Harsh Truth: If Intelligent Design is Untestable . . .

[ImmortalFlame]

There are dozens or maybe a few hundred articles in google scholar for piltdown for the years 30 - 50.

And how many of them assert it is absolutely not a fake, and why would you think a few dozen (or even a few hundred) articles over the span of TWENTY YEARS mean the majority of academics accepted it?

What piltdown shows is that evolution scientists are habitual liars.

Completely absurd. What Piltdown Man shows is that Charles Dawson was a liar, not evolution scientists. One fraud, which was made by an amateur archaeologist and fraudster, was never universally accepted, and discovered to BE a fraud BY evolution scientists, does not mean evolution scientists are habitual liars. You may as well say all of the fake pieces of the cross circulating around the world show that all religious people are habitual liars. It's a ridiculous accusation.

Can't trust them. Psychological research by Baumeister and others shows that people disbelieving free will are prone to portraying a false view of events. And with evolution theory countering creation theory, which is based on freedom,

Garbage. Creation "theory" is based on nothing more than trying to dispute evolution and force religion into science.

you have the most staunch deniers of free will within science.

Funny, considering I've never heard an evolutionary scientist deny the existence of free will.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Oh, so how do you supposedly "know" me so well? Well, you have just shown all here just how dishonest you truly are. FYI, I have a graduate degree in anthropology and taught it for 30 years, so you can stick that in your pipe and smoke it along with whatever else you're smoking. As with your approach to the ToE, you simply jump to unwarranted conclusions based on your inability to deal with reality.

It's of course the people who fail to acknowledge the obvious fact that freedom is real and relevant who are deeply dishonest.

Nobelprize winning evolutionist Konrad Lorenz said he was not a nazi. Except then his application for membership of the nazi party turned up. Aside from popularizing nazi ideology, working as a psychologist for the nazi's he helped draw up the criteria for racially valuable children in an occupied area. When they were deemed valuable, they were taken out of the family, and put in a German family. That's a nobel prize winner, the top of evolutionary science.

And certainly this dishonesty of Lorenz is directly linked to that his theories failed to acknowledge free will of people. And this sort of denial of freedom is pretty much foundational in the fight of evolutionists against creationism.

 

[JM2C]

Your approach is both childish and pathetic. Using your own approach, Christianity would have to be viewed as a hoax.

What do you call a Jew supporting evolution? Would that make Judaism a Hoax?

 

[JM2C]

It is intellectually dishonest to take specific examples of what some people have done and then use these examples to discredit an entire theory. It is so easy to use the same approach to make Christianity itself look as crooked as the day is long.

Another aspect of your approach, namely taking the misuse of science in order to somehow "prove" the ToE wrong, is equally disturbing. For you to attach approaches and events to that which the ToE either had nothing to do with or how some may have manipulated to try and reach an distorted end result is not to correctly connect the dots. Should we do the same with Christianity? Should we bring up all the wars, the Dark Ages, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the burning of witches, the genocide of Amerindians, etc., and then blame it all on Christianity and discredit it as a hoax?

The ToE has nothing to do with racism or the Holocaust, Racism and rampant nationalism existed long before the ToE. Some did indeed take the ToE and pull things out of it to justify their actions, much like many leaders pulled out of Christianity things to justify their wars and use of genocide, racism, and other atrocities.

The ToE is just plain common sense, and it has been well established by the scientific community, not based on books written thousands of years ago by people we don't even know that wrote narratives that we cannot even verify, but by the use of study and experimentation done objectively and not with some sort of religious or philosophical bias.

Read again.

Darwin’s Descent of Man argued that some races of men were more highly evolved than others.

Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social mores needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the under-breeding of the "more fit" ones.

In Galton's view, social institutions such aswelfareandinsane asylums were allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors." Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections ofDescent of Manto discussion of Galton's theories.

The eugenics movement reached a climax in Nazi Germany where a state policy of racial hygiene based on eugenic principles led to the Holocaust and the murder by the German state of at least 10 million people.

 

[JM2C]

I don't know if Moses even existed let alone believe in the Sinai Experience. Maybe he did, but then maybe he didn't. Yes, I do follow the Sabbath. And you are totally wrong about not being able to mix the two, sonny.


A survey of most Christian theologians and the vast majority of Jewish theologians do accept the basic ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

Jewish Naturalism? Is that the same a spiritual naturalism? Another speculative [compromiser] philosophy..

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Read again.

Darwin’s Descent of Man argued that some races of men were more highly evolved than others.

Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social mores needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the under-breeding of the "more fit" ones.

In Galton's view, social institutions such aswelfareandinsane asylums were allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors." Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections ofDescent of Manto discussion of Galton's theories.

The eugenics movement reached a climax in Nazi Germany where a state policy of racial hygiene based on eugenic principles led to the Holocaust and the murder by the German state of at least 10 million people.

Would you mind explaining to me then why then Charles Darwin's works appear on a list of books the Nazis banned and burned?

When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939

 

[JM2C]

Oh, so how do you supposedly "know" me so well? Well, you have just shown all here just how dishonest you truly are. FYI, I have a graduate degree in anthropology and taught it for 30 years, so you can stick that in your pipe and smoke it along with whatever else you're smoking. As with your approach to the ToE, you simply jump to unwarranted conclusions based on your inability to deal with reality.

Are you outhouse? If it does not concern you then it’s not for you to answer. You can tell me anything you want about yourself and believe me it will not change a bit on how I perceive you as a person/ape.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Would you mind explaining to me then why then Charles Darwin's works appear on a list of books the Nazis banned and burned?

When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939

It's a big country of millions. You are bound to find curious things like that. It does not ban darwinism it only bans some forms of darwinism.

The official handbook for schooling the Hitler youth taught natural selection theory in direct reference to Charles Darwin, regardless of the ban.

Handbook for Schooling the Hitler Youth : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

In the handbook they also go out of their way to discredit the "Christian" teaching of equality as a ploy for religion to get as much converts as they can.

You can immediately see, no evolutionist is ever going to be honest about the history of evolution theory in relation to nazism and Italian and Japanese fascism. I mean you can just tell from the way they treat the subject, that you are only ever going to get misrepresentations from them. They don't care, this is quite obvious.

 

[outhouse]

What do you call a Jew supporting evolution?

Educated

 

[outhouse]

You just go along with whatever the consensus is.

I go with what the educated honest people teach in every credible university around the world.

Religious fanaticism and fundamentalist tend to be closed mined and have issues with honesty and politeness.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Read again.

Darwin’s Descent of Man argued that some races of men were more highly evolved than others.

Galton argued that just as physical traits were clearly inherited among generations of people, so could be said for mental qualities (genius and talent). Galton argued that social mores needed to change so that heredity was a conscious decision, to avoid over-breeding by "less fit" members of society and the under-breeding of the "more fit" ones.

In Galton's view, social institutions such aswelfareandinsane asylums were allowing "inferior" humans to survive and reproduce at levels faster than the more "superior" humans in respectable society, and if corrections were not soon taken, society would be awash with "inferiors." Darwin read his cousin's work with interest, and devoted sections ofDescent of Manto discussion of Galton's theories.

The eugenics movement reached a climax in Nazi Germany where a state policy of racial hygiene based on eugenic principles led to the Holocaust and the murder by the German state of at least 10 million people.

What does this have to do with anything? We have known for years that selective breeding creates more "fit" animals. We knew this well prior to the theory of evolution and practiced it ourselves on animals.

There is no answer in science that supports or rejects this kind of approach as being "wrong". It simply tells us what the facts are. It is now up to us to create a system of ethics in which we determine what it is that we want to do with our lives and our societies. Thankfully the majority of societies have determined that social darwinism isn't the way to go.

Social Darwinism is not Evolution.

 

[JM2C]

Would you mind explaining to me then why then Charles Darwin's works appear on a list of books the Nazis banned and burned?


When Books Burn: Lists of Banned Books, 1933-1939

You, as part of Galton’s theory of processing intellect by selections through what is known as the “FIT”, you should be able to find this on the internet.

This is what it says:

6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).

English translation: 6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). As one blogger wrote:

There is no evidence that Darwin’s works were ever banned; quite the contrary.

“all this says is Haeckel’s works are included, for the crime of promoting what the Nazis considered a false and primitive version of Darwinism. That’s what the German translates as: it doesn’t say Darwinism itself is false and primitive, but that Haeckel’s version of it is, which might actually be an endorsement of whatever the Nazis considered the “right” version of Darwinism.”

So, Darwin’s works were not banned at all, only what the Nazi’s saw as the false version of Darwinism, namely Haeckel’s.

There is no evidence that Darwin’s works were ever banned; quite the contrary.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There are dozens or maybe a few hundred articles in google scholar for piltdown for the years 30 - 50.

What piltdown shows is that evolution scientists are habitual liars. Can't trust them. Psychological research by Baumeister and others shows that people disbelieving free will are prone to portraying a false view of events. And with evolution theory countering creation theory, which is based on freedom, you have the most staunch deniers of free will within science.

Dawkins clearly demonstrates how much of his belief is based on emotion, overt hatred of the alternative, a very personal desire to make God redundant, but when it comes to actual evidence...
"it's as though they [fossils] were just planted there, with no evolutionary history"

 

[JM2C]

I go with what the educated honest people teach in every credible university around the world.

As always, going with the flow. I don’t blame you man.

Religious fanaticism and fundamentalist tend to be closed mined and have issues with honesty and politeness.

You guys have not shown me any proof of evolution. Show me a talking ape and I will believe you. Oh yeah, if forgot that they’ve evolved already to the highest form of man or racial supremacy.

 

[JM2C]

Educated

No man! I call them compromiser

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Dawkins clearly demonstrates how much of his belief is based on emotion, overt hatred of the alternative, a very personal desire to make God redundant, but when it comes to actual evidence...
"it's as though they [fossils] were just planted there, with no evolutionary history"

Source for that quote please.

EDIT*

Nevermind. I found it. Ends up that was a line in one of his books that was used as a provocative hook to pull the reader in as a writing technique. He goes on in that exact same writing to explain the evolutionary history how we know they weren't placed there with no evolutionary history.

Dishonesty is poison to good debate.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You, as part of Galton’s theory of processing intellect by selections through what is known as the “FIT”, you should be able to find this on the internet.

This is what it says:

6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).

English translation: 6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel). As one blogger wrote:

There is no evidence that Darwin’s works were ever banned; quite the contrary.

Except for the list I just posted, obviously.

“all this says is Haeckel’s works are included, for the crime of promoting what the Nazis considered a false and primitive version of Darwinism. That’s what the German translates as: it doesn’t say Darwinism itself is false and primitive, but that Haeckel’s version of it is, which might actually be an endorsement of whatever the Nazis considered the “right” version of Darwinism.”

Conjecture. Is there any support for this?

So, Darwin’s works were not banned at all, only what the Nazi’s saw as the false version of Darwinism, namely Haeckel’s.

You have presented no evidence of that.

There is no evidence that Darwin’s works were ever banned; quite the contrary.

If it's quite the contrary, then what is your evidence?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Source for that quote please.

EDIT*

Nevermind. I found it. Ends up that was a line in one of his books that was used as a provocative hook to pull the reader in as a writing technique. He goes on in that exact same writing to explain the evolutionary history how we know they weren't placed there with no evolutionary history.

Dishonesty is poison to good debate.

yes he does, using terms like 'we strongly suspect' , I was talking about the lack of fossil evidence, not speculation on why it is missing- and on this we agree, his statement is accurate and he does not retract it

 

[Monk Of Reason]

yes he does, using terms like 'we strongly suspect' , I was talking about the lack of fossil evidence, not speculation on why it is missing- and on this we agree, his statement is accurate and he does not retract it

No he wasn't. Go back and read his actual work rather than the dishonest quote mines from creationist websites. You keep saying that you have 'honestly studied" and "used to believe in evolution" but you keep ONLY ever using evidence from creationist sites that have already been debunked.

This case is no different.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Except for the list I just posted, obviously.


Conjecture. Is there any support for this?


You have presented no evidence of that.


If it's quite the contrary, then what is your evidence?

Reality is natural selection theory was taught to the hitler youth in reference to charles darwin, the minutes to the meeting to work out Hitler's order to kill the Jews refers to working people to death as natural selection, Mein Kampf and Hitler's second book is full of reference to selection.

This is not some kind of coincedence or irrelevance. Natural selection theory even today clearly leads people to conceive of good and evil as matters of fact, thus sabotaging conscience.