Glenn Beck: You know what’s killing America? Godlessness

posted at 7:40 pm on September 29, 2009 by Allahpundit

Give him credit for consistency: The second “core principle” of the 9/12 Project is, after all, “I believe in God and He is the center of my life.” I complained about that not long ago and a bunch of Beck fans jumped in to remind me that he’s said one needn’t believe in all the “core principles” to be part of the movement. No? Watch this clip and tell me how optional you think the God principle is in his mind.

I take his point about some liberal atheists filling the spiritual void with belief in government — it’s a pet peeve of an evangelical Democrat friend of mine, in fact — but (a) it’s not true of all nonbelievers, especially of the conservative stripe, and (b) personally, if I were inclined to get on my knees and wish/hope/pray for intervention from either God or Barack Obama, I’d call out for The One too. After all, there’s at least a chance he might show. I don’t get the either/or dichotomy Beck draws between social justice and eternal justice either; for starters, I can imagine Martin Luther King objecting rather strenuously to that. Nor do I understand the snotty, presumptuous accusation that atheists are “filling the void” with money and careers. Personally, I don’t feel any spiritual void, and even if I did, I’d rather not be lectured about it by a guy who has his own media empire and who’ll make more money this year than my entire extended family has made in the past century. What “void” in Beck’s soul is he filling with his fantastically popular show? See how condescending it is to even ask that?

And one more thing. If the key to American governance is the passage in the Declaration of Independence about god-given inalienable rights, why’d the authors of the Constitution go ahead and enumerate some of those rights anyway? And why, if they’re inalienable and god-given, weren’t those rights made exempt from amendment or repeal via Article V? The touchstone of the Constitution isn’t God, it’s rule by popular consent; religion may well influence the public in deciding which rights are so critical that even the popularly elected government should be forbidden to touch them, but when push comes to shove, it’s your call, not God’s. Slavery was once a right too, after all, and I’m sure there were plenty of apologists who found religious backing for that, fair or not.

Exit question: Why does he keep pushing the argument that his show isn’t about Democrat vs. Republican? That’s true, strictly speaking — he’s a libertarian, not a party apparatchik — but the Dems have been the party of big(ger) government for the past 40 years, at least. They’re antithetical to his philosophy. Saying his show has, or should have, no partisan resonance is like Janeane Garofalo insisting that she’s not about Dems or Repubs, just “truth.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11 12 13

Your lack of understanding of evolution is astounding. What is even more astounding is your faith in junk science.

your use of darwiniac talking points is par for the course…people like you who bow at the altar of darwin are ignorant.

Evolution is support by plenty of scientific evidence whether it’s directly or indirectly seen.

just lies, sorry. as I said its not seen in the fossil record, nor in the lab, nor in the field…you see ‘micro’ and you assume macro….but you have no explanation for the tuatara, which has the fastes molecular ‘evolution’ ever seen…yet is a living dinosaur.

absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain as it doesn’t for astronomers.

the physicist uses other evidence for subatomic particles…mathematics principle among them…and where is your mathematical formula for evolution? please. so you don’t care that the fossil record does NOT show evolution…you still believe it? that is called FAITH, not science.

If you really need direct evidence of existence – which I find ironic – please give me the direct physical evidence of God’s existence, Jesus rose from the dead, Noah’s Ark. I’m sure someone who must have direct physical evidence can produce facts these things exist.

we obviously cannot do the science on the resurrection, but you can check out Greenleaf…

Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)
Greenleaf, one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, originally set out to disprove the biblical testimony concerning the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. But this legal scholar came to the conclusion that the witnesses were reliable, and that the resurrection did in fact happen.

link

but I posted earlie what Ayala said was the greatest evidence for evolution…its not much..pretty lame actually.

If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

I find it so interesting that you darwiniacs ALWAYS think you know how to design things better than God…and it couldn’t have been done that way because YOU wouldn’t have done it…its a laughable argument. you don’t know all the variables that go into the design. maybe its just your ‘god complex’

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

yes they tell stories…thats what evolution is, an atheist fairy tale.

You fail to see there is microevolution and macroevolution. The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation.

another lie. I don’t ‘fail to see micro’ you fail to see macro, and you ASSume macro from micro. and the fossil record does NOT show evolution…sigh…

here I will post this again…sigh…

Doug: What got you started thinking about punctuated equilibrium?

Stephen Jay Gould: It wasn’t broad philosophical or political issues as I think many people assume. It really comes right out of an operational dilemma in paleontology.

I had been trained, as Niles Eldredge had, in statistical methods for the study of subtle changes in evolution. Evolution at that time was defined as gradualism. The two were virtually equated; to see evolution meant finding gradualistic sequences, but every paleontologist knew that they had effectively never been found, and that was a frustration.

http://www.powells.com/authors/gould.html

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal

link

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 9:31 AM

For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.

BS…but even if you are correct, and humans as we know them now..came about 100k year ago…it took us until 4k years ago to come up with writing, building, etc??? doesn’t hold water…sorry.

You really need to stop getting your scientific information from church websites. They should be there to guide your faith, not be an authority on science

more lies and BS…show me where I have used a church web site. or apologize.

A modern – read not Darwin’s theories because believe it or not science has actually progressed in 160 years – approach to evolutionary biology called cladistics, which utilizes genetic information in combination with a variety of other data to evaluate biological relationships that emerge over the ages scientists have found that the appendix has evolved at least twice, once among Australian marsupials and another time among rats, lemmings and other rodents, selected primates and humans. They also estimate the appendix has been around for over 80 million years

oh of course it has…like the eye…it just happens again and again…shazam..that evolution sho is clever!! ain’t it??? but that wasn’t the point of the article I posted…and you know it, but are unable to deal with it….no matter what the data says…it supports evolution…even when you have to contradict yourself to bow at the altar of darwin.

Racism is a product of human’s inability to to see past the difference of people or groups of people. It has been around since the earliest humans because of our tribal culture, we distrust others not similar to us. Sorry to inform you, but scientific theory did nothing to enhance racism

oh really? so you think Gould is lying??

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

maybe you should get a clue instead of being a brain-dead darwiniac.

I distinctly remember groups of religious zealots slaughtering each other of a piece of land about a thousand years ago because Christ/Muhammad might have walked on it.

you remember that huh? so you were there at the time, and now you ‘remember it’ right..

oh and thank God for those crusaders…otherwise we’d be wearing beard or burkhas…or be dead.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Cool story bro.

exception on October 1, 2009 at 10:13 AM

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 9:39 AM

So the Christians that slaughtered the Jews and Muslims of Acre and other places were there so we wouldn’t wear burkhas? HAHAHA. You’d be funny if you weren’t so stupid.
Was it very Christian of them to attack other Christians like they did? The Catholic church did a land grab like the Muslims did and told people they’d automatically get into heaven if they fought there. Of course I wasn’t alive you dolt, but there are things called books, read them some time instead of burning them.

How can you say it’s not in the fossil record? Do you like to bury you head in the sand?
If you look at the fossil record, you find a succession of organisms that suggest a history of incremental development from one species to another. You see very simple organisms at first and then new, more complex organisms appearing over time. The characteristics of newer organisms frequently appear to be modified forms of characteristics of older organisms.

This succession of life forms, from simpler to more complex, showing relationships between new life forms and those that preceded them, is strong inferential evidence of evolution. There are gaps in the fossil record and some unusual occurrences, such as what is commonly called the Cambrian explosion, but the overall picture created by the fossil record is one of consistent, incremental development.

Fossil records in general suggests evolution is certainly an important piece of evidence, but it becomes even more telling when it is combined with other evidence for evolution. For example, the fossil record is consistent in terms of biogeography — and if evolution is true, we would expect that the fossil record would be in harmony with current biogeography, the phylogenetic tree, and the knowledge of ancient geography suggested by plate tectonics. In fact, some finds, such as fossil remains of marsupials in Antarctica are strongly supportive of evolution, given that Antarctica, South America and Australia were once part of the same continent. Go geology – plate tectonics in particular, unless you don’t believe that either – also backs up evolution. The proof in in the rocks. Just because you don’t like the way something sounds doesn’t mean it’s a lie.

They hypothesis about the evolution of the eye based on fossil records – actual physical evidence – something that can be seen. A scientific theory is “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.” No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution–or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter–they are not expressing reservations about its truth. You still haven’t been able to refute the fact that planets revolve around other stars then our own because we can’t see them.

uhhh..
You don’t know the difference between micro and macroevolution. You need to stop saying or thinking you do because you’re spreading disinformation. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time–changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related. As stated before ALL historical sciences such as astronomy, geology, anthropology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology have hypotheses that can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and/or whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.

One prime examples is all of the hominid fossil records available. Evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans from about four-five million years ago and the appearance of anatomically modern humans about 100,000 years ago that there should be a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more human. This is indeed the case as fossil evidence suggests.

Scientists have shown the progression from dinosaur to bird. Paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the “molecular clock” that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 10:52 AM

By the way, Darwin was an abolitionist. He wanted to end slavery and was from the UK, who banned slavery before we did.
He wish to show that all human beings had similar roots and thus should treat each other better.

As with all things, people like you get the facts and distort them to move an agenda. Much like the Bible/Koran have been twisted and use to justify actions. Hence the Wahhabi sect killing or beheading anyone that doesn’t believe in their sect of Islam, the misguided attempt to claim the holy land through the wholesale slaughter of Jews/Muslims or St. Bartholomew Day massacre or any other ideology taken to the extreme.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 10:59 AM

By the way, Darwin was an abolitionist. He wanted to end slavery and was from the UK, who banned slavery before we did.

yeah he was just a hero to the kids…

“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Life of Charles Darwin”, [1902], Senate: London, 1995, reprint, p.64).

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 11:01 AM

Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world

yeah darwin didn’t want those ‘lower’ races cluttering things up, did he?

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 11:02 AM

He wanted to end slavery and was from the UK, who banned slavery before we did.

and who was it in Britain that got slavery banned…oh yeah WILBERFORCE….that good christian….

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 11:06 AM

Fundamentalist Christianity is killing the Republican Party.

adamsmith on October 1, 2009 at 11:13 AM

You’re an idiot. I never said some Christians didn’t want to get it banned. You think in absolutes.

Infanticide, rape, genocide, slavery, abortion, and “racism” have all been prevalent from the earliest of times. We even see these behaviors in animals, so we know that these behaviors predate even humanity. It is safe to say that these things have probably been practiced by virtually all human societies. There are records from the Egyptians ridiculing the Nubians as inferiors, some of the earliest records of racism. The Bible itself records the not only the idea of “a chosen people”, but indeed records genocide, slavery, and infanticide at the “command of God”.

Deuteronomy 7:

1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations-the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Numbers 31

1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”

3 So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites and to carry out the LORD’s vengeance on them.

There are more…see isn’t posting quotes fun?

The very idea that the theory of evolution is responsible for the idea that certain races or groups of people are superior to others is so historically inaccurate that you have to be an idiot to fall for it. “God” has been the primary justification for the concept of the superiority of one group over another throughout history, not “Darwinism”.
When Spanish Conquistadores engaged in the conquest of the Americas, they did do so under the direction of the Pope, and their slaughter and subjugation of all natives was justified through Christian theology. Can’t blame Darwin for that.

In 1857, one year before Charles Darwin pushed The Origin of Species, Josiah C. Nott and George Gliddon, creationists who argued that science supported the Biblical account of creation, published Indigenous Races of the Earth. Dr. Nott, from South Carolina, had been writing and giving lectures on race for years and his works were highly influential. All of the copies of Indigenous Races of the Earth were pre-sold before they were even printed. The book went on to be published in many languages and was one of the best selling books of the time. An illustration in Indigenous Races of the Earth compared the skulls of “Greeks”, “Negroes”, and Chimpanzees.

The Origin of Species and only used the word “race” a few times, in each of these cases referring to plants or animals, as in the example below.

Nevertheless, as our varieties certainly do occasionally revert in some of their characters to ancestral forms, it seems to me not improbable, that if we could succeed in naturalising, or were to cultivate, during many generations, the several races, for instance, of the cabbage, in very poor soil (in which case, however, some effect would have to be attributed to the direct action of the poor soil), that they would to a large extent, or even wholly, revert to the wild aboriginal stock.
– The Origin of Species; Charles Darwin, 1858

Darwin frequently used the term “savages” when discussing the tribal people whom he wrote about. In his use of the term savages, however, Darwin was simply using the standard lexicon of his time; it was a term that everyone, from Popes to Presidents, used. It must also be remembered, of course, that the differences between different groups of people were really very extraordinary until basically the past 75 to 50 years. Many of the groups that Europeans came into contact with practiced cannibalism, self-mutilation, human sacrifice, infanticide, had no writing, and/or were very hostile towards people outside of their own family or tribe. Most also had no technology beyond stone tools. These are real substantial differences that were being encountered by many Europeans for the first time. They were seeking explanations for why this was the case.

The Descent of Man by Darwin gives clues to his thoughts on race not a few pulled quotes. You should read it.

This diversity of judgment does not prove that the races ought not to be ranked as species, but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them.
- Charles Darwin; The Descent of Man, 1871

Darwin makes it clear that the propensity for sympathy exists in all people, and that its extension to others among people is a matter of cultural evolution, not race.

He of course isn’t an all knowing deity, he’s human. But the demonetization by Christians is awful. Instead of preaching hate and disinformation, try picking up a book some time.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM

Fundamentalist Christianity is killing the Republican Party.

adamsmith on October 1, 2009 at 11:13 AM

right, when the republicans don’t want us around to begin with…please…they are embarressed by us.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 11:23 AM

Man I’m glad I saved all my reports from college on disk. I knew I’d have to use some of the information later.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 11:25 AM

You’re an idiot. I never said some Christians didn’t want to get it banned. You think in absolutes

you’re a liar and an idiot…where did I post things from church web sites about evolution?? hmmm??

you make darwin out to be a hero….his own words indict him.

The Bible itself records the not only the idea of “a chosen people”, but indeed records genocide, slavery, and infanticide at the “command of God”.

yeah it was at the command of God…so?

The very idea that the theory of evolution is responsible for the idea that certain races or groups of people are superior to others is so historically inaccurate that you have to be an idiot to fall for it. “God” has been the primary justification for the concept of the superiority of one group over another throughout history, not “Darwinism”.

you do know it was Galton, Darwin’s cousin, that coined the term EUGENICS…right?? but you don’t seem to know very much at all…

The Origin of Species and only used the word “race” a few times, in each of these cases referring to plants or animals, as in the example below.

oh you mean the book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

favoured races??? of course darwin meant plants…or animals…right, of course he did…sigh..

Darwin frequently used the term “savages” when discussing the tribal people whom he wrote about. In his use of the term savages, however, Darwin was simply using the standard lexicon of his time

yeah lets ignore his call to eliminate the lower races…which is of course the outcome of evolution…laughable.

He of course isn’t an all knowing deity, he’s human. But the demonetization by Christians is awful. Instead of preaching hate and disinformation, try picking up a book some time.

I’m just telling the truth…you just don’t like old Chalie’s words brought to light…and his followers were even worse…

“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 average white man. And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous 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 smallerjawed 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.” (Huxley, Thomas Henry [Anatomist, Dean of the Royal College of Science, and "Darwin's Bulldog"], “Emancipation-Black and White,” in Rhys E., ed., “Lectures and Lay Sermons,” [1871], Everyman’s Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, 1926, reprint, p.115).

everyone who has a shred of honesty and integrity understands the consequences of evolution…you should get a clue…

“‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.” (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 11:29 AM

Man I’m glad I saved all my reports from college on disk. I knew I’d have to use some of the information later.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 11:25 AM

too bad they are so poorly researched.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM

did you even pass? well your prof was probably a darwiniac..so….

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 11:30 AM

oh and of course your biblical anology falls apart..because those are commands of God…but they are to the israelites at a certain time…they are not for us today…I don’t see any midianites around to slaughter do you???

nice try…rather lame though..

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 11:32 AM

Your case of trying to correlate Darwinism with racism is intellectually dishonest and you know it.

I gave a great example of the Spanish committing genocide against the native Americans under command of the Pope. You also disdain the other Darwin book I posted where he talked frequently about the common traits of the races. I guess it doesn’t fit into your creationist nonesense mantra of demonizing Darwin so you ignore it. Typical ostrich syndrome.

As I noted before, as it may be to complex for your little feeble mind to comprehend, people take ideas the twist them all of the time. Remember the Pope/Indians? Or even these great passages from the Bible?
Exodus 12:

So the people of Israel did just as the LORD had commanded through Moses and Aaron. And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.

Deuteronomy 7:

1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations-the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

So if people commit horrible acts under the guise of being told to so because some bearded sky fairy told them to it’s okay? Nowadays, since we’re more advance and know the angels can’t blow trumpets to knock down city walls, we think of such things as heresy, and it is. As I noted earlier, things such as biology, physics, astronomy, quantum theory, the theory of relativity and other complex scientific studies weren’t on the minds of a bunch of nomads looking to fine their next meal or fight for a piece of desert land. When your life span is about 20-something years on average you think about other things.

Darwin did state the very obvious fact that races differ from each other physically. He also believed that they differed mentally, all quotes from Descent of Man:

“Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties.”

But it was also obvious to him that the races could interbreed and had a common heritage. It’s clear that he didn’t consider any race “less evolved”:

“It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant.”

He also found that individuals of all races were really far more similar mentally than different:

“The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.”

He certainly believed in treating other people fairly, no matter what race. He absolutely abhorred slavery:

“I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him.”

So I really don’t think it’s fair to label him “racist”. He was exceptionally fair, especially by the standards of his day, in which essentially everyone was racist.

Judging Darwin as a racist working from a “modern” perspective is not only bad historical practice, but it is also doing a disservice to Darwin’s views in general. Charles Darwin, born on the same date as Abraham Lincoln, was also anti-slavery. His family background, especially on the Wedgewood side, is an abolitionist one.

The fact that Darwin is referring to a single origin of mankind stands as a direct refutation to polygenist schools of thought which argued that the different races of man were different species. Louis Agassiz, the last great Creationist to garner a large amount of scientific prestige, was a member of this school of thought, which was used to justify slavery.

Darwin, a monogenesis on the other hand argued that all races had the same origin. You can argue against this if you wish but modern genetics will beat you out every time.

Darwin was a racial moderate given the time he lived in and I’d suspect if you lived in the Victorian age you’d be hard pressed to find many that shared his views. Darwin noted that aiding the weak to survive and have families could lose the benefits of natural selection, but cautioned that withholding such aid would endanger the instinct of sympathy, “the noblest part of our nature” as written in the Descent of Man. Once again you take quotes out of text and spin them for your agenda. Darwin did seem intrested in his cousin’s work but considered the ideas of “hereditary improvement” impractical. Aware of weaknesses in his own family, Darwin was sure that families would naturally refuse such selection and wreck the scheme. “Social Darwinism” wasn’t ever founded by Darwin himself, the name was coined in 1877 and not by Darwin but by his opponents. Social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, as does the idea of racism, rape, genocide, infanticide and a multitude of other undesirable ideologies. People just twist the science to push an agenda, similar to how you push junk science and misquotes to push an agenda of lies and falsehoods.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 12:12 PM

Your case of trying to correlate Darwinism with racism is intellectually dishonest and you know it

BS…my case is ironclad…from darwin’s own words…to his followers…racism is build into the theory…one race has to me more ‘fit’ than another correct? not all of the races are equally evolved….what do you think darwin was talking about when he said lower races…HMMMMM???

I gave a great example of the Spanish committing genocide against the native Americans under command of the Pope.

who cares? and why do you have to try to discredit christianity to defend darwinism?

You also disdain the other Darwin book I posted where he talked frequently about the common traits of the races

this is the lamest BS I have ever heard…everyone knows what RACE means…please…so when darwin talked about LOWER RACES…he was talking about cabbage huh??? right…idiotic and moronic.

As I noted before, as it may be to complex for your little feeble mind to comprehend, people take ideas the twist them all of the time. Remember the Pope/Indians? Or even these great passages from the Bible?

so darwin was twisting his own theory when he talked about eliminating the lower races?? right…I mean seriously laughable.

So the people of Israel did just as the LORD had commanded through Moses and Aaron. And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died

yeah the Lord kills people all the time…HE IS GOD…He gave life..and HE can take it whenever He wants to…

and this has to do with darwin, how? and how does this discredit christianity??

I mean you are seriously wacko to think this casts some bad light on christianity or judaism…pathetic…get some help.

So if people commit horrible acts under the guise of being told to so because some bearded sky fairy told them to it’s okay?

whats so horrible about driving out your enemies?? so tell me do you think it was horrible when we nuked japan?? do you think what Charles martel did was horrible too?

Nowadays, since we’re more advance and know the angels can’t blow trumpets to knock down city walls, we think of such things as heresy

you don’t think they can huh? ever run into one? and the muslims slaughter all the time for their god…but you darwiniacs/libs are NEVER that upset by it…

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 12:21 PM

He certainly believed in treating other people fairly, no matter what race. He absolutely abhorred slavery:

was this before or after the lower races were elminated??

this just shows that darwinism is a religion…no bad thing can be said about your hairygod.

and it doesn’t matter if darwin was personally a racist or not…he probably was..but his theory is IMPLICITY RACIST…and has been from the beginning….truth hurts.

Darwin, a monogenesis on the other hand argued that all races had the same origin. You can argue against this if you wish but modern genetics will beat you out every time.

really? then how did some of the races become lower??? hmmmm???? an then why did he advocate eliminating the ‘lower races’?? hmmmmmm??

oh and modern genetics wasn’t a part of evolution until the synthesis in the 1940s…all it did was change the mechanism…

Once again you take quotes out of text and spin them for your agenda.

you are a liar. this ‘out of context’ BS is just a ploy to try to cover for the obvious racism and eugenics…oh and in a letter to Galton this is what he said about eugenics..

Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race. I should be inclined to trust more (and this is part of your plan) to disseminating and insisting on the importance of the all-important principle of inheritance

link

his entire family was deeply involved with eugenics…

Thirdly, Darwin prepared the way for eugenics. Indeed, his immediate family would soon be involved in that movement — his sons George and Leonard became active in promoting it (Leonard serving as “president of the Eugenics Education Society, the main eugenics group in Great Britain”), and his cousin Francis Galton became the founder of the “eugenics crusade.” Evidently, Darwin was sympathetic to eugenics: West quotes him as vowing “to cut off communication” with his disciple Mivart when the latter “criticized an article by Darwin’s son George that advocated eugenics.”

link

Social Darwinism” wasn’t ever founded by Darwin himself, the name was coined in 1877 and not by Darwin but by his opponents. Social Darwinism commonly refers to ideas that predate Darwin’s publication of On the Origin of Species, as does the idea of racism, rape, genocide, infanticide and a multitude of other undesirable ideologies. People just twist the science to push an agenda, similar to how you push junk science and misquotes to push an agenda of lies and falsehoods.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 12:12 PM

this is just a lie, as my previous quote made clear…

“‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start- ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.” (Desmond, Adrian [Science historian, University College, London] & Moore, James [Science historian, The Open University, UK], “Darwin,” [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, reprint, pp.xix).

get a clue, and stop being such a liar.

you don’t even lie that well….just parrot darwiniac talking points….

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 12:28 PM

oh and here are some historians lying and defaming your hairygod!!! BLASPHEMY!!!

The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

link

I know you are so proud of the legacy of evolution….hitler…the gas chambers…Sanger…the ‘negro project’ abortion…

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 12:37 PM

It always puzzles me on way these religious conversation end up in evolution vs. creation. What exactly does that have to do with God? He understands it all and is fine with it. Why are people here so hung up with it all?

There really is room for science and religion in the human mind. That is if it is an honest and open human mind made in the image of God.

petunia on October 1, 2009 at 12:38 PM

It always puzzles me on way these religious conversation end up in evolution vs. creation. What exactly does that have to do with God? He understands it all and is fine with it. Why are people here so hung up with it all?

He is??

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.”

Provine, William B. [Professor of Biological Sciences, Cornell University], “, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life”, Abstract of Will Provine’s 1998 Darwin Day Keynote Address.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 12:42 PM

Linking to pro-creationist front groups doesn’t help your cause…if you call it a cause.

So you assume racism, genocide..etc..etc didn’t exist before Darwin? You’re more stupid than I thought. You are intellectually dishonest, or you rather you lack any intellectual argument for your case. “Survival of the Fittest” wasn’t termed by Darwin. How many times did I have to say that?

I’m not bashing Christianity, just stating the facts. Christians have and continue to kill people under the guise of faith, as do Muslims. I have never defended Muslims and will never do so when it pertains to this. Once again your feeble brain thinks in absolutes, in black and white when there is gray. The atheists I know think Islam is just is stupid. I’m not an aethiest, but I believe in science since it’s fact. You’re being naive if you think Christians are free of sin. The Muslims slaughtering people is furthering proving my point. Belief in an all powerful sky fairy telling you to slaughter non-believers is just as horrible now as it was back during the Crusades. It also proves that an ideology can be twisted and spun to fit any agenda or rationale. Muslims blow themselves up in Israeli markets to kill innocents because they believe they’re privy to a piece of land the Jews occupy at the moment and because apparently Allah wants them to. Though I’m pretty certain none have actually talked to Allah.

The argument against the Descent of Man you have is…it’s idiotic. Pretty much means you can’t refute the facts so name calling is next in line. Since you can’t take those quotes out of context then why bother reading them right?

God doesn’t kill people. Can you give an examples? What kills people other than the obvious medical/disasters/mishaps is people killing in the name of . Listing passages from Bible as physical evidence is not proof since it was written 200 years ago.

Nope never mate an angel, or a fairy, or a troll, or a giant cyclops, Odin, Ra, Hermes or Santa Claus. The thing is you and I will never meet any of the above mentioned because THEY DO NOT EXIST.

Nothing is horrible about driving enemies out. We did it here in the US didn’t we? The Spanish/English/French all drove out and killed many. When they left we did the same thing. I’d assume your okay with this because you’re here. Keep in mind that many did this because they thought it was God’s will.

Martel defended his land and drove the Muslims out of Spain, big deal. Japan? WTF does that have to do with anything. If you’re asking my opinion, then yes it was the right thing to do. What are you asking though? You’re just rambling Are you asking if I think Jesus would approve of the atomic bomb and would fly the plane himself? Not sure.

You can quote and try to discredit the person of Darwin all you want. That’s fine if it helps you sleep better at night. The fact remains, he lived in a a racism was the lexicon of the era, he was anti-slavery and wrote books with theories suggesting all humans were essentially the same and shared a common origin. You can twist whatever you want, but those are the facts.

Also attempting to discredit Darwin doesn’t discredit the scientific research that has been done and proven. So nag about how he might have been racist – along with everyone else at the time – when the world leaves you behind with your draconian ideologies don’t be surprised.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 1:00 PM

*sigh*..
Once again – like a broken record – people take the dieas of a scientific theory and apply it to their aganda to justify a cause.

During the First and Second World War, German leaders used the writings of Martin Luther to support the cause of German nationalism. At the 450th anniversary of Luther’s birth, which took place only a few months after the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, there were celebrations conducted on a large scale both by the Protestant Churches and the Nazi Party. In 1941, Martin Bormann, a close associate of Hitler said publicly “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable”. Hitler himself was raised as a Catholic. He didn’t incorporate atheism as a state policy like the Soviets. You’ll also find many, many neo-nazi groups are also Christian and ironically enough anti-Catholic. So keep trying to refute the fact religion doesn’t breed racism when it’s words are twisted and used to help feed a radical agenda as well.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 1:13 PM

Linking to pro-creationist front groups doesn’t help your cause…if you call it a cause.

why? truth is truth. but you don’t believe anyting unless a darwiniac says it. whats your cause? lying for darwin…its rather obvious.

oh and where is your documentation? I see no support for any of your positions…you’re a typical darwiniac/atheist think because you say it, its from on high!! you darwiniacs aren’t much into research obviously.

So you assume racism, genocide..etc..etc didn’t exist before Darwin? You’re more stupid than I thought. You are intellectually dishonest, or you rather you lack any intellectual argument for your case. “Survival of the Fittest” wasn’t termed by Darwin. How many times did I have to say that?

didn’t say that…but you have to lie, as usual…lying for darwin, its what you do.

I’m not bashing Christianity, just stating the facts. Christians have and continue to kill people under the guise of faith,

really? where are christians killing people today? I notice you can never answer any of my questions though…no surprise.

The Muslims slaughtering people is furthering proving my point. Belief in an all powerful sky fairy telling you to slaughter non-believers is just as horrible now as it was back during the Crusades

oh Thank GOD FOR THE CRUSADES!!!! without them we would all be muslim…and if you’re not an atheist…why do you say moronic atheist BS like ‘sky fairy’ hmmmmmm??

The argument against the Descent of Man you have is…it’s idiotic. Pretty much means you can’t refute the facts so name calling is next in line. Since you can’t take those quotes out of context then why bother reading them right?

I’m not arguing against it..I’m just quoting the racism in it…and eugenics. how did I take them out of context…you say that…but its BS…and we both know it.

God doesn’t kill people. Can you give an examples? What kills people other than the obvious medical/disasters/mishaps is people killing in the name of . Listing passages from Bible as physical evidence is not proof since it was written 200 years ago.

He doesn’t?? sure He does…just because you don’t believe it doesn’t matter…you’re an atheist, obviously…so you’ll find out Him the hard way!

Nope never mate an angel, or a fairy, or a troll, or a giant cyclops, Odin, Ra, Hermes or Santa Claus. The thing is you and I will never meet any of the above mentioned because THEY DO NOT EXIST

oh please…so you have no evidence angels exist or not…you just don’t believe in them…what is ‘scientific’ about that? oh and they do exist…again you’ll find out he hard way when one is feeding on your soul in hell…

Martel defended his land and drove the Muslims out of Spain, big deal. Japan? WTF does that have to do with anything. If you’re asking my opinion, then yes it was the right thing to do. What are you asking though? You’re just rambling Are you asking if I think Jesus would approve of the atomic bomb and would fly the plane himself? Not sure.

actually Martel did NOT drive them out of spain, that happened centuries later..he drove them out of france, and stopped the muslim invasion…you obviously don’t know history.

no, I’m not rambling at all…you ascribe all these ‘horrors’ to religion, when we act the same way today…I was wondering if you have a problem with it.

You can quote and try to discredit the person of Darwin all you want. That’s fine if it helps you sleep better at night. The fact remains, he lived in a a racism was the lexicon of the era, he was anti-slavery and wrote books with theories suggesting all humans were essentially the same and shared a common origin. You can twist whatever you want, but those are the facts.

why are those facts? because you say so? your word means nothing. I have posted the sources….ya got nothing…truth hurts.

Also attempting to discredit Darwin doesn’t discredit the scientific research that has been done and proven. So nag about how he might have been racist – along with everyone else at the time – when the world leaves you behind with your draconian ideologies don’t be surprised.

what scientific research? have you evolved a bacteria into a multi-cellular animal? didn’t think so….again you sound like a wacko atheist…and your draconian ideology…darwinism and marxism…both born of atheism..have SLAUGHTERED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.

your ideology has produced the most hellish forms of government in the history of the world….I’m sure you’re very proud.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 1:23 PM

*sigh*..
Once again – like a broken record – people take the dieas of a scientific theory and apply it to their aganda to justify a cause.

sigh…the truth hurts…Hitler took the ideas of eugenics, which came from darwin…eugenics is just applied evolution.

During the First and Second World War, German leaders used the writings of Martin Luther to support the cause of German nationalism.

so all those historians were lying right?? sure they were…to you they were committing BLASPHEMY…laughable.

, Martin Bormann, a close associate of Hitler said publicly “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable”.

do you understand what ‘irreconcilable’ means???

ir·rec·on·cil·a·ble (-rkn-sl-bl, -rkn-s-)
adj.
Impossible to reconcile: irreconcilable differences.
n.
1. A person, especially a member of a group, who will not compromise, adjust, or submit.
2. One of two or more conflicting ideas or beliefs that cannot be brought into harmony.

and you are right, for the first time…christianity and nazism ARE IRRECONSCILABLE…but evolution and nazism go very well together..

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 1:27 PM

I don’t have to post pro-creationist websites to feel better about myself.
You could just look yourself if you’re not afraid it learn something.
http://tinyurl.com/y8vsn4y
You’ll find plenty of info at the above link.

You got me on Martel, not an expert if post Roman European history. You must be proud you finally got one fact right in your life for once.

I never ascribe these horrors to religion. Once again your lack of reading comprehension shows. You need a remedial reading course. What I state – -and you prove for me as well – is that all the horrible things in human kind would be there even if Darwin didn’t exist. The Japanese didn’t subscribe to his theories. Neither did the Romans who killed a lot of people. What I did state is when people take ideas out of context and twist them to fit their ideologies then bad things happen.

You can’t say things exist because there is no proof it doesn’t. That is called the fallacy of equivocation. You can’t prove Odin doesn’t exist, therefore he must exist, you just don’t believe. The same way you think God kills yet you offer no proof he does. Please cite direct evidence of him killing someone.

why are those facts? because you say so? your word means nothing. I have posted the sources….ya got nothing…truth hurts.

Those are facts, read the Descent of Man. That is my source.

what scientific research? have you evolved a bacteria into a multi-cellular animal? didn’t think so….again you sound like a wacko atheist…and your draconian ideology…darwinism and marxism…both born of atheism..have SLAUGHTERED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS.

Nice try, I was a biology major. Was being the key word. fact remains I haven’t personally created evolution is lab, but as I stated before, astronomy, physics, geology..etc all rely on indirect evidence to form rational a hypothesis.

Evolution does not equal Communism you twit. How creationists wackos keep tying the thoery of descent though modification ties to socialism is laughable at best. If anything, communism was founded by Marx because be believed the rich take advantage of the working class and believed communism would allow people to see the fruits of their labor without being exploited. Darwinism is nowhere in his doctrine.

Attempting to tie evolution to communism or Nazism is intellectually dishonest. Connections between Darwin and Marx have been effectively refuted by historians for over thirty years. The only connection they had was Marx sent Darwin a book and asked Darwin if he could dedicate a volume to him in which Darwin refused.

It doesn’t matter though. Like I said, discredit the man all you want, it doesn’t discredit the science. Darwin didn’t have 160 years of scientific development to help him with is studies. Things have advance at astonishing rates since Darwin’s time and many questions he had are now answered or will be answered.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 2:13 PM

I don’t have to post pro-creationist websites to feel better about myself.
You could just look yourself if you’re not afraid it learn something.
http://tinyurl.com/y8vsn4y
You’ll find plenty of info at the above link.

you’re lying….I posted a quote from gould…and from biology direct which is not a creationist web site…you lying piece of trash. you can’t handle the truth…and your google is so much BS.

and this is the title of the article from the ‘creationist’ web site…

The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution
Eugene V Koonin

National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 20894, USA

moron. Koonin is an evolution…duhhhhh

You got me on Martel, not an expert if post Roman European history. You must be proud you finally got one fact right in your life for once.

oh I got you on quite a bit..but you’re too stupid to even know what ‘irreconcilable’ means…smirk

is that all the horrible things in human kind would be there even if Darwin didn’t exist.

no there wouldn’t have been a eugenics movement…and hitler wouldn’t have had his inspiration from evolution….and applied it….and marx wouldn’t have said:

In 1861, Karl Marx wrote to his friend Ferdinand Lassalle, “Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.

What I did state is when people take ideas out of context and twist them to fit their ideologies then bad things happen.

eugenics isn’t taking evolution out of context moron, eugenics and racism flow FROM Evolution.

same way you think God kills yet you offer no proof he does. Please cite direct evidence of him killing someone.

you quoted the bible yourself…and after centuries of trying you atheists cannot disprove the bible, I see no reason to disbelieve just because some wacko thinks I should.

Nice try, I was a biology major. Was being the key word. fact remains I haven’t personally created evolution is lab, but as I stated before, astronomy, physics, geology..etc all rely on indirect evidence to form rational a hypothesis.

I can’t believe you actually graduated from anywhere. lets see ya got nothing in the fossil record…nothing in the lab…nothing in the field…ya got nothing…except faith.

Evolution does not equal Communism you twit. How creationists wackos keep tying the thoery of descent though modification ties to socialism

it sure inspired marx…but the point is, moron, that evolution and marxism both spring from ATHEISM…duhhh stop twisting my words you lying little twit.

Marx because be believed the rich take advantage of the working class and believed communism would allow people to see the fruits of their labor without being exploited. Darwinism is nowhere in his doctrine.

see the above quote from marx…you really are ignorant.

Things have advance at astonishing rates since Darwin’s time and many questions he had are now answered or will be answered.

you have a darwin of the gaps…..what you don’t have an answer for you say ‘ it evolved because evolution is true’ duhhhhhhhhh

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 2:22 PM

Those are facts, read the Descent of Man. That is my source.

here it is straight from YOUR SOURCE!!

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242).

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.” (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern theory of evolution], “The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex,” [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.205-206)

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 2:25 PM

I am aware The Nazi leadership didn’t like Christianity, they had differences. The Nazi’s preferred the Germans die for the state rather than for a god. They didn’t do much to stop the church and in fact attempted the court the Vatican to their ideals.

Nazism and evolution don’t go together at all. One is a scientific theory about descent though modification and one is a racist, nationalist political ideology.

The connection between the Holocaust and the teaching of evolution is a gross and profound twisting of reality. Creationist love to say that Hitler used evolution as an excuse for genocide, but actually he makes it clear that religion played a major role in his decisions.

Like a creationist, Hitler claims that God made man:

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

Like a creationist, Hitler affirms that humans existed “from the very beginning”, and could not have evolved from apes:

“From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.”

Like a creationist, Hitler believes that man was made in God’s image, and in the expulsion from Eden:

“Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. i

Like a creationist, Hitler believes that:

“God … sent [us] into this world with the commission to struggle for our daily bread.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol ii, ch. xiv

Like a creationist, Hitler claims Jesus as his inspiration:

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them. “- Adolf Hitler, speech, April 12 1922

So why does he mention evolution at all? On examination, he is talking of differences within species — of the “micro-evolution” that creationists profess to believe in:

“The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. The only difference that can exist within the species must be in the various degrees of structural strength and active power, in the intelligence, efficiency, endurance, etc., with which the individual specimens are endowed. “(Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi)

So, like a creationist, there is some evolution he is prepared to concede — evolution within species, which creationists call “microevolution”. So it is on the basis of the one part of evolutionary theory which creationists accept that Hitler tried to find a scientific basis for his racism and his program of eugenics.

Despite whatever reasons Hitler gave for his reasoning — and honestly, how much can we trust him? He was Hitler — that doesn’t mean that evolution leads to atheism leads to Nazis. Evolution, like all of reality, is a fact, and how we use it is independent of that reality itself. I can just as easily point out how many people have been slaughtered in the name of Jesus.

It’s unfair to lay the blame of human faults on religion or the lack thereof. It’s how humans use or abuse these tools that’s important.

To continue to tie the two yet ignore the atrocities committed by yours and others religions is dishonest. You are either doing this without knowing it or – as i suspect – doing it to spread falsehoods on purpose to discredit the theory because it hurts your irrational ine of thinking.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 2:25 PM

Glenn Beck vs Allahpundit:

Sh*t, meet fan!!

I’ll take Glenn Beck for $1,000, Alex.

Sweet_Thang on October 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM

Sweet_Thang on October 1, 2009 at 2:26 PM

right4life shows the world his ass with his every blowhard, gas bag release posting, you should very proud, you’ve achieved the pinnacle of his most desired exposure in much less space.

Speakup on October 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 2:25 PM

You have far more patience than I in dealing with this court jester.
More reference material as well, it seems.

Count to 10 on October 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM

Nazism and evolution don’t go together at all. One is a scientific theory about descent though modification and one is a racist, nationalist political ideology.

yeah all those historians are lying…its all a conspiracy!!!!

you do realize Hitler was a politician too?? he would say whatever he needed to to get power.

Despite whatever reasons Hitler gave for his reasoning — and honestly, how much can we trust him?

YOU are the one quoting hitler…I am quoting VERY reputable historians…and scientists…that say evolution led to the gas chambers…

A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” (Brookes, Martin.,”Ripe old age,” Review of “Of Flies, Mice and Men,” by Francois Jacob, Harvard University Press, 1999. New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30 January 1999, p.41).

are these people are lying?? or are you?

To continue to tie the two yet ignore the atrocities committed by yours and others religions is dishonest. You are either doing this without knowing it or – as i suspect – doing it to spread falsehoods on purpose to discredit the theory because it hurts your irrational ine of thinking.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 2:25 PM

the atrocities of religions, even islam, PALE in comparison the hundreds of millions slaughtered in the name of atheism…via marxism or darwinism….its not even a question.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 2:49 PM

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 2:25 PM

As I’ve stated before and numerous times again and again, which you refuse to accept – because of lack or reading comprehension – is that he was a product of his time. As I’ve noted before time and time again you’ll have a hard time finding someone that didn’t adhere to some racist ideology. You’ll have just a hard time finding Spanish people who settled the country against the wholesale slaughter of the natives because the Pope said it was God’s will.

You are still under the fallacy racism didn’t exist before Darwin’s time and are trying your best to tie the two together and fail miserably. Picking and choosing a few select quotes from a book when it has been noted several times he’s against slavery, considers all humans of the same origin – also from the book – and was a moderate for his time.

Darwin did not inspire Marx. You are wrong. I don’t know how many times I can state this.

sigh…once again here is again:
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.

Millions of fossils, found in well-dated sequences of rocks, show evolution of forms through time and show many transitions among species. Charles Darwin began in 1831 to assemble a huge body of evidence that he analyzed and evaluated for more than 25 years before he carefully deduced a new rule of descent of organisms with modification. The rules of evolution and natural selection have been observed to apply to viruses within a few hours, to reptiles on islands changed by a hurricane over a few months, to fish in isolated ponds over a few years, and to horses over millions of years.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time–changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms–such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization–can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not–and does not–find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

Just because you lack the intelligence to understand evolution doesn’t mean it exists.

Once again the Discovery institute is a front for creationism. Their ideas have no scientific support, and that is why they have all been discarded by credible scholars. Creationism is in the same category.

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish. Academic publishing is an intellectual free market, where ideas that have credible empirical support are carefully and thoroughly explored. Nothing could possibly be more exciting and electrifying to biology than scientific disproof of evolutionary theory or scientific proof of the existence of a god. That would be Nobel Prize winning work, and it would be eagerly published by any of the prominent mainstream journals.

They do “research” for the “theory” of intelligent design, which is just as laughable s creationism itself.

Religion and God have a role a moral compass and belong in the lives of individuals, not in the science laboratory.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 2:50 PM

You have far more patience than I in dealing with this court jester.
More reference material as well, it seems.

Count to 10 on October 1, 2009 at 2:36 PM

yeah where is your reference material, moron??

It would be more accurate to say “The correlation of probabilistic survival rates with relative fitness.”

Count to 10 on September 30, 2009 at 4:08 PM
I see no source for this….no surprise…I didn’t know you were a world-renowned expert on evolution…please cite a list of your published articles.

if not, then what you say is meaningless…you do not define evolution…sorry…thats for people like Dawkins. you see why I say you are a legend in your own mind.

right4life on September 30, 2009 at 6:44 PM

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 2:51 PM

You are still under the fallacy racism didn’t exist before Darwin’s time and are trying your best to tie the two together and fail miserably. Picking and choosing a few select quotes from a book when it has been noted several times he’s against slavery, considers all humans of the same origin – also from the book – and was a moderate for his time.

this is another obvious lie…you’re full of them…and it. then tell me, why did darwin talk about EXTERMINATING THE LOWER RACES??? why is one race LOWER THAN ANOTHER??? HMMMMMMM???? duhhhhhhhhh

Darwin did not inspire Marx. You are wrong. I don’t know how many times I can state this.

yeah lying over and over and over doesn’t make it so…

n 1861, Karl Marx wrote to his friend Ferdinand Lassalle, “Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle.

The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.

so gould and koonin are lying huh? the fossil record does not show evolution, no matter how much you or the NAS (which is a darwiniac propoganda organ) want it to.

all your words are so much BS…evolution doesn’t happen…sorry…get a clue.

The late Triassic-early Jurassic predates Archaeopteryx, the most primitive bird known, which first appears in the fossil record in the late Jurassic fifty million or more years later. Yet here we have convincing traces of modern shore birds in strata that appears to be very well dated to the late Triassic. The authors point out this connudrum and suggest the strata is wrongly dated. However the dating appears to be, so to speak, rock solid. What’s up with that?

link

Charles Darwin’s tree of life is ‘wrong and misleading’, claim scientists

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/4312355/Charles-Darwins-tree-of-life-is-wrong-and-misleading-claim-scientists.html

“Having gained acceptance for her work on the origin of eukaryotic cells, she seems willing to take on any sacred cow. Indeed, she is now aiming for the biggest target in evolutionary biology: neo-Darwinism. First named in 1896, neo-Darwinism is the synthesis of Darwinian natural selection and Mendelian-style genetics. Today, it is the reigning paradigm of the discipline, but to Margulis it is little more than a “quaint, but potentially dangerous aberration” that needs to be tossed out in order for science to answer “basic questions” like why stasis is so prevalent in the fossil record, and how one species can evolve from another.”

Mann, C. Lynn Margulis: Science’s Unruly Earth Mother, Science, 252, 19 April 1991: 378-381.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM

@right4life on October 1, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Of course i quoted Hitler, those were his beliefs.
I find it funny you quote one or two Harvard publications yet seemingly ignore the numerous, and I mean numerous, publications all supporting evolution eith through fossil records or DNA evidence, including the study done with the stick insects and proteins.

I see what you’re doing there, you’re picking and choosing things that sound good to you and pass them off as irrefutable facts. Unfortunately for you that’s not how the world works.

And as I stated before, you can attempt to discredit the person of Darwin all you want if it helps you sleep better, it does nothing to refute the facts and science of evolution itself. Attempt to use logic and not emotion.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM

Instead of spending time on public debates, why aren’t members of your institute publishing their ideas in prominent peer-reviewed journals such as Science, Nature, or the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences? If you want to be taken seriously by scientists and scholars, this is where you need to publish.

because you fascist little darwiniac goons won’t let them publish in their darwiniac journals…and when someone does, like Sternberg…you little brown-shirts try to get him fired…

Evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg made a fateful decision a year ago.

As editor of the hitherto obscure Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Sternberg decided to publish a paper making the case for “intelligent design,” a controversial theory that holds that the machinery of life is so complex as to require the hand — subtle or not — of an intelligent creator.

Within hours of publication, senior scientists at the Smithsonian Institution — which has helped fund and run the journal — lashed out at Sternberg as a shoddy scientist and a closet Bible thumper.

“They were saying I accepted money under the table, that I was a crypto-priest, that I was a sleeper cell operative for the creationists,” said Steinberg, 42 , who is a Smithsonian research associate. “I was basically run out of there.”

An independent agency has come to the same conclusion, accusing top scientists at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History of retaliating against Sternberg by investigating his religion and smearing him as a “creationist.”

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel, which was established to protect federal employees from reprisals, examined e-mail traffic from these scientists and noted that “retaliation came in many forms . . . misinformation was disseminated through the Smithsonian Institution and to outside sources. The allegations against you were later determined to be false.”

“The rumor mill became so infected,” James McVay, the principal legal adviser in the Office of Special Counsel, wrote to Sternberg, “that one of your colleagues had to circulate [your résumé] simply to dispel the rumor that you were not a scientist.”

link

you darwiniacs can’t defend your theory…so you have to silence the opposition, via lawsuits, threats, and intimidation…

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 2:59 PM

Of course i quoted Hitler, those were his beliefs.

really? and you are that one that said:

Despite whatever reasons Hitler gave for his reasoning — and honestly, how much can we trust him?

so were you lyin then or now??

I see what you’re doing there, you’re picking and choosing things that sound good to you and pass them off as irrefutable facts. Unfortunately for you that’s not how the world works.

I see what you are doing…just ignoring anything that doesn’t fit your faith.

And as I stated before, you can attempt to discredit the person of Darwin all you want if it helps you sleep better, it does nothing to refute the facts and science of evolution itself. Attempt to use logic and not emotion.

keep lying…I’ve already said it doesn’t matter about darwin himself…evolution itself is racist and eugenicist…but hey keep lying for darwin, its all ya got.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 3:01 PM

you darwiniacs prove Orwell right again…

“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM

@ right4life on October 1, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Once again, since this can’t be said enough:
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists’ conclusions less certain.

This blanket dismissal of evolution ignores important distinctions that divide the field into at least two broad areas: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution looks at changes within species over time–changes that may be preludes to speciation, the origin of new species. Macroevolution studies how taxonomic groups above the level of species change. Its evidence draws frequently from the fossil record and DNA comparisons to reconstruct how various organisms may be related.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches). Natural selection and other mechanisms–such as chromosomal changes, symbiosis and hybridization–can drive profound changes in populations over time.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not–and does not–find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock’s worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans.

http://tinyurl.com/ycrxyym
Here is a good start. Now the key is here, you have to be able to do some research.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:05 PM

you keep repeating the same old lies and BS without anything to back up your lies…you cannot respond to anything I have said…just cut and paste the same old BS…laughable.

here try to answer this…and no I’m not even bothering to read your bloviating BS…

this is another obvious lie…you’re full of them…and it. then tell me, why did darwin talk about EXTERMINATING THE LOWER RACES??? why is one race LOWER THAN ANOTHER??? HMMMMMMM???? duhhhhhhhhh

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 3:08 PM

Science Paper Admits Evolution Mechanism of “Adaptive Radiation” Lacks Empirical Evidence
A recent article in Science titled “Adaptive Radiation: Contrasting Theory with Data” admits that the evidence documenting the precise workings of a key macroevolutionary mechanism — “adaptive radiation” — is missing. The article concedes that “how exactly radiation occurs, and how it differs among taxa and in different settings, as well as why some lineages radiate and others do not, are still unclear.”

link

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 3:09 PM

I have more than Darwin and don’t have to believe in 2000 year old mythology to remain happy.

Your whole argument is based on an irrational lie that refuses to accept proven physical evidence instead relying on the creation of mythical beings and deities as your explanation of how things are.

Ironic you keep mentioning my “faith”. I don’t need faith in evolution, the facts are presented there and new discoveries are being made all of the time. The difference is scientists ask the question of why if something doesn’t fit. When asked to present the physical evidence of a great flood all you get is backtracks and falsehoods. This is the case with numerous questions of the bible and it’s 6000 year old world.

Evolution has defended itself many many times as with studies of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to where is the “missing” links….
Of course people can dismiss those discoveries all they want, doesn’t mean they don’t happen.k.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Your whole argument is based on an irrational lie that refuses to accept proven physical evidence instead relying on the creation of mythical beings and deities as your explanation of how things are.

more lying for darwin…its all you do. you have lied repeatedly throughout this exchange…it just shows how desperate you are to defend your hairygod…your savior darwin…

When asked to present the physical evidence of a great flood all you get is backtracks and falsehoods. This is the case with numerous questions of the bible and it’s 6000 year old world.

you would dismiss anything that doesn’t match your atheism, so why bother?

lets answer the question..

why did darwin talk about EXTERMINATING THE LOWER RACES??? why is one race LOWER THAN ANOTHER??? LIST THE LOWER RACES

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 3:20 PM

Once again you dolt. Darwin was a product of the time. Try as you might, it doesn’t discredit the since. Quite nitpicking one thing in an attempt to discredit all scientific research on evolution. It’s what idiots do.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:23 PM

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:17 PM

lets see, nothing in the fossil record, nothing in the lab, nothing in the field, ‘tree of life’ discarded…’adaptive radiation’ discarded…what do you have left, other than your faith??

and why won’t you answer the following question???

why did darwin talk about EXTERMINATING THE LOWER RACES??? why is one race LOWER THAN ANOTHER??? LIST THE LOWER RACES

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 3:23 PM

and since you won’t answer the question about LOWER RACES…

here is the answer, from the book behind the ‘scopes monkey trial’

At the present time there exist upon the earth five races or varieties of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure. These are the Ethiopian or negro type, originating in Africa; the Malay or brown race, from the islands of the Pacific; the American Indian; the Mongolian or yellow race, including the natives of China, Japan, and the Eskimos; and finally, the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.

I’m sure your proud of your racist theory!!

the book was also eugenic:

Hunter was also a proponent of eugenics. “[T]he science of being well born,” his text instructed, is an imperative for sophisticated society. “When people marry there are certain things that the individual as well as the race should demand,” he wrote, arguing that tuberculosis, epilepsy, and even “feeble-mindedness are handicaps which it is not only unfair but criminal to hand down to posterity.” “If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading,” Hunter lamented in Civic Biology. “Humanity will not allow this but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways preventing intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.”[emphasis mine]

well well…an evolutionary texbook with racism and eugenics…who’s a thunk it??

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 3:26 PM

George William Hunter’s A Civic Biology: Presented in Problems (1914). is the name of the textbook behind the scopes monkey trial…the quotes above are from it…

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 3:27 PM

hahaha..your link is laughable, as are most of your links.
From the study:
General Conclusions
This brief survey suggests the following:

1. More empirical studies are needed specifically aimed at assessing the predictions discussed above. At present, we are left with a haphazard set of studies that happen to be relevant.
2. More generally, evolutionary biology is an inductive science in which we establish generalities by the accumulation of case studies. The number of adaptive radiations that have been extensively studied from the many different perspectives relevant to our discussions is surprisingly small. More detailed studies, integrating across a variety of approaches and disciplines, is needed to build a reservoir of case studies from which generalizations can be drawn.
3. We need studies of general models aiming to capture the most widespread patterns of adaptive radiation. At the same time, we need models that are more closely tailored to the biology of particular taxa. For example, some models (25, 26) assume that mating occurs in the ecological niche that a species exploits; this assumption is true for some taxa, such as some host-specific insect herbivores, but not for other classic adaptive radiations. The extent to which relaxing these assumptions or tailoring them to other biological situations (e.g., different species concepts) would change the predictions needs to be explored. The complexity of the processes of adaptive radiation is reflected in the complexity of corresponding mathematical models. Using the emerging tools of high-performance computing will be crucial for better understanding of models (and nature).

Darwin was confronted with the fruits of adaptive radiation throughout his 5-year journey around the world, and their evolutionary exuberance made an impression on him. Speaking of the Galápagos finches that now bear his name, he wrote in The Voyage of the Beagle:

“Seeing this gradation and diversity of structure in one small, intimately related group of birds, one might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species has been taken and modified for different ends.”

In the 150 years since publication of the Origin, adaptive radiations have continued to astonish and inspire scientists and the public alike. But how exactly radiation occurs, and how it differs among taxa and in different settings, as well as why some lineages radiate and others do not, are still unclear. Most likely this is because there is no single answer: Lineages vary in manifold ways, various evolutionary factors act simultaneously, similar evolutionary outcomes can be achieved via alternative paths, and the contingencies of place and time play a large role in guiding the evolutionary process.

It means more study is needed and they “haphazardly” conducted the studies they do have documentation for.

The DI really are desperate to disprove Darwin despite the fact they haven’t presented one shred of evidence of intelligent design that isn’t always disproven.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Nothing made everything.

Therefore:

1. nothing exists, &
2. Nothing is greater than everything.

Akzed on October 1, 2009 at 3:34 PM

hahaha..your link is laughable, as are most of your links.
From the study:
General Conclusions
This brief survey suggests the following:

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM

guess you didn’t read it very well…

Despite the candid admissions about the lack of data showing how adaptive radiations proceed, this magic wand of “adaptive radiation” is waved over the history of life to account for the huge portions of macroevolutionary innovation. This does not inspire confidence in modern evolutionary biology.
The article further admits that a problem when studying radiations is that you’re dealing with one-time events that are unpredictable: “extrapolation from processes operating today to what happened early in the history of a radiation is problematic; in the past, different processes may have operated or the outcome of these processes may have been different.” In other words, when we’re dealing with one-time events that can’t be repeated or tested in the laboratory, we can’t predict the outcome:

“In the 150 years since publication of the Origin, adaptive radiations have continued to astonish and inspire scientists and the public alike. But how exactly radiation occurs, and how it differs among taxa and in different settings, as well as why some lineages radiate and others do not, are still unclear. Most likely this is because there is no single answer: Lineages vary in manifold ways, various evolutionary factors act simultaneously, similar evolutionary outcomes can be achieved via alternative paths, and the contingencies of place and time play a large role in guiding the evolutionary process.”

(Sergey Gavrilets and Jonathan B. Losos, “Adaptive Radiation: Contrasting Theory with Data,” Science, Vol. 323:732-737 (February 6, 2009).)
The lack of predictability inherent in this crucial evolutionary mechanism doesn’t mean that adaptive radiations are unscientific as explanations. Historical sciences often deal with unique historical events that could not have been predicted and certainly cannot be repeated. But the admissions of this paper show that evolutionary biology does not always rely on predictable processes.

This article should be admired for its candidness about the lack of data for adaptive radiation. Somehow I suspect that when biologists answer its calls for more studies, they won’t find evidence that natural selection—even operating upon species expanding into new, open habitats and niches—can produce large-scale evolutionary change at the rapid rates required by the fossil and molecular data.

and don’t forget….

why did darwin talk about EXTERMINATING THE LOWER RACES??? why is one race LOWER THAN ANOTHER??? LIST THE LOWER RACES

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 3:35 PM

The DI really are desperate to disprove Darwin despite the fact they haven’t presented one shred of evidence of intelligent design that isn’t always disproven.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:29 PM

you mean like miller’s lame attempt to discredit behe?? he’s been totally unsuccesful..thats why you darwiniacs have to sue, silence, and harass people who disagree like sternberg….you fascist little darwiniacs.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 3:37 PM

This thread makes me miss the poster “Maxx.” He may have been completely lost about evolution, but I never got the sense he wasn’t even trying to understand where the other side was coming from. You could have an actual debate with him. He’s one of the only creationists I’ve ever seen that would respond to a rebuttal without moving the goalpost or ignoring it completely. Maxx, if you’re still out there, I never gave you enough credit for your intellectual honesty (even though you were honestly, really wrong).

RightOFLeft on October 1, 2009 at 3:42 PM

Darwin also talked about how all races are the same, was anti-slavery and considered a moderate for his time.

What is so hard to understand? You’re beating a dead horse fallacy.
The idea of “social Darwinism” originated in the class stratification of England by Herbet Spencer, and has often been used as a general term for any evolutionary argument about the biological basis of human differences. Drawing on social Darwinism, supporters of the 20th-century eugenics movement sought to “improve” human genetic stock, much as farmers do in agriculture.

Darwin viewed the differences between human races as superficial (he discusses them only in terms of skin color and hair style), and much of Descent is devoted to the question of the human races. Aside from the aforementioned encounter with slavery on the Beagle, Darwin also was perplexed by the “savage races” he saw in South America at Tierra del Fuego, which he saw as evidence of a man’s more primitive state of civilization.

You might interested in this book before you make anymore assumptions that only “atheists” or supposed Darwinists believe in eugenics:

Preaching eugenics: religious leaders and the American eugenics movement
By Christine Rosen

I’d like you to justify how something as pure as Christianity can get involved with this bunk scientific field. Christianity must be evil…..

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:44 PM

Nothing made everything.

Therefore:

1. nothing exists, &
2. Nothing is greater than everything.

Akzed on October 1, 2009 at 3:34 PM

Look up the definintion of “nothing”, I guess you don’t know what the definition of “is” is either. There is absoulutely absence of all energy and all particles(mass), and no light. Even Einstein, entertained the idea of creation BY an intelligence.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 3:47 PM

And once again…Darwin’s political views are irrelevant. George Washington kept slaves. In fact one of them escaped and he sent out people to look for her. He didn’t free them after his death either, he left them to his wife.

G. Washington was a product of his time. Does the fact he kept slaves during a period of time when many wealthy aristocrats did make him any less of Presidential figure or great founder? I’d venture to say it doesn’t. What it does show however is the hard realities of our past.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:50 PM

@ jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Perhaps he did, doesn’t mean he wasn’t wrong.

Here are common misconceptions about the Big Bang Theory (BBT) that people have.

1.The BBT is not about the origin of the universe. Rather, its primary focus is the development of the universe over time.
2.BBT does not imply that the universe was ever point-like.
3. The origin of the universe was not an explosion of matter into already existing space.

The simple statement “something can not come out of nothing” is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, “vacuum fluctuations”. In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. See, for instance, the Wikipedia page for the Casimir effect.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:53 PM

And once again…Darwin’s political views are irrelevant. George Washington kept slaves. In fact one of them escaped and he sent out people to look for her. He didn’t free them after his death either, he left them to his wife.

you darwiniacs have to lie….

from wikpedia..

After the Revolutionary War, Washington, inspired with the partnership of a young French abolitionist Marquis de Lafayette, sought a way to free his slaves, ultimately emancipating them in his will upon the death of his wife, Martha Washington.[3]

and it doesn’t matter if darwin was a racist…again you cannot deal with the issue EVOLUTION IS RACIST AND EUGENICICST…..doesn’t matter if darwin was or not.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM

The idea of “social Darwinism” originated in the class stratification of England by Herbet Spencer, and has often been used as a general term for any evolutionary argument about the biological basis of human differences. Drawing on social Darwinism, supporters of the 20th-century eugenics movement sought to “improve” human genetic stock, much as farmers do in agriculture.

another lie….Darwin’s cousin Galton founded the eugenics movement…even coined the term…he was inspired by Darwin, and his theory of evolution…and darwin was a eugenicist…as is evidenced by the quotes I gave before…

you darwiniacs are lying scum

Darwin viewed the differences between human races as superficial (he discusses them only in terms of skin color and hair style), and much of Descent is devoted to the question of the human races. Aside from the aforementioned encounter with slavery on the Beagle, Darwin also was perplexed by the “savage races” he saw in South America at Tierra del Fuego, which he saw as evidence of a man’s more primitive state of civilization.


SO WHY DID DARWIN TALK ABOUT LOWER RACES??? AND WHY DID HE WANT THEM EXTERMINATED?? NAME THE LOWER RACES…

you’re a pathetic moron.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:53 PM

This is a perfect example of pure “liberal” thought. “Nothing” in Quatum mechanics is actually REALITY, Not nothing. Anyway, Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he knew there had to be somthing to spark the big bang. There is no way a void could create this “——”, YOU FILL IN THE BLANK.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 4:32 PM

Preaching eugenics: religious leaders and the American eugenics movement
By Christine Rosen

oh there are alwasy a few usefull idiots…like sanger recruiting black ministers to help her wipe out black babies….another shining moment for darwin’s legacy!!

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 4:33 PM

The simple statement “something can not come out of nothing” is, in itself, not very convincing. From quantum field theory, we know that something does indeed come from nothing: to wit, “vacuum fluctuations”. In the simplest case, an electron, a positron and a photon can appear effectively out of nowhere, exist for a brief time and then annihilate, leaving no net creation of mass or energy. Experimental support for this sort of effect has been found from a number of different experiments. See, for instance, the Wikipedia page for the Casimir effect.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 3:53 PM

Again, Dimensions would be more accurate than NOTHING.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 4:34 PM

WHAT DIMENSION ARE YOU LIVING IN? Wow, the Casmir effect. So man has dicovered how to create? Man man discover many ways to manipulate His Creation, but they will never understand why there is a Creation.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 4:43 PM

@right4life on October 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM
lol..you really lack reading comprehension don’t you?
I said he gave them to his wife when he died. I don’t know if you refuse to see facts or you’re just plain stupid.

SO WHY DID DARWIN TALK ABOUT LOWER RACES??? AND WHY DID HE WANT THEM EXTERMINATED?? NAME THE LOWER RACES…

Since G. Washington fought for freedom and liberty and kept slaves does that make his or any of the founders struggle any less credible because they kept slaves? No it didn’t, G.Washington as with Darwin are products of their time. You can call Darwin racist all you want, by your token you have to call most of the Founders racists as well because most owned slaves. Darwin himself was moderate for his times unlike staunch creationist of his day Louis Asassiz, went on to say whites were a different species. There isn’t a much doubt Darwin viewed non-Europeans as inferior, but he was anti-slavery and did missionary work to better the conditions of the Teirra del Feugans.

In the Origin of the Species Darwin refers to the “preservation of the faouverd (sic) races”. Race was used by Darwin to refer to varieties, not human races. In oints out some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of the Species hardly refers to humans at all.

If you can’t see that you’re a complete moron or just a liar. Like I said you can attempt to discredit Darwin but that does not discredit scientific facts and evidence that support evolution.

Once again so your thick head can get it:

Darwin’s political views are irrelevant, he was anti-slavery and a product of the Victorian era

Evolution is not racist by any means.
When properly understood – not based on hyperbole like you – evolution teaches the opposite. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things considering different plants and animals to be distinct kinds. This line of thought gave the rise to misleading conception of human races in which different races were thought to be separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminates typological thinking because genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous. It doesn’t teach racism, it teaches the opposite.

As noted, Darwin was far less racist than his creationist counterparts like George McCready Price who referred to “Negros” and Mongolians as degenerate humans.

During much of apartheid S. Africa evolution was not allowed to be taught. The “Cristian National Education System” founded there from 1948 to 1993 taught that blacks should be taught there inferior positions in society.

The Bible Belt in the south fought hardest to maintain slavery.

Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research has read into racists interpretations of the bible.

Creationism itself might not be racists but it’s based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry which is no less hateful and harmful.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 5:11 PM

WHAT DIMENSION ARE YOU LIVING IN? Wow, the Casmir effect. So man has dicovered how to create? Man man discover many ways to manipulate His Creation, but they will never understand why there is a Creation.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 4:43 PM

It shows something can come from nothing, which you stated was impossible.

And this theory based on mathematics and physics is less believable than a bearded sky fairy clicking his fingers and creating the universe because………

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM

Nothing IS NOTHING. PERIOD.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 5:31 PM

well well…an evolutionary texbook with racism and eugenics…who’s a thunk it??

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 3:26 PM

Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It’s just as compatible with creationism and it’s based on bad biology.

William J Tinkly – CREATIONIST – advocated for the use of eugenics for selective breeding. That must mean they’re all evil!

Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on divine right
“Thus it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, though this knowledge. to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand subordination of the inferior and the weaker in accordance to the eternal will theat dominates the universe ”

Hitler was a young earth creationist when he wrote Mien Kampf:
“The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of it’s bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable crime. Anyone who dares lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and contributes to the expulsion from paradise”

Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions can be multiplied ad nauseam:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting got the work of the Lord”

“[T]he task of preserving and advancing the highest humanity given to this earth by the benevolence of the Almighty, seems a truly high mission”

He often referred to socialism as a “godless movement”

Of course this does not mean Hitler’s idea’s were solely based on creationism alone anymore than they were based on evolution. Hitler’s ideas were perversions of religion and biology.

Racism existed long before Hitler or Darwin, and they didn’t need a contribution from Darwinism. In many instances such as the Crusades and the Spanish conquest of the Central America, religion was explicitly invoked to justify the actions, whether Christian of Muslim.

Implying evolution leads to social Darwinism is a naturalistic fallacy – the argument that how things are implies how they ought to be. But “is” does not imply “ought”. Evolution simply tells things how they are, not how they “ought” to be.

The source of Social Darwinism was Herbert Spencer as I noted before. I simple google search would show you that. Spencer – along Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus – are Lamarckian. The only connection is the name.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 5:37 PM

It shows something can come from nothing, which you stated was impossible.

And this theory based on mathematics and physics is less believable than a bearded sky fairy clicking his fingers and creating the universe because………

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 5:14 PM

I’d like ta see ya put it in an equation yank. Also I’m tired of redundancy, Please define NOTHING.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 5:40 PM

I meant a simple google search…

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 5:41 PM

I’d like ta see ya put it in an equation yank. Also I’m tired of redundancy, Please define NOTHING.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 5:40 PM
I’m not a phycists.
More importantly I’m not trying to disprove it, it has been proven.

If you feel it’s wrong plug in the equations yourself and find out where it’s wrong and refute the scientists who use it. That’s how science work – tests and research – not on “I can’t imagine that’s true so it’ must not be”.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 5:44 PM

So once again Right4Life’s/Tom/Tsmith’s argument breaks down to casting personal insults and making Michael Moore leaps of logical and logical fallacies.

It cannot be stated enough that once in a debate, even such a casual one as this, one party starts to make ad hominem comments and has to resort to insults, then they have simply lost the debate.

But I am glad to see that Right4Life’s/Tom/Tsmith’s reputation is well established. Same claims and posts under so many users names.

http://www.village-idiot.org/archives/2008/05/30/right4life-not-the-voice-of-my-god/

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=56377

Now why would a person resort to such personal insults and hate-filled claims and replies whenever such topics come up?

But, speaking to the topic of the original article, Beck, much like Hannity or any other conservative who makes the claim, is simply wrong that God, the xian god or otherwise, is such a foundation of this nation.

Note how no foundation of law can be cited to support the claim but rather the Declaration of Independence only.

The wisdom of the founding father was to distance religion from government for the very reason we see today when it comes to overtly religious people wanting to make everyone bow to their religion.

A prime example would be when religious based laws are challenged in court and found to be violation of constitutional freedoms.

Of course, that leads the overtly religious and those who simply fear anything but their own “kind” (yes, directly play on words) into making laughable claims of “fascism” when the law and constitutional freedoms are upheld.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 5:55 PM

Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It’s just as compatible with creationism and it’s based on bad biology.

where do you get this BS and lies at?? you don’t have any documentation for this ASSertion…nor do you have any logic to support it.

you’re an idiot…a laughable moron…and you think you are educated…please.

William J Tinkly – CREATIONIST – advocated for the use of eugenics for selective breeding. That must mean they’re all evil!

who??? what are you talking about?? and if this person existed…and used EUGENICS…he got that from DARWIN and his cousin GALTON, WHO COINED THE TERM….DUHHHHHH

Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions can be multiplied ad nauseam:

you said hitler was a liar yourself!!! and you quoted BORMANN…who said ‘christianity and naziism are INCOMPATIBLE’ DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH pathetically stupid.

you have nothing to support your BS…you lie continually….then you CONTRADICT YOURSELF!!!

laughable…are you for real?? seriously you’ve given me afew laughs but you’re dumb as dirt.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 5:56 PM

So once again Right4Life’s/Tom/Tsmith’s argument breaks down to casting personal insults and making Michael Moore leaps of logical and logical fallacies.

who is tom and tsmith??

But I am glad to see that Right4Life’s/Tom/Tsmith’s reputation is well established. Same claims and posts under so many users names.

http://www.village-idiot.org/archives/2008/05/30/right4life-not-the-voice-of-my-god/

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=56377

Now why would a person resort to such personal insults and hate-filled claims and replies whenever such topics come up?

you really are a wacko.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 5:58 PM

@right4life on October 1, 2009 at 4:30 PM
lol..you really lack reading comprehension don’t you?
I said he gave them to his wife when he died. I don’t know if you refuse to see facts or you’re just plain stupid.

you ‘conveniently’ didn’t mention that washington freed his slaves..in his will…after his wife died…a nice little twisting of history to suit your purposes…in other words, you lied.

In the Origin of the Species Darwin refers to the “preservation of the faouverd (sic) races”. Race was used by Darwin to refer to varieties, not human races. In oints out some variations that occur naturally survive in greater numbers. Origin of the Species hardly refers to humans at all.

laughable BS..oh yeah RACE means a kind of cabbage…sure.

so you can’t answer what darwin meant by LOWER RACES…no surprise…you can’t cast aspirsions on your hairygod

Evolution is not racist by any means.

of course it is…and people like Gould admit it!! why can’t you??

“Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859, but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” Stephen Jay Gould,
‘Ontogeny and Phylogeny’, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 27-128

if evolution wasn’t racist, as you say…why would biological arguments increase by orders of MAGNITUDE..AFTER the acceptance of evolutionary theory??? hmmmmm???

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 6:03 PM

I’d like ta see ya put it in an equation yank. Also I’m tired of redundancy, Please define NOTHING.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 5:40 PM
I’m not a phycists.
More importantly I’m not trying to disprove it, it has been proven.

If you feel it’s wrong plug in the equations yourself and find out where it’s wrong and refute the scientists who use it. That’s how science work – tests and research – not on “I can’t imagine that’s true so it’ must not be”.
bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 5:44 PM

What a tribute to atheism…nothing to show..I’m not here from a void dude, and there are many who feel they REALLY EXIST, and we want freedom to worship, whatever, if ya can’t get with the idea of something is more than nothing, than bug off! I’ll never forget the death of my sister or my father or my uncle… and others…Derrion Albert was the inspiration of this, Glen was commenting on how kids could not help him, just ignore him,these were his friends, F**K Darwin, so what if ya don’t believe in G_D. Why did this happen, why are kids so reluctant to do what’s right?

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 6:05 PM

It cannot be stated enough that once in a debate, even such a casual one as this, one party starts to make ad hominem comments and has to resort to insults, then they have simply lost the debate.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 5:55 PM

you know you’re right about that…you’ll notice the first thing darwiniacs like you say about anyone who disagrees is they are ignorant…read the thread for yourself…

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM

But I am glad to see that Right4Life’s/Tom/Tsmith’s reputation is well established. Same claims and posts under so many users names.

http://www.village-idiot.org/archives/2008/05/30/right4life-not-the-voice-of-my-god/

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=56377

Now why would a person resort to such personal insults and hate-filled claims and replies whenever such topics come up?

it looks like you left-wing wackos are really obsessed over me…guess the truth hurts.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 6:16 PM

R4L
who is tom and tsmith??

Your other nom de plumes.

you really are a wacko.

And all you have are such insults. Odd how one who claims to have the “truth” on his or her side has to resort to such juvenile behavior as to cast insults to those who dare say something they don’t like to hear.

you know you’re right about that…you’ll notice the first thing darwiniacs like you say about anyone who disagrees is they are ignorant…read the thread for yourself…

And now you are trying to simplistically dismiss everyone and anyone who disagree with you.

Besides, pointing out that someone is ignorant, as in lacking knowledge, is not an insult and nowhere near your calling people fascists, morons and the like.

But I guess I really cannot expect much in the way of decorum from a religious hypocrite or one who simply hates and rallies against anyone not of his “kind”.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 6:20 PM

Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It’s just as compatible with creationism and it’s based on bad biology.

where do you get this BS and lies at?? you don’t have any documentation for this ASSertion…nor do you have any logic to support it.

you’re an idiot…a laughable moron…and you think you are educated…please.

It’s called books, please pick one for once and you just might be able to form an argument with knowledge and facts instead of hyperbole and ad hominem attacks.

who??? what are you talking about?? and if this person existed…and used EUGENICS…he got that from DARWIN and his cousin GALTON, WHO COINED THE TERM….DUHHHHHH

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=TirFSoj4LtXU8Aa2yfA6&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=William+J+Tinkle&spell=1

Quotes from Hitler invoking Christianity as a basis for his actions can be multiplied ad nauseam:

you said hitler was a liar yourself!!! and you quoted BORMANN…who said ‘christianity and naziism are INCOMPATIBLE’ DUHHHHHHHHHHHHH pathetically stupid.

Borman isn’t Hitler is he? Hitler wrote what he wrote. Those are the facts man. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Evolution isn’t racist. *sigh*
When properly understood – not based on hyperbole like you – evolution teaches the opposite. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things considering different plants and animals to be distinct kinds. This line of thought gave the rise to misleading conception of human races in which different races were thought to be separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminates typological thinking because genetic studies show that humans are remarkably homogeneous. It doesn’t teach racism, it teaches the opposite.

As noted, Darwin was far less racist than his creationist counterparts like George McCready Price who referred to “Negros” and Mongolians as degenerate humans.

During much of apartheid S. Africa evolution was not allowed to be taught. The “Cristian National Education System” founded there from 1948 to 1993 taught that blacks should be taught there inferior positions in society.

The Bible Belt in the south fought hardest to maintain slavery.

Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research has read into racists interpretations of the bible.

Creationism itself might not be racists but it’s based upon and inseparable from religious bigotry which is no less hateful and harmful.

Race doesn’t only mean cabbage dipsh*t, it mean a plethora of species he studied on his voyage on the Beagle.

You can’t seem to face the facts, you’re truly dillusional.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 6:21 PM

If you feel it’s wrong plug in the equations yourself and find out where it’s wrong and refute the scientists who use it. That’s how science work – tests and research – not on “I can’t imagine that’s true so it’ must not be”.
bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Matter cannot be created or destroyed right? Sorry, I do not have an equation to prove intelligent creation or not, Do you know the answer frum whilome go…

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM

it looks like you left-wing wackos are really obsessed over me…guess the truth hurts.

What truth? You post insults, quote-mind comments, ad hominems, and logical fallacies and declare victory over anyone and everyone.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Race doesn’t only mean cabbage dipsh*t, it mean a plethora of species he studied on his voyage on the Beagle.

You can’t seem to face the facts, you’re truly dillusional.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 6:21 PM

Hey I love my Beagle.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 6:25 PM

BEAGLES ARE COOL!!!Weather Darwin took a crap on them or not.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 6:26 PM

What a tribute to atheism…nothing to show..I’m not here from a void dude, and there are many who feel they REALLY EXIST, and we want freedom to worship, whatever, if ya can’t get with the idea of something is more than nothing, than bug off! I’ll never forget the death of my sister or my father or my uncle… and others…Derrion Albert was the inspiration of this, Glen was commenting on how kids could not help him, just ignore him,these were his friends, F**K Darwin, so what if ya don’t believe in G_D. Why did this happen, why are kids so reluctant to do what’s right?

as I noted, I’m no physicist. I have nothing to show, but the scientific community does. Feel free to research yourself and you might better yourself as a person. Being lazy or simply denying fact because you don’t want to belive doesn’t make it right. If you feel they’re wrong I’m sure after a few years of calculus and physics you can attempt to disprove them.

You feel a god exists but have no proof. You want proof of evolution – it’s all around you yet you continue to deny it – yet you’re okay with no proof of a god. It’s kind of interesting.

I never said you can’t worship, and most people including myself don’t care who the f*ck you pray to. Pray to Mayor McCheese for all I care, it’s not my business. Trying to say that proven scientific theory is wrong is being dishonest and that’s when I take issue.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 6:27 PM

Matter cannot be created or destroyed right? Sorry, I do not have an equation to prove intelligent creation or not, Do you know the answer frum whilome go…

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM

You’re referring to the First Law of Thermodyanmics. From what I recall, the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero.

The “Inflationary Universe” by Guth will help you with that.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM

What truth? You post insults, quote-mind comments, ad hominems, and logical fallacies and declare victory over anyone and everyone.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM

Agreed.
Posts of fallacies, half-truths and diffusional hyperbolic rants doesn’t not equal debate, it equals lunacy.

If I went o his school of thought on debate I might deduce all Christians are evil because they killed many Native Americans in the name of God and Hitler wrote a lot about God in Mien Kampf.

Then I’d constantly post an ad-hominem fallacy stating:
If the Holocaust isn’t based on Christian ideals than why did Hitler say ““Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting got the work of the Lord”!!!!

Rinse and repeat.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 6:38 PM

What a tribute to atheism…nothing to show..I’m not here from a void dude, and there are many who feel they REALLY EXIST, and we want freedom to worship, whatever, if ya can’t get with the idea of something is more than nothing, than bug off! I’ll never forget the death of my sister or my father or my uncle… and others…Derrion Albert was the inspiration of this, Glen was commenting on how kids could not help him, just ignore him,these were his friends, F**K Darwin, so what if ya don’t believe in G_D. Why did this happen, why are kids so reluctant to do what’s right?
as I noted, I’m no physicist. I have nothing to show, but the scientific community does. Feel free to research yourself and you might better yourself as a person. Being lazy or simply denying fact because you don’t want to belive doesn’t make it right. If you feel they’re wrong I’m sure after a few years of calculus and physics you can attempt to disprove them.

You feel a god exists but have no proof. You want proof of evolution – it’s all around you yet you continue to deny it – yet you’re okay with no proof of a god. It’s kind of interesting.

I never said you can’t worship, and most people including myself don’t care who the f*ck you pray to. Pray to Mayor McCheese for all I care, it’s not my business. Trying to say that proven scientific theory is wrong is being dishonest and that’s when I take issue.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 6:27 PM

I know you could care less who I pray too. My son does most of the praying. We both love science. BUT, there always MUST BE ARGUMENT….so let it continue…

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 6:45 PM

R4L
who is tom and tsmith??
Your other nom de plumes.

you’re wrong..but how would know this? why this obsession with me? are you some kind of sick cyberstalker?

And all you have are such insults. Odd how one who claims to have the “truth” on his or her side has to resort to such juvenile behavior as to cast insults to those who dare say something they don’t like to hear.

if you were the littlest bit honest, and of course you are not because you are a wacko, you would admit that I rarely if ever start hurling insults, rather I respond to them.

And now you are trying to simplistically dismiss everyone and anyone who disagree with you.

Besides, pointing out that someone is ignorant, as in lacking knowledge, is not an insult and nowhere near your calling people fascists, morons and the like.

oh so its OK when you darwiniacs call names..but you cannot be resonded to in kind…and especially you cannot bear any insult to your false god. and isn’t calling someone ignorant just another way to call them a moron?? hmmm?? and I only call people fascists that deserve it…like the darwiniacs who tried to silence Sternberg.

But I guess I really cannot expect much in the way of decorum from a religious hypocrite or one who simply hates and rallies against anyone not of his “kind”.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 6:20 PM

and I don’t expect anything from someone who is a liar, and a crazed cyberstalker. just don’t try to bring into real life sonny.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 6:56 PM

If the Holocaust isn’t based on Christian ideals than why did Hitler say ““Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting got the work of the Lord”!!!!

Rinse and repeat.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 6:38 PM

rinse and repeat…

1941, Martin Bormann, a close associate of Hitler said publicly “National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable”.
bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 1:13 PM

rinse and repeat..

Despite whatever reasons Hitler gave for his reasoning — and honestly, how much can we trust him? He was Hitler —

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 6:59 PM

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=TirFSoj4LtXU8Aa2yfA6&sa=X&oi=spell

so you pull out someone no one has ever heard of, and has had no impact at all…and try to smear creationists with him?? oh this is too funny!! of course he lived in the 1900s when eugenics was a very popular idea…he was a contemporary of sanger…so did tinkle found planned parenthood??

the desperation is laughable.

Borman isn’t Hitler is he? Hitler wrote what he wrote. Those are the facts man. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

Despite whatever reasons Hitler gave for his reasoning — and honestly, how much can we trust him? He was Hitler —
bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 2:25 PM

rinse and repeat.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 7:04 PM

Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more influential than Darwin in convincing the world of the truth of evolution. … But, as Gasman argues, Haeckel’s greatest influence was, ultimately, in another, tragic direction-national socialism. His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a “just” state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science-all contributed to the rise of Nazism. The Monist League that he had founded and led, though it included a wing of pacifists and leftists, made a comfortable transition to active support for Hitler.” (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University], “Ontogeny and Phylogeny,” Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).

“The case for Darwinism cannot be based on any edification that is supposed to come from its truths. Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history. Darwinism probably contributed to the upsurge of racism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and thus it helped foment twentieth-century racism generally. Darwinism was also used to exacerbate the neglect of the poor in the nineteenth century. All things considered, Darwinism has had many regrettable, and sometimes actually vicious, effects on the social climate of the modern world. Modern Darwinism does not offer any guarantee of unending progress. It is understandable that so many hate Darwin and Darwinism. It is often a bitter burden to live with Darwinism and its implications. Unlike so many doctrines, religions, and ideologies, it certainly isn’t intellectual opium. No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene.” (Rose M.R. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine], “Darwin’s Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World,” [1998], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2000, Third printing, p.210).

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 7:07 PM

If the Holocaust isn’t based on Christian ideals than why did Hitler say ““Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting got the work of the Lord”!!!!

Rinse and repeat.

bentman78 on October 1, 2009 at 6:38 PM

You are entering dangerous territory. Christ…IN…would not dare kill their Jewish fellows. You are sick. you make me sick.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM

You are sick. you make me sick.

jollybird on October 1, 2009 at 7:17 PM

he is…most of these atheist darwiniacs are sick, evil and twisted.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 7:22 PM

R4L
you’re wrong..but how would know this? why this obsession with me?

You flatter yourself. The simple fact is that either there are several other people making exactly the same claims with exactly the same odd punctuation with exactly the same insults and dismissals or there are several people who think and post exactly like you.

are you some kind of sick cyberstalker?

Wow. That didn’t take long. Normally when I start to comment on your other user names, you take a while to invoke the “stalking” claim. Next you will be making the claim that I followed you here.

if you were the littlest bit honest, and of course you are not because you are a wacko, you would admit that I rarely if ever start hurling insults, rather I respond to them.

Okay, again you have to resort to insults when I have posted none. But you have already excused that by lumping everyone you do not like in to the same group that you can then easily denounce.

And no, I would not have to admit that you rarely start to post insults. In the handful of comments you have made to me on this forum over the last year or so you have resorted to name calling and insults rather quickly.

Proof of this is your doing so in this thread in your very first reply to me. I have yet to post any personal comments or insults. Why do you do easily have to resort to them?

oh so its OK when you darwiniacs call names..

And we have one of the name you constantly use against anyone who supports evolution.

Another example of your tendency to report to insults all too often.

but you cannot be resonded to in kind…

And again, you lump everyone who challenges you into one group for your easy dismissal.

I have yet to post one insult yet to did so in your first reply.

and especially you cannot bear any insult to your false god.

And here was have an example of one of you irrational claims and one meant to also insult. Again, you operate in such a simplistic and juvenile manner.

and isn’t calling someone ignorant just another way to call them a moron?? hmmm??

No, it is not. Ignorant is lacking in knowledge which has been pointed out to you several times. You calling people morons is an insult and implies mental retardation.

Your attempt here to claim some equivalency is intellectually dishonest especially when you consider your established history of being pedantic and so literal in the meaning and definitions of words used here.

and I only call people fascists that deserve it…

And yet another justification for your simplistic dismissal and insults.

like the darwiniacs who tried to silence Sternberg.

So upholding peer review and citing when someone violated that established process is silencing him?

The painful and quit obvious fact is that your own claim is an example of just how your claim is a fallacy since both he and his claims have yet to be silenced.

What you appear to not like is that he could not or did not go through the proper peer review not to mention that his article wouldn’t have survived the process since it is based upon pseudoscience and mysticism.

and I don’t expect anything from someone who is a liar,

Lying is stating something as fact that is known not to be fact at the time. Care to back up your claim or is this yet another hollow claim of yours?

and a crazed cyberstalker.

Just because you keep posting on so many forums posting the same claims over and over using the same style making the same insults in not my fault.

Perhaps you could come up with some new material instead of being a broken record on the topic.

just don’t try to bring into real life sonny.

Wow. That was faster than normal. But if those are not your names from other forums, how can this possibly be stalking.

So do I get the rest of the script where you claim to be able to do all sorts of nasty things to people who “look into you “ too far?

And odd how you didn’t comment on anything regarding just how religious-based laws have been found time after time to violate the Constitution and guaranteed liberties.
But don’t forget to use your standard cop-out of “rather than post to such a long and meaningless rant” or similar hollow claim on your part.

It by no means makes it look like you are incapable of debating your own claims at length or that you run away when you cannot back up your claims.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 7:32 PM

jollybird
You are entering dangerous territory. Christ…IN…would not dare kill their Jewish fellows. You are sick. you make me sick.

R4L
he is…most of these atheist darwiniacs are sick, evil and twisted.

To quote R4L, the truth hurts. You can cast as many names as you like, but it doesn’t change the fact that Hitler quoted and cited the xian faith as part and parcel of his actions.

And, as so eloquently pointed out by bentman78, using the fallacious reasoning of R4L, that would make all xians just as bad.

I guess it is fortunate that so many people don’t think like R4L.

Gene Splicer on October 1, 2009 at 7:37 PM

Allahpundit, who is one of those anti-live-and-let-live atheists we all can do without.

Beck is saying the religious have respect for life, compared to the unreligious. This is simply a truism. History bears this out… even Allahpundit’s attitude supports Beck’s argument. The lesson of the good Samaritan is simply not in Allahpundit’s “let’s get the readers of Hot Air to fight” bag.

Allahpundit is living proof of Beck’s well-made point.

Danzo on October 1, 2009 at 7:41 PM

You flatter yourself. The simple fact is that either there are several other people making exactly the same claims with exactly the same odd punctuation with exactly the same insults and dismissals or there are several people who think and post exactly like you.

apparently I have some imitators…well imitation is the sincerest form of flattery…but why would you care? you really are obsessed.

Wow. That didn’t take long. Normally when I start to comment on your other user names, you take a while to invoke the “stalking” claim. Next you will be making the claim that I followed you here.

didn’t you? you came in to this thead after me…and started posting about ME!! apparently its all about ME to you…

Okay, again you have to resort to insults when I have posted none. But you have already excused that by lumping everyone you do not like in to the same group that you can then easily denounce

cyberstalkers ARE wackos…and what would you call coming into this thread and talking about ME???? not the issues…ME.

And no, I would not have to admit that you rarely start to post insults. In the handful of comments you have made to me on this forum over the last year or so you have resorted to name calling and insults rather quickly.

then you’re a liar…the first thing your kind say is ‘you’re ignorant’ ie you’re a moron…so I respond in kind…and then you whine like a little sissy!!

Proof of this is your doing so in this thread in your very first reply to me. I have yet to post any personal comments or insults. Why do you do easily have to resort to them?

your strange obsession with me earns the title of wacko…and its richly deserved…

and I only call people fascists that deserve it…
And yet another justification for your simplistic dismissal and insults.

what would you call people who try to silence others just because they have a different opinion?? hmmm??? if the brown-shirt fits….and the darwiniacs who tried to silence sternberg ARE fascists.

No, it is not. Ignorant is lacking in knowledge which has been pointed out to you several times. You calling people morons is an insult and implies mental retardation.

a distinction without a difference…ever hear of synonyms??

Synonyms: all thumbs, blundering, blunderous, bumbling, bungling, butterfingered, dumb, gawkish, gawky, graceless, half-witted, heavy-handed, idiotic, ignorant, inelegant, inept, klutzy, lubberly, lumbering, lumpish, moronic, simple, simpleminded, slow, stumbling, uncoordinated, undexterous, ungainly, unintelligent

Lying is stating something as fact that is known not to be fact at the time. Care to back up your claim or is this yet another hollow claim of yours?

yeah I’m not tom or tsmith. you’re a liar. and a wacko cybertalker…who is obsessed with me obviously.

Just because you keep posting on so many forums posting the same claims over and over using the same style making the same insults in not my fault.

so you go to different forums looking for me…and you claim not to be a cyberstalker???? right…..

So do I get the rest of the script where you claim to be able to do all sorts of nasty things to people who “look into you “ too far?

I have no idea what an obviously disturbed person like you would do. I was threatened on this thread by another darwiniac…and your sick obsession with me is threatening in and of itself.

as long as you keep your sick little fantasies about me confined to cyberspace, I could care less…but if you decide to bring it into my life..then you will not like what you find.

And odd how you didn’t comment on anything regarding just how religious-based laws have been found time after time to violate the Constitution and guaranteed liberties.

because like everything else you say its BS. like prayer in school…its was fine for 150 years…constitutional..when all of sudden its not…right, that makes perfect sense.

It by no means makes it look like you are incapable of debating your own claims at length or that you run away when you cannot back up your claims.

I’ve made plenty of claims in this thread..and backed them up with quotes, and documentation…you have not refuted a thing I have said…just displayed a rather sick fascination with me..

get a life.

right4life on October 1, 2009 at 7:46 PM

Comment pages: 1 9 10 11 12 13