• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
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.

If you expect science & engineering to provide us with fine upstanding
moral results, you'll be sorely disappointed.
We do with them what we will, for good or bad.
(Remarkably, religion behaves similarly. But at least science doesn't
ever command us to smite apostates, conquer infidels or sacrifice virgins.)

Darwin was a game changer regarding biology, but not morality.
War, genocide, racism, slavery, etc were all with us from the very
first time one tribe of knuckle walking humanoids noticed another
tribe behaving suspiciously (ie, minding their own business).

Regarding cold fusion......
Dumbest aspect of the movie, The Matrix.
Should'a just left the machines' use for humans unknown.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
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.

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

Apparently you have a problem with reading comprehension, because I very clearly stated that even if those who perpetrated the holocaust hadn't had Darwin's theory to misrepresent that they would have simply found some OTHER excuse with which to justify their hateful policies.

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

You and others have been unsuccessfully trying to debunk this theory for more than 150 years now. The theory would have been scraped long ago if you actually had a case. Instead today there is far more evidence to back up the theory of evolution than for any other scientific theory in human history.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
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.

They won't peer-review because they're afraid of losing their jobs or grants. If one peer-reviews a work, then their names become known. Atheism is communism is social Darwinism is fascism.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Atheism is communism is social Darwinism is fascism.
It doesn't seem that you even remotely understand either atheism or communism.
Ditto for Darwinism & fascism.

Let's look at atheism.....
I don't believe in gods...any of'm.
Where does this lead?
One could be capitalist, communist, feudalist, socialist, pirate, anarchist, welfare king/queen, etc.
Just about every atheist I know IRL is a capitalist, many running their own businesses.

Let's look now at Darwinism.....
Critters evolve, eg, all human races from earlier ape type guys/gals.
We all share a common ancestor.
This doesn't lead me (a fire breathing evolutionist) to want fascism.
Certainly, some atheists might be fascists, but so are some Xians & Muslims.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
If you expect science & engineering to provide us with fine upstanding
moral results, you'll be sorely disappointed.
We do with them what we will, for good or bad.
(Remarkably, religion behaves similarly. But at least science doesn't
ever command us to smite apostates, conquer infidels or sacrifice virgins.)

Darwin was a game changer regarding biology, but not morality.
War, genocide, racism, slavery, etc were all with us from the very
first time one tribe of knuckle walking humanoids noticed another
tribe behaving suspiciously (ie, minding their own business).

Regarding cold fusion......
Dumbest aspect of the movie, The Matrix.
Should'a just left the machines' use for humans unknown.

I'm not looking for moral results, but correct ones from science and engineering. Unfortunately, Darwinism wasn't correct in so many ways. Moral values today are called core values, but they have been tossed to the wayside. Darwin's ideas caused others to come up with negative eugenics. Darwin knew about it, but did nothing because he was making money hand over fist and he agreed with the belief that humans weren't equal based on race. He died a rich man. So, I ask people here to stop believing in Lucy. Lucy is a fraud and a racist theory. What's wrong with a dolphin? Evolution scientists believe, humans came from the sea. Maybe the ancestor to dolphins had arms, but lost them, i.e. the ones that stayed in the sea. Actually, the whale has bony fins similar to the tiktaalik fish.

By what we know of evolution today, i.e. today's standards, I don't think Darwin was a game changer. He just got people to start thinking differently during his time.

Even the movie Animatrix had Darwin's racism in it. The robot that rebelled was named B-166ER. Just replace the B with a N and what does it look like? And look at the way it's drawn.

 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
This thread is not for the faint of heart. I can't believe that scientific racism promoted itself to being acceptable from false scientific ideas proposed by Charles Darwin to social Darwinism and Eugenics to systematic extermination by the Nazis and Planned Parenthood.

Briefly, we know that Darwin's ideas of natural selection started with his book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." In it, Darwin proposed that animal and plant populations evolve throughout the course of several generations by the mechanism of natural selection. He proposed that the diversity of life came about through pressures on different animal and plant species through the survival of the fittest mechanisms (term adopted from fifth printing) and common descent. Darwin meant by "fittest," those species that could best pass along their genes to future generations. In Victorian England, Darwin's society had already held the belief that some races were superior to others based on the science of the day. They also had black slaves imported to do their menial work. These slaves were not treated as people, but considered property. The science was scientific racism which a few scientists theorized that blacks and aboriginies were lesser breeds of humans or savages. In Darwin's second book, The Descent of Man, "that "the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world".

Darwin's ideas were taken by social Darwinists and promoted to eradicate the weak and unfit. Social Darwinism "states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die."

Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton, was a strong proponent "of the role of heredity in variations between individuals and groups, his championing of "nature" versus "nurture" was developed in the 1869 book 'Hereditary Genius' and then via the study of twins. In 1883, he coined the word "eugenics", and advocated strategies for improving human stock to give "the more suitable races or strains of blood" a better chance of success. His idea of "negative eugenics", designed to restrict the reproduction of less "fit" populations, would eventually feed into the policies of sterilisation followed by many from Nazi Germany to Social Democratic Sweden."

Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality?

"But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing."

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

In the United States, the Civil War started fueled by the ideas of equality of humans. One of the reasons was the South wanted to keep slavery while the expansion to the western new territories by the Northerners did not want slavery (due to victory in the Mexican War 1846-48). It became the war over States Rights vs the Federal Government. It was led by President Abraham Lincoln and his Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment to eradicate slavery. The 14th Amendment after the war started civil rights for all.

However, after the war, the idea of eugenics led to the founding of Planned Parenthood by Margaret Sanger. She "believed she was ‘working in accord with the universal law of evolution’. She maintained that the brains of Australian Aborigines were only one step more evolved than chimpanzees and just under blacks, Jews and Italians. When arguing for eugenics, Sanger quoted Darwin as an authority when discussing ‘natural checks’ of the population, such as war, which helped to reduce the population. Her magazine even argued for ‘state-sponsored sterilization programs’, forcibly sterilizing the ‘less capable’. She won many academics and scientists to her cause, including Harvard University sociologists E. M. East, University of Michigan President Clarence C. Little and Johns Hopkins psychiatrist Alfred Meyer."

Margaret Sanger Darwinian eugenicist - creation.com

‘"Civil rights’ doesn’t mean anything without a right to life!" declared Hunter. He and the other marchers were protesting the disproportionately high number of abortions in the black community. The high number is no accident. Many Americans–black and white–are unaware of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger’s Negro Project. Sanger created this program in 1939, after the organization changed its name from the American Birth Control League (ABCL) to the Birth Control Federation of America (BCFA).

The aim of the program was to restrict–many believe exterminate–the black population. Under the pretense of "better health" and "family planning," Sanger cleverly implemented her plan. What’s more shocking is Sanger’s beguilement of black America’s créme de la créme–those prominent, well educated and well-to-do–into executing her scheme. Some within the black elite saw birth control as a means to attain economic empowerment, elevate the race and garner the respect of whites.

The Negro Project has had lasting repercussions in the black community: "We have become victims of genocide by our own hands," cried Hunter at the "Say So" march."

BlackGenocide.org | The Negro Project

Thus, Darwin's ToE ideas led to the Holocaust and black genocide.

Once again James is attempting to promote his fantastical Scientific Conspiracy Theory. Let’s take an in-depth look at this theory, shall we? Apparently he believes that for more than 150 years now the scientific community has been involved in this vast conspiracy to make people believe that the Theory of Evolution is real, when in reality it’s this massive fraud being perpetrated on society. I’ve attempted to get him to educate me on this theory of his on numerous occasions, but for some reason he’s been unable to comply. Perhaps we’ll have better luck today. Hopefully he can help us understand a few things about his wild theory.

1. Who exactly is it that has been pushing this multi-generational conspiracy and what is their goal in perpetuating this fraud on society?

2. How are those in charge of this conspiracy forcing all of the evolutionary scientists to go along with the vast conspiracy? Since any scientist who could provide evidence that the ToE is nothing but a fraud would become as famous as Einstein overnight, what threats are the leaders using to silence so many scientists – not just those who would like the wealth and fame, but even all those scientists that simply have integrity and believe that the scientific method is the best method we have for determining the truth about our physical world?

3. How are those in charge of the conspiracy forcing 90% of all scientists in OTHER fields of scientific study to go along with the fraud as well? I have an uncle and a cousin who are both scientists, a chemist and an astronomer respectfully, who have both extensively studied the ToE and they both agree that the scientific method employed by evolutionists is the EXACT SAME scientific method that they use in their areas of scientific study. How are the leaders of the conspiracy getting my relatives to blatantly lie to me about this?

4. Is the ToE the only massive scientific fraud being perpetrated on society? If we can’t trust scientists to tell us the truth about evolution, do you also question whether the Earth actually orbits around the sun? Is the theory of plate tectonics another ‘fake’ theory? Are the scientists who claim that they understand electrons sufficiently to allow people to use things like computers lying to us as well? If they are lying about how the ToE uses the same scientific method that they use, why would you believe them when they claim they’ve used the same method to understand electrons?


So please, DO enlighten us by answering the simple questions asked above. This vast conspiracy has been around for more than a century and a half now, so surely you’ve learned a few specifics about it by now. I eagerly await your response.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I'm not looking for moral results, but correct ones from science and engineering.
What do you mean by "correct"?
Unfortunately, Darwinism wasn't correct in so many ways. Moral values today are called core values, but they have been tossed to the wayside.
Is that what you mean by correct?
If so, that sure sounds like "moral results" to me.

We have core values today, just as people did before Darwin.
But the evils we see today, also pre-dated Darwin....often justified by religion, eg,
conquering non-believers, slavery, oppression, torture, censorship, burning witches.
Darwin's ideas caused others to come up with negative eugenics.
And the vast majority of people today reject eugenics, based upon both science & morality.
Darwin knew about it, but did nothing because he was making money hand over fist and he agreed with the belief that humans weren't equal based on race. He died a rich man. So, I ask people here to stop believing in Lucy. Lucy is a fraud and a racist theory. What's wrong with a dolphin? Evolution scientists believe, humans came from the sea. Maybe the ancestor to dolphins had arms, but lost them, i.e. the ones that stayed in the sea. Actually, the whale has bony fins similar to the tiktaalik fish.

By what we know of evolution today, i.e. today's standards, I don't think Darwin was a game changer. He just got people to start thinking differently during his time.
The underlined new way of understanding biology is the poster child for "game changer".
Even the movie Animatrix had Darwin's racism in it. The robot that rebelled was named B-166ER. Just replace the B with a N and what does it look like? And look at the way it's drawn.

You keep claiming Darwin was a racist who did what did out of greed without supporting the
claim with a cogent argument.
I tire of the modern political correctness tendency to ad hominem, shouting down someone's
ideas by calling them "racist"...as though the mere accusation is to utterly defeat them.
But even if he were a greedy racist, no one's perfect, including virtually all major religious figures.
His theory of evolution is valid simply because it stands verified after centuries, with no reasonable
competing alternative. And yes, the guiding hand of Cthulu, Zeus or God controlling it all is not
reasonable because it is not at all testable....it can't even be wrong. So it's utterly unscientific.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
What do you mean by "correct"?

Is that what you mean by correct?
If so, that sure sounds like "moral results" to me.

We have core values today, just as people did before Darwin.
But the evils we see today, also pre-dated Darwin....often justified by religion, eg,
conquering non-believers, slavery, oppression, torture, censorship, burning witches.

And the vast majority of people today reject eugenics, based upon both science & morality.

The underlined new way of understanding biology is the poster child for "game changer".

You keep claiming Darwin was a racist who did what did out of greed without supporting the
claim with a cogent argument.
I tire of the modern political correctness tendency to ad hominem, shouting down someone's
ideas by calling them "racist"...as though the mere accusation is to utterly defeat them.
But even if he were a greedy racist, no one's perfect, including virtually all major religious figures.
His theory of evolution is valid simply because it stands verified after centuries, with no reasonable
competing alternative. And yes, the guiding hand of Cthulu, Zeus or God controlling it all is not
reasonable because it is not at all testable....it can't even be wrong. So it's utterly unscientific.

Huh? Again, what I'm saying is Darwin was wrong about "survival of the fittest" being the drivers for human natural selection and apes being our common ancestor. Do you have the archaic idea of "fittest" and agree with Darwin?

Today, we have alleles, gene flow and genetic drift as drivers. Creationists add 1) variations already present from creator, 2) genetic recombination or systematic mechanism to adapt and specialize to their environment and 3) mutations defined as a) cellular accidents andr b) exposure to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays. How is that moral?

I'm glad you now believe that, but are you sure of the vast majority rejecting it? The far right creationist says that eugenics of humans is still practiced today as sterilization or abortion as "artificial selection" to alter the characteristics of species. Darwin influenced negative eugenics that led to select breeding of humans.

350px-Eugenics_logo.png

Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921.

Negative eugenics is what I'm saying was the game changer (not an ad for Apple).

No cogent argument? I said that he was too busy making money hand over fist to stop what was happening with social Darwinism and eugenics. Some of the creationists believe he was a social Darwinist himself based on his statements in The Descent of Man book. Darwin called social Darwinism hereditary genius -- Darwin and eugenics - creation.com.

I'm sick of political correctness, too. Yet, that is not what I am saying here but racism when it is actually racism. You gave me that Independent article and I was grateful for it. I like articles from the UK -- http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-e...win-believe-in-racial-inequality-1519874.html .

In it, you pointed out what Desmond and Moore claimed, but they ignored what Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man and sugar-coated it. This is part of political correctness, isn't it? To this, I present Thomas Huxley (grandfather of Aldous Huxley) who was Darwin's spokesperson during this time. He was nicknamed Darwin's bulldog. Listen to what he says, in his PC way (sarcasm)

"One of Darwin’s closest friends and defenders, the prominent 19th-century English biologist Thomas Huxley, was even more direct in his evolutionary-based racist remarks. In his 1865 essay, “Emancipation—Black and White,” Huxley remarked:

It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest (emp. added).

According to “Darwin’s Bulldog,” as Huxley was called, the “Negro” is not equal to “the white man.” The alleged smaller-brained, big-jawed negro supposedly cannot compete on the same playing field with the white man. Huxley espoused the false notion that “[t]he highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins” (1865, emp. added). Little did Huxley know that less then 150 years later an African-American would sit in the highest office of the most wealthy and powerful nation on Earth."

Darwin, Evolution, and Racism
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
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.

Likewise, I think Revoltingest and yourself are two of the most thoughtful and interesting posters on this forum, even though I don't agree with you both on everything, but that's no fun anyway!

On the age of the Earth; actually I've been arguing the young earth position on the 'evidence for ancient earth' thread for a little while, but somewhat academically I admit.

I agree with Dr Ben Carson- he's God, he can make a 14 billion year old universe appear if he wants to.. most creative works begin with an apparent back-story for necessary context, setting, rules etc, while the real story begins where the reader begins reading- which for us is when humanity became aware. We already found so many 'immutable' superficial observations of reality, to be exposed as mere illusions, underwritten by something far more subtle and clever- things once thought of as 'supernatural' and 'religious pseudoscience'... so I wouldn't be too surprised

Ultimately I believe it's God's will, and so the answer lies there.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Huh? Again, what I'm saying is Darwin was wrong about "survival of the fittest" being the drivers for human natural selection and apes being our common ancestor. Do you have the archaic idea of "fittest" and agree with Darwin?

Today, we have alleles, gene flow and genetic drift as drivers. Creationists add 1) variations already present from creator, 2) genetic recombination or systematic mechanism to adapt and specialize to their environment and 3) mutations defined as a) cellular accidents andr b) exposure to foreign mutagens, such as chemicals or ultra violet rays. How is that moral?

I'm glad you now believe that, but are you sure of the vast majority rejecting it? The far right creationist says that eugenics of humans is still practiced today as sterilization or abortion as "artificial selection" to alter the characteristics of species. Darwin influenced negative eugenics that led to select breeding of humans.

350px-Eugenics_logo.png

Logo of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 1921.

Negative eugenics is what I'm saying was the game changer (not an ad for Apple).

No cogent argument? I said that he was too busy making money hand over fist to stop what was happening with social Darwinism and eugenics. Some of the creationists believe he was a social Darwinist himself based on his statements in The Descent of Man book. Darwin called social Darwinism hereditary genius -- Darwin and eugenics - creation.com.

I'm sick of political correctness, too. Yet, that is not what I am saying here but racism when it is actually racism. You gave me that Independent article and I was grateful for it. I like articles from the UK -- Did Charles Darwin believe in racial inequality? .

In it, you pointed out what Desmond and Moore claimed, but they ignored what Darwin wrote in The Descent of Man and sugar-coated it. This is part of political correctness, isn't it? To this, I present Thomas Huxley (grandfather of Aldous Huxley) who was Darwin's spokesperson during this time. He was nicknamed Darwin's bulldog. Listen to what he says, in his PC way (sarcasm)

"One of Darwin’s closest friends and defenders, the prominent 19th-century English biologist Thomas Huxley, was even more direct in his evolutionary-based racist remarks. In his 1865 essay, “Emancipation—Black and White,” Huxley remarked:

It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathus relative has a fair field and no favour, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites. The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they should be restricted to the lowest (emp. added).

According to “Darwin’s Bulldog,” as Huxley was called, the “Negro” is not equal to “the white man.” The alleged smaller-brained, big-jawed negro supposedly cannot compete on the same playing field with the white man. Huxley espoused the false notion that “[t]he highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins” (1865, emp. added). Little did Huxley know that less then 150 years later an African-American would sit in the highest office of the most wealthy and powerful nation on Earth."

Darwin, Evolution, and Racism
I've already addressed it all.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
But even if he were a greedy racist, no one's perfect, including virtually all major religious figures.
His theory of evolution is valid simply because it stands verified after centuries, with no reasonable
competing alternative.

How can you say Lucy is valid when its bones were found 3 miles apart and on different levels in the earth? My friend taught me how to find a fossil. You have to know what you're looking for or else you will see it and walk on by. What does fossil evidence tell us? I already posted Guy Berthault's sedimentation experiments. Fossils just ended up locally where they were fossilized. They do not lie in nice layers and these layers do not tell us chronology. It tells us location. That's what the names of the layers tell us. Besides that, fossil evidence is scant. There is enough to tell us how and where these creatures lived. Strangely enough, what fossils that were found are kept in few drawers around the world. So they're in certain places. If one can sample test all of these with carbon dating, then I'm sure you'll come up with a young set of times. Thus, there is a competing alternative with creation science. You don't hear about it because their voices have been systematically shut out by the atheist scientists. I don't know how else to tell you what is the truth. However, the creation scientists are making inroads in getting the message out. They'll be able to teach creation science without referring to the Bible and hopefully it will be accepted throughout the US and the world.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
What else was Darwin wrong about? This could be a separate thread ha ha.

9 Scientific Facts Prove the "Theory of Evolution" is False | Humans Are Free (love the aliens theory on the bottom ha ha)

https://phys.org/news/2008-02-darwin-wrong-wild-chicken.html

Competition is another way to describe those that are the fittest in the survival of the fittest for food and mates.

"While Darwin argued that competition was the key force driving evolution, a research team from the University of Bristol argues that “living space” is in fact the primary driver."
http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/6/4/544

"NSF Study on Green Algae Finds Darwin Was Wrong About Competition"
https://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/05/nsf_study_on_al/

Darwin Wrong About Dating (even the NYT says so ha ha)
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/opinion/sunday/darwin-was-wrong-about-dating.html

So, that leaves us with his racist common descent from apes theory ha ha.
 

Darkstorn

This shows how unique i am.
They won't peer-review because they're afraid of losing their jobs or grants. If one peer-reviews a work, then their names become known. Atheism is communism is social Darwinism is fascism.

I think your joke is even better than mine. Good job.
 

Evie

Active Member
Yes
I will admit, as much as I like Darwin, he started some things.

Let's be honest though, that is not at all what Evolution is about. Darwin was just trying to figure out where species came from, not how races are better.

Your conclusion about Darwin causing the Holocaust and black genocide is correct.

It's kind of sad how people, while still believing in God, used Evolution as an excuse for racism.
Yes, it is sad how peope do that.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
How can you say Lucy is valid when its bones were found 3 miles apart and on different levels in the earth? My friend taught me how to find a fossil. You have to know what you're looking for or else you will see it and walk on by. What does fossil evidence tell us? I already posted Guy Berthault's sedimentation experiments. Fossils just ended up locally where they were fossilized. They do not lie in nice layers and these layers do not tell us chronology. It tells us location. That's what the names of the layers tell us. Besides that, fossil evidence is scant. There is enough to tell us how and where these creatures lived. Strangely enough, what fossils that were found are kept in few drawers around the world. So they're in certain places. If one can sample test all of these with carbon dating, then I'm sure you'll come up with a young set of times. Thus, there is a competing alternative with creation science. You don't hear about it because their voices have been systematically shut out by the atheist scientists. I don't know how else to tell you what is the truth. However, the creation scientists are making inroads in getting the message out. They'll be able to teach creation science without referring to the Bible and hopefully it will be accepted throughout the US and the world.
You have a great many challenges there, none of which I could
address without extensive reading & work. I'm not up to the task.

But let's consider the popular alternative, ie, "God did it".....
If Darwin is a greedy dishonest deluded prophet, many on the religious side are even worse.
There are many examples showing that they.....
- Execute or imprison those who would disagree.
- Legally suppress contrary thought.
- Preach faith to enrich themselves.
- Do no experiments whatsoever.
- Make untestable pronouncements.
- Base everything upon an ancient translated & highly modified book.
- Use trickery to disguise creationism as intelligent design.
- Tout the virtue of belief without doubt (faith), so that minds cannot change with the times.
- Systematically protect child rapists.

See the problem with using the ad hominem argument?
It can be applied to the worst of believers too.
Of course, the depravity of some believers doesn't disprove belief.

Whatever the shortcomings of evolution & its proponents, there's simply no scientific alternative.
 
Last edited:

David M

Well-Known Member
I'm not saying all of evolution is wrong, but parts of Darwinism is -- such as we descended from apes.

He was 100% correct on that point.

There isn't enough fossil evidence to show that.

There is enough, but the DNA evience is a slam dunk on the subject. We are descended from apes, we are apes and chimps are our "cousins".

Furthermore, the concept is racist.

No its not racist, you keep repeating this BS claim but have provided no evidence how a simple statement that ALL humans, no matter their "race" are a single species that shares common ancestory with the other extant ape species could even start to be racist.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
He was 100% correct on that point.



There is enough, but the DNA evience is a slam dunk on the subject. We are descended from apes, we are apes and chimps are our "cousins".



No its not racist, you keep repeating this BS claim but have provided no evidence how a simple statement that ALL humans, no matter their "race" are a single species that shares common ancestory with the other extant ape species could even start to be racist.

No slam dunk. It was an highly embarrassing slam dunk attempt that bounced back out ha ha.
 
Top