism is -- such as we descended from apes. There isn't enough fossil evidence to show that. Furthermore, the concept is racist. We need to understand that there was scientific racism before Darwin came along and Darwin's ideas fueled that even more to the point of genocide. We shouldn't put Darwin on a pedestal.

Darwin made a great contribution to human understanding. He deserves to be honored for that.

Darwin's ideas did not fuel genocide. Nowhere does Darwin recommend genocide, and there is nothing about biological evolution that suggests committing genocide.

I think that we all know what this is all about - promoting creationism, which is something that can't be done directly because there is nothing that you can say about it other than to claim that it happened. There is nothing that one can say to argue on behalf of creationism, so the only possible strategy is to attack the alternative.

So, the creationist expends all of his energy attacking the scientific theory and none on the merits of his own hypothesis.

And the opposite is true for evolution - it is supported by mountains of evidence, and scientists don't need to attack creationism or even think about it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Correct. An insult or personal attack doesn't become an ad hominem fallacy until it is used as part of an argument.

Are you familiar with the term "bulverism," which refers to assuming an argument is wrong and therefore offering no rebuttal to it - just deflecting to a reference to the arguer's mental state to account for his assumed error? It needn't include an insult or slur, but it might:

A: "You are delusional."
B: "Typical leftist response, attempt intimidation through the ad hominem logical fallacy--name calling to you."

"A" has made a claim, not an argument, but it is not addressed at all, just dismissed out of hand, with an associated psychological assessment of the claimant, as well as firing two insults back: "B" 's disdain for "A" 's education and for liberals.

Bulverism without the personal attack might look like, "You're just saying that because you hope to escape accountability" following an otherwise unrebutted argument for unbelief.

Bulverism

Related fallacies are arguments from motive ("you're just saying that because you want don't want the burning of fossil fuels to be limited"), argument from bias ("You're just saying that because you're American"), and the ad iram fallacy, where the argument is answered only by accusing the arguer of being angry ("Why do you hate Christians?").

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

[Darwin] said we descended from apes which is racist. The first ape-humans were black. Eventually, it led to the highest beings as white. Black genocide is still going on today with Planned Parenthood as black women get the highest number of abortions.

Here I'll draw Darwin's racist picture for you.

Early man depicted in 2nd and 3rd pics were blacks and aborigines. Eventually, leading to a white man.

I don't see racism there. I see an attempt at a scientific description of history, albeit a relatively poor one. The fourth and fifth images both look like modern man, and the third a neanderthal, meaning that about 6-8 million years of evolution are represented getting from 1 to 3, and just a few tens of thousands more getting from 3 to 5.

Are you offended by the thought that we descended from ancestral apes? A lot of creationists seem to be: "I ain't related to no monkey!"

 

[james bond]

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

Ciao

- viole

Darwin stuck to what he considered true, but we now know that Darwin was wrong about most of his theories except natural selection. Even with that, he didn't get the drivers right. His wrong and racist theories on the drivers led to genocide.

 

[columbus]

We shouldn't put Darwin on a pedestal.

People like you are the only ones who do. Only creationists refer to science that Darwin didn't live to see as Darwinism.
Tom

 

[columbus]

Darwin stuck to what he considered true, but we now know that Darwin was wrong about most of his theories except natural selection. Even with that, he didn't get the drivers right. His wrong and racist theories on the drivers led to genocide.

No, it was Scripture that led to genocide. People misinterpreting Darwin's ideas lent an aura of objective science to the effort, but genocidal tendencies were huge in Christendom long before Darwin.
Tom

 

[james bond]

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.

No shred of evidence? I just gave you one. The Russians experimented with creating a hybrid of a man and ape. They were successful, but the creatures couldn't live past one generation. Ape-man wasn't meant to be, but there are people who still believe in Lucy as the common ancestor which Darwin racist-ly theorized in The Descent of Man. Creation scientists believe there are apes and there are humans. They're separate species. No common ancestor. That follows what we have today. Apes act like apes. Humans act like humans. These post-flood humans were not as advanced as their ancient ancestors.

 

[james bond]

People like you are the only ones who do. Only creationists refer to science that Darwin didn't live to see as Darwinism.
Tom

Perhaps you'd like to explain Darwinism then. I was explaining social Darwinism from "survival of the fittest."

 

[columbus]

Perhaps you'd like to explain Darwinism then. I was explaining social Darwinism from "survival of the fittest."

There is no Darwinism except for in the minds of creationists. Darwin had ideas, some better supported than others. But he was not a prophet. Nobody believes anything just because Darwin said it.
There is no such thing as Darwinism.
Tom

 

[Darkstorn]

Creation scientists

I give you 8/10 for this one.

 

[james bond]

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



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



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



exactly!



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!



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!



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 think both you and Revoltingest are the smarter ones even though you both think the earth is billions of years old. You both been sucked into the believing in radiometric dating which produces gross errors unless it fits evolutionary timelines. Carbon dating is more accurate, but we can't use it if things are older than 150,000 years. So the creation scientists have come up with other ways to show a young earth. So why won't the other scientists peer-review it? Because it will destroy ToE.

 

[james bond]

There is no Darwinism except for in the minds of creationists. Darwin had ideas, some better supported than others. But he was not a prophet. Nobody believes anything just because Darwin said it.
There is no such thing as Darwinism.
Tom

Well then, I can only say you're wrong. Academia accepts it. Do I have to prove that you are wrong in front of all these people?

 

[columbus]

Well then, I can only say you're wrong. Academia accepts it. Do I have to prove that you are wrong in front of all these people?

Sure.
Go for it. I have no problem changing my mind with new evidence.
Tom

 

[james bond]

I don't see racism there. I see an attempt at a scientific description of history, albeit a relatively poor one. The fourth and fifth images both look like modern man, and the third a neanderthal, meaning that about 6-8 million years of evolution are represented getting from 1 to 3, and just a few tens of thousands more getting from 3 to 5.

Are you offended by the thought that we descended from ancestral apes? A lot of creationists seem to be: "I ain't related to no monkey!"

Ah, my other internet atheist friend. If Darwin wasn't racist, his picture would look more like as follows:

Of course, Darwin never thought that.

 

[james bond]

Sure.
Go for it. I have no problem changing my mind with new evidence.
Tom

Knock yerself out.

Darwinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Darkstorn]

So the creation scientists have come up with other ways to show a young earth. So why won't the other scientists peer-review it? Because it will destroy ToE.

I'm guessing such stuff is presented to "regular" scientists all the time. Instead of peer-reviewing it, they peer-laugh at it and throw it in the trash bin.

Just a guess.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm still amazed this thread isn't in the joke section.
Russian half-man half-apes......science causing genocide
& racism....Earth & man created just a few millennia ago.....
It's time for my favorite documentary.

 

[columbus]

Knock yerself out.

Darwinism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Well that is interesting.
What I notice is that Darwinism is being treated as a philosophy, not science. You do realize that there's a difference, right? Little to nothing to do modern biological science?
Tom

 

[james bond]

Another incident caused by Darwin's wrong theories and influence happened in 2009.

"The man charged in the murderous assault on the Washington D.C. Holocaust Museum, hated both Jews and Christians. James von Brunn stated on his website: "The Big Lie technique, employed by Paul to create the CHRISTIAN RELIGION, also was used to create the HOLOCAUST RELIGION ... CHRISTIANITY AND THE HOLOCAUST are HOAXES" ("Darwin-loving museum shooter hates Bible, Christians," WorldNetDaily, June 11, 2009).

This anti-Christian theme is absent from mainstream media coverage but Von Brunn's lumping-together of Jews and Christians as one target is chillingly similar to Nazi views during the Third Reich.

In "The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party," authors Scott Lively (a Christian pastor) and Kevin Abrams (an Orthodox Jew) devote a chapter to Nazi hatred of Christians, and cite the widely circulated Nazi-era booklet "Defilement of Race" by Dietrich Hutton."

Holocaust Museum Shooting a Wake-Up for Christians Too - Christian Newswire

And not one mention of the perp hating Christians by CNN, the fake news outlet. White supremicists only hate and kill Jews and blacks, so they can be labeled right-wing. The Nazis called themselves National Socialists. They're part of the Democratic Party of atheists, socialists, communists and fascist-minded people.

Guard killed during shooting at Holocaust museum - CNN.com

 

[james bond]

I'm still amazed this thread isn't in the joke section.
Russian half-man half-apes......science causing genocide
& racism....Earth & man created just a few millennia ago.....
It's time for my favorite documentary.

That's why I wish I had R. Crumb's talent. I could tell it like it is with Darwin's racism in The Descent of Man and how it influenced people to commit genocide..

You're a nice person who believes that science isn't vicious or cutthroat. It very much is when millions are on the line for you to validate your theories. People work all their lives for something like string theory and end up with nothing. Another example is cold fusion -- Cold Fusion Is Hot Again .

Atheist scientists believe cold fusion is a fraud and fake science (pseudoscience). However, creation scientists are keeping an open mind. They state, "Potassium Carbonate can also be formed as an electrolyte which helps in cold fusion experiment." It's much safer way to test.

Anyway, there are those that are taking chances for an explosion in order to demonstrate that it is possible. It may not be called cold fusion anymore, but the findings have progessed.

Much more effective than the atheist scientists who believed in string theory and the like.