Talk:Evolutionist style

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gulik5 (Talk | contribs) at 04:10, April 18, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Darwinism and the Holocaust

DanH, I wanted to discuss my edit to see if it can be restored. I believe it's been shown that there is a clear link between Darwinism and the Holocaust. This is covered in the Expelled documentary, but it's self evident that Hitler used Darwin's work when he decided to exterminate the Jewish people in order to create a superior race. Moreover, Darwin's own cousin (Galton) invented the field of eugenics, also used by Hitler. BryonRichards 23:46, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

Well, maybe it could be reworded a little. It's a valid point but the way it was worded seemed to imply that every person who believes in evolution supports eugenics. DanH 23:48, 16 April 2008 (EDT)
Ok, I'll reword it. Thank you for the constructive criticism! BryonRichards 23:49, 16 April 2008 (EDT)

The scientists who led the cruel experimentation on humans in Nazi Germany were trained in eugenics. One of their leaders had a Ph.D in an evolutionary related field. They all believed in survival of the fittest, and that provided the intellectual justification for their horrific acts.--Aschlafly 00:08, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for your approval, Mr. Schlafly. I look forward to continuing to contribute to this great site! BryonRichards 00:11, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Isn't there a bit of a contradiction between "points" 11 and 12? Claiming that theistic evolution is possible while simultaneously refusing to allow the possibility that god exists must be quite a trick. Murray 01:24, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Evolutionist say so because they know that belief in evolution (theistic or not) will lead them to eventual separation from God. WilliamH 01:28, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Oh, so separating man from God is now the actual goal of evolutionary biology? Makes sense, if all that stuff about "creating a coherent naturalistic model of human origins" is just a cover-story for our EVIL. Are we evolutionists supposed to be getting a commission directly from Satan for every soul we lead into eternal damnation? All _I_ ever got was a crummy lucite paperweight. I'll have to make a few calls... --Gulik5 01:37, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it, and get more than you bargained for.--TerryHTalk 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

If you are going to draw a link between Evolution and the Holocaust perhaps you should draw a link between Christiananity and the Spanish Inquisition? Its the same logic. AdenJ 06:39, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Not so. The Bible does not support anything like the Inquisition. But the uniformitarianism/abiogenesis/common-descent paradigm does lend theoretical support to eugenics, and no evolutionist can cite any convincing moral prohibition of it.--TerryHTalk 06:42, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Wheres your proof buddy? I'm sorry but the crusades also lend weight to my argument. Also, if belief in evolution lead to such things why do holocausts based on evolutionary principles not happen nearly as often as religious bloodshed? In saying that there is nothing about evolution that supports holocaust behaviour unless twisted by a madman. Much like there is nothing in the bible that supports the Inquisition unless twisted by a madman. AdenJ 06:51, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

You clearly do not understand the Crusades, or the history of Islam. Before the Crusades, the Moors conquered Spain and tried to conquer France. And you probably never learned how the Muslims provoked the Crusades directly: they destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.
I reject your defense of evolution. The evolutionary paradigm makes no positive statement that condemns a Hitler or a Sanger or a Mengele. The Bible says plenty about the sort of activities that the Inquisition represented. That's why Martin Luther finally nailed his nine precepts to the churchhouse door; he wanted to get back to the Bible and away from off-the-rails tradition.--TerryHTalk 09:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

Look, you have missed my point. An unhinghed person could use evolution for justification for their actions just as easily as an unhinged person could use religion to justify flying aeroplanes into buildings. Evolution is science. Its like your saying "astronomy makes no positive statement' that condemns a Hitler". Pffffft dont know why I bother because you'll come back with the same empty rehtoric about evolution bad this and god is the best that. AdenJ 15:06, 17 April 2008 (EDT)

All right, AdenJ, pay attention: You have just proved the point, made by Andy Schlafly and myself, about the "evolutionist style." You keep saying that "evolution is science"—and by "evolution" I mean here the full paradigm of uniformitarianism, Big Bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and "common descent from one ancestor."
So let's talk. How do we know that sedimentary rock in a canyon wall takes "millions of years" to deposit? All we've ever had is Sir Charles Lyell's word on that. He was a far better rhetorician than he was a scientist. He set the tone, and people like you are following right along with him in browbeating everybody into accepting a proposition with little or no supporting evidence.
And while we're at it, let's talk about the Big Bang, and all the rest of deep-space astronomy. What's this dark matter and dark energy we keep hearing about? Back in the nineteenth century, and the beginning of the twentieth, astronomers tried to lay that "dark matter" trick on the world once before—they invented a "planet" named Vulcan (not to be confused with the fictitious world in the constellation Eridanus) to explain a precession in the orbit of the planet Mercury that exceeded anything that they could account for. They didn't even bother to explain how this planet Vulcan could remain undetected even by the ancients when it would have had a shorter year than the earth and thus couldn't stay on the far side of the sun all the time. Then Albert Einstein showed everybody a second-order correction, and now we never hear about any such planet anymore.
Or don't we? The hypothesized planet Vulcan was the first "dark matter" object that any astronomer tried to get the world to accept, and it wasn't the last. Today we hear about dark matter, and dark energy, all the time. Why? Because the Big Bang model is full of holes big enough to shoot a space probe through, that's why. And now we hear that people are spending billions of dollars to try to detect something called the "Higgs boson," an alleged dark-matter elementary particle.
Prediction: any such finding will be incompetent, irrelevant, and immaterial. Because we can explain the cosmos quite nicely, thank you, without resorting to dark matter or dark energy. The trouble is that the explanation posits that our galaxy is at the center of the universe (a thing Edwin Hubble knew perfectly well but refused to admit), the universe did expand greatly (an expansion of space itself) at its beginning, the expansion has now stopped—and by Earth-bound clocks the expansion occurred, and then stopped, about six thousand years ago.--TerryHTalk 16:01, 17 April 2008 (EDT)
Funny thing, Terry--the scientists threw those theories out when the evidence disproved them sufficiently. That's how science works. Unlike religion, which is why one gives us computers and space flight, and the other gives us Inquisitions. --Gulik5 00:10, 18 April 2008 (EDT)
This should probably go to one of our Debate Topics, but here's my 2 cents: If a good idea is warped by madmen, we keep the good idea and criticize the madness. When a false idea is used by madmen to justify mass murder, we criticize both their madness and the false idea that used for justification. --Ed Poor Talk 15:21, 17 April 2008 (EDT)