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

[james bond]

I have a few fossils in a box in my closet.

Ha ha. You're a person who's smart and has good humor.

 

[james bond]

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

This is no joke. I won't joke about this. Creation science has history on their side. They have the better scientists and achievements. Not just my opinion, but fact. Today, institutions such as the Smithsonian are against the supernatural. However, the creationists have been coming back since 1932 after the Scopes trials.

 

[David M]

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.

Oh FFS, you really are trotting out some ridiculous propaganda now.

That part of the animatrix was an allusion to slavery in the US, something that started well before Darwin. So yes the robot is supposed to bring to mind black people being mistreated, owned as property and killed on a whim (something that was justified on the grounds of religion - a fact that you keep ignoring).

 

[james bond]

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.

The problem with, "God did it!" is the God of the Gaps argument from Christians. The original warning was to Christian scientists who relied upon God when they could not figure something out using science. I'm not sure who said the exact term, but Sir Francis Bacon warned the same thing when discussing the scientific method.

I'm not here to change anyone's mind, but stating the other side with the thinking on the Bible and creation science. I hope it helps other Christians, too, to clarify their thinking. Also, to provide some insight on worldview.

 

[David M]

How can you say Lucy is valid when its bones were found 3 miles apart and on different levels in the earth? .

Repeating the standard creationits lies I see. Which website did you copy that one from?

 

[David M]

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

Still no attempt to justify your claim that human common ancestry with other apes is racist.

Humans are apes, you are not God's specially created little snowflake. Deal with it.

 

[viole]

Darwin stuck to what he considered true, but we now know that Darwin was wrong about most of his theories except natural selection.

With "we", do you mean the creationists?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Confucian Mormon Buddhist]

Give me a break. Pogroms and genocide have been a "feature" of civilization for thousands of years.

 

[Revoltingest]

Give me a break. Pogroms and genocide have been a "feature" of civilization for thousands of years.

No, the trouble only started with Darwin.
Before him, mankind lived in a peaceful paradise.
Uh....except for the auto da fe....atheists caused that.
And the Crusades....atheists again.
And the....well, you get the picture.

 

[ChristineM]

What Darwin support of slavery? (The rest of your post is denial and name calling.



The Left has controlled the median and academia and, until recently, Congress and the White House. And since political correctness is the most insidious method for stifling freedom of speech, I can only wonder what you're talking about, except that you throw this stuff out there knowing better.

So you deny freedom of speech for those you don't like?

How very american of you. Oh wait a moment, what was that about the 1st amendment?

 

[Sapiens]

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

Yet another example of your belief that somehow you are entitled to your own private set of facts.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So you deny freedom of speech for those you don't like?

How very american of you. Oh wait a moment, what was that about the 1st amendment?

Political correctness denies free speech, by definition, and is therefore the exact opposite. This is rule #2 with Libs and the Democrat Party aka National Socialists/Fascists:

Rule #1 of course being, don't worry about making rational sense, and above all:

The American constitution insures freedom, including free speech, provided by capitalism. Socialism ALWAYs stifles freedom.

 

[ChristineM]

Political correctness denies free speech, by definition, and is therefore the exact opposite. This is rule #2 with Libs and the Democrat Party aka National Socialists/Fascists:

Rule #1 of course being, don't worry about making rational sense, and above all:

The American constitution insures freedom, including free speech, provided by capitalism. Socialism ALWAYs stifles freedom.

Fascism is a rightwing concept so you are wrong from the start.

Where does the 1st amendment mention capitalism? Oh right you just made it up you justify your intolerance and hatred

So your answer is be selective about who you allow the 1st amendment to apply to?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Fascism is a rightwing concept so you are wrong from the start.

"Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce,"

It's just another name for Nazism or national socialism, both of which control business and industry (and by extension, the people)--as opposed to communism which owns it. Academia has lead the way for socialism with the it's first target being the lixicon (same for anarchy and communism).

Where does the 1st amendment mention capitalism? Oh right you just made it up you justify your intolerance and hatred

I never said it did, nor did I say it was in the Constitution since the word hadn't been coined yet. But it enables freedom since it, unlike socialism, provides freedom, which socialism (a word that hadn't been coined yet either) smothers....every time. RE: the Pilgrims for the real reason they, and we, have plenty to eat.

So your answer is be selective about who you allow the 1st amendment to apply to?

'

Again, just the opposite. Though the Constitution had the original sins of slavery and lack of the franchise for women, those were corrected. (Imagine correcting them under Stalin, or Mao). Actually even a monarchy, oligarchy or outright dictatorship are also forms of socialism, just different degrees of bureaucracy. TJ actually got it wrong in the DoI, all men people are NOT created equal, but they are created with equal rights, huge difference. But the rule of law fails due to the root of all evil, which is not wealth, fame, sex, drugs or power, but when it's undermined by a legal/moral double standard which sets up an elite class/person with a different set of legal standards.

 

[Confucian Mormon Buddhist]

It's just another name for Nazism or national socialism, both of which control business and industry (and by extension, the people)--as opposed to communism which owns it. Academia has lead the way for socialism with the it's first target being the lixicon (same for anarchy and communism).



I never said it did, nor did I say it was in the Constitution since the word hadn't been coined yet. But it enables freedom since it, unlike socialism, provides freedom, which socialism (a word that hadn't been coined yet either) smothers....every time. RE: the Pilgrims for the real reason they, and we, have plenty to eat.

'

Again, just the opposite. Though the Constitution had the original sins of slavery and lack of the franchise for women, those were corrected. (Imagine correcting them under Stalin, or Mao). Actually even a monarchy, oligarchy or outright dictatorship are also forms of socialism, just different degrees of bureaucracy. TJ actually got it wrong in the DoI, all men people are NOT created equal, but they are created with equal rights, huge difference. But the rule of law fails due to the root of all evil, which is not wealth, fame, sex, drugs or power, but when it's undermined by a legal/moral double standard which sets up an elite class/person with a different set of legal standards.

One sentence in and you've already made a mistake. Fascism predates National Socialism, with the first movement to be called "fascism" being Mussolini's in Italy. Movements that were basically fascist, though, first started popping up in the 1880s in countries like France. German National Socialism was a latecomer.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

One sentence in and you've already made a mistake. Fascism predates National Socialism, with the first movement to be called "fascism" being Mussolini's in Italy. Movements that were basically fascist, though, first started popping up in the 1880s in countries like France. German National Socialism was a latecomer.

I didn't say anything about which came first, because it's irrelevant. They're essentially the same thing, a fact which even most liberal academics won't dispute.

"The March on Rome brought Fascism international attention. One early admirer of the Italian Fascists was Adolf Hitler, who, less than a month after the March, had begun to model himself and the Nazi Party upon Mussolini and the Fascists.[144]"--Wikipedia article on Fascism w/ ref.

 

[ChristineM]

It's just another name for Nazism or national socialism, both of which control business and industry (and by extension, the people)--as opposed to communism which owns it. Academia has lead the way for socialism with the it's first target being the lixicon (same for anarchy and communism).



I never said it did, nor did I say it was in the Constitution since the word hadn't been coined yet. But it enables freedom since it, unlike socialism, provides freedom, which socialism (a word that hadn't been coined yet either) smothers....every time. RE: the Pilgrims for the real reason they, and we, have plenty to eat.

'

Again, just the opposite. Though the Constitution had the original sins of slavery and lack of the franchise for women, those were corrected. (Imagine correcting them under Stalin, or Mao). Actually even a monarchy, oligarchy or outright dictatorship are also forms of socialism, just different degrees of bureaucracy. TJ actually got it wrong in the DoI, all men people are NOT created equal, but they are created with equal rights, huge difference. But the rule of law fails due to the root of all evil, which is not wealth, fame, sex, drugs or power, but when it's undermined by a legal/moral double standard which sets up an elite class/person with a different set of legal standards.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

So basically you just go back to the tried and true lib strategy of name calling when ya got nuthin' else. That with intimidation and voila, Goebbels.

 

[Darkstorn]

So basically you just go back to the tried and true lib strategy of name calling when ya got nuthin' else. That with intimidation and voila, Goebbels.

"Lib strategy."

Your rhetoric is getting tiresome. This isn't 'Murica.

Also, posting an internet picture doesn't really qualify to me as "name calling" or intimidation. At least any more than you making up a political agenda and then assigning people of your choosing to the side opposite of yours by default.

Libs everywhere..!

/E: Your posts do make you seem like a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Just sayin'.

 

[Confucian Mormon Buddhist]

I didn't say anything about which came first, because it's irrelevant. They're essentially the same thing, a fact which even most liberal academics won't dispute.

"The March on Rome brought Fascism international attention. One early admirer of the Italian Fascists was Adolf Hitler, who, less than a month after the March, had begun to model himself and the Nazi Party upon Mussolini and the Fascists.[144]"--Wikipedia article on Fascism w/ ref.

National Socialism is a TYPE of Fascism, but Fascism is not National Socialism. There's a lot of subtle but important differences.

How about Brazilian Integralism? That was Fascism that was (shock!) not racist! Mussolini's Fascism wasn't particularly anti-Semitic, though he would occasionally burn some Jews to keep Hitler off his back. He also was far more socialist in his rhetoric (ironically).

Franco? His Falangists were basically Mussolini-style Fascists to my understanding, but mi Caudillo himself was more of an old-school monarchist (something Hitler hated) with staunch support for the Catholic Church.

So yeah, you've got very different types of Fascism, and National Socialism is just one. The worst one.