Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaxson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The_Barbarian said:
You’re the one in denial about where the Nazis got their ideas for the Holocaust. You’ve seen what Luther wrote. And yet you can’t bring yourself to accept the truth.
… As you should know by now, Darwinists convincingly showed that Hitler’s idea of genetics was bunk.
Click to expand...
Barbarian, you have amazing tenacity to have taken on someone for so long who seems to have an enduring desire to abuse and pervert science! How long will your patience for this nonsense endure?

StAnastasia
 
Barbarian, you have amazing tenacity to have taken on someone for so long who seems to have an enduring desire to abuse and pervert science! How long will your patience for this nonsense endure?
Click to expand...
I’m a very patient guy.
 
The_Barbarian said:
I’m a very patient guy.
Click to expand...
There’s that ego again…
In fact “ego” is a better explanation for staying in this debate since you have consistently twisted and negated any evidence that is different from your preconceived conclusions. That is not good science or thrology.

God Bless you anyway,
MJZ
 
Does he claim scientists were operating the gas chambers in that one, too? :rolleyes:
 
reggieM said:
Mary,

You might enjoy this interview with David Berlinski which followed the theatrical release of Expelled (and his new book, The Devil’s Delusion":

Jewish Intellectuals Challenge Tyranny of Darwinism
Click to expand...
Thanks Reggie, in the end what Barbarian and others say doesn’t matter at all because truth stands by itself and remains despite assaults.
In the end truth about Darwin’s agnosticism and the negative effects of his science will be made known. Thanks for the link.

Mary
 
Thanks Reggie, in the end what Barbarian and others say doesn’t matter at all because truth stands by itself and remains despite assaults.
Click to expand...
Like Stein’s attempt to show that Darwin was behind the Holocaust, when it is clear that Martin Luther proposed almost all of it, and the Nazis gave him credit for it?
In the end truth about Darwin’s agnosticism and the negative effects of his science will be made known.
Click to expand...
Like the Darwinists who showed that Hitler’s version of eugenics was scientifically insupportable? I’d say that was a positive thing.

.
 
Like the Darwinists who showed that Hitler’s version of eugenics was scientifically insupportable? I’d say that was a positive thing.

.

You mean like the Darwinists who are still arguing for the same end goal of cleansing the gene pool through abortion clinics…(remember the letter to Clinton about putting more abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods?) (Remember the abortion clinic worker willing to take a donation for abortions of Black babies)/ Sounds like the same old thing to me and Margaret Sangar was a follower of that eugenics crowd which came out of London, supported by Darwin’s own son. But there couldn’t be any connection to Darwin…silly me…

In Christ.

MJZ
 
There are corrupt scientists who use science for evil purposes. Evolutionary theory plays a major role in those kinds of evils. Scientists invented the birth control pill and thus condemned themselves.
Perhaps we should leave the last word to another famous Catholic scientist, John Rock, who was the co-inventor of the pill. “You should be afraid to meet your Maker,” an angry conservative wrote to him, soon after the pill was approved. “My dear madam,” Rock replied, “in my faith, we are taught that the Lord is with us always. When my time comes, there will be no need for introductions.” Rock was also a pioneer in in-vitro fertilisation and the freezing of sperm cells, and was the first to extract an intact fertilised egg.
Click to expand...
 
Barbarian observes:
Like the Darwinists who showed that Hitler’s version of eugenics was scientifically insupportable? I’d say that was a positive thing.
You mean like the Darwinists who are still arguing for the same end goal of cleansing the gene pool through abortion clinics…
Click to expand...
You’ve redefined “Dawinist” to mean “people I don’t like.” As you learned earlier, Darwinists pointed out that the elimination of harmful genes by eugenic methods was not feasible.

(Pathetic attempt at guilt by association)
Sounds like the same old thing to me and Margaret Sangar was a follower of that eugenics crowd which came out of London, supported by Darwin’s own son.
Click to expand...
But not by Darwin, whom you admitted to have declared such things to be “evil.”
But there couldn’t be any connection to Darwin…
Click to expand...
I get it, since Darwin’s son was involved in eugenics, you want us to believe that Darwin had to be a supporter.
silly me…
Click to expand...
“Silly” would be the kindest interpretation of your behavior, Mary.
 
There are corrupt scientists who use science for evil purposes.
Click to expand...
There are corrupt plumbers who use plumbing for evil purposes. Is there any profession among humans with no corrupt members?
Evolutionary theory plays a major role in those kinds of evils. Scientists invented the birth control pill and thus condemned themselves.
Click to expand...
Interesting, Reggie. Why don’t you explain the role evolutionary theory played in the discovery of birth control pills (which were developed not to stop periods but to regulate them)?

Be specific and document your assertions.
 
Whether or not birth control pills originally were formulated to ‘regulate’ periods is a question that will be interesting to look into. However, at the present time birth and even at the very beginning of their use the forces of anti-church, anti0poor, anti-black, anti-family, were complicit in promoting their use. The result has been advances toward forms of the pill that stop periods, not just regulate them: Here is an example: the ‘seasonal’ birthcontrol pill:

“Of all the birth control options available one stands out: Seasonal birth control. It reduces a woman’s periods from 13 to just four a year. That’s once every three months which means a lot less cramping and all the frustrations of PMS. … It does so by preventing ovulation and further reducing the buildup of tissues in the uterus so the fertilized egg can not imbed. …”
medicaldiscoverynews.com/shows/birthControl.html

One example:
1.stopping 8 out of 12 monthly periods…hardly a situation of correcting a ‘regulation’ problem…

2.preventing a fertilized egg from being embedded in the womb, in other words causing it to be expelled which is an abortion

The history of birth control is embedded in men wanting to be able to have full access to women for sexual relations without fearing the responsibility of children not realizing the truth that the very word ‘woman’ shows that child bearing is part of the essence of womanhood. Thus we see a heavy control here by a male dominated medical field that has manipulated women and been uncaring toward their real needs, physically, spiritually and psychologocally. The harm that has been done is astronomical.

Margaret Sangar’s ‘Birth Control Review" magazine had this to say:
thinkchastity.com/aWhere_are_wex.html
"
"Another reason why birth control appeals to the advanced radical is that it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I do not expect every one to agree with this statement, but it is the opinion of many who, like myself, look forward to seeing humanity free some day of the tyranny of priests no less than of capitalists…The church will never be
converted to birth control. It prefers that the world should be over-populated by the ignorant and unthinking. It will continue to thunder against the prevention of conception as an `unholy
interference with the laws of God and nature.’ But those who take its clamor with a grain of salt will increase in numbers, until birth control finally looms up as one of the principal factors
in the downfall of the church. Walter Adolphe Roberts. “Birth Control and the Revolution.” , Volume I, Number 6 (June 1917), page 7.

In Christ, MaryJohnZ
 
Whether or not birth control pills originally were formulated to ‘regulate’ periods is a question that will be interesting to look into.
Click to expand...
If you claim to be active and interested in reproductive ethics, I’m astonished you don’t know that.
Birth control pills- Women who are not trying to conceive may find it beneficial to begin taking birth control pills. These can help regulate periods and improve acne and hair growth. Symptoms can return if a woman stops taking the pills. Birth control pills containing only progesterone can help with the irregular periods but will not help with acne or abnormal hair growth.
Click to expand...
americanpregnancy.org/womenshealth/pcos.htm

My understanding is that the Church does not object to them being used for this purpose, so long as there isn’t a possibility of conception (so it’s not for sexually active people). If one is not sexually active, there can be no contraception. There’s a health issue, too If it’s not well-regulated, it can make one miss periods, or even be harmful if pregnancy ensues.

Wouldn’t life have been simpler for you, if Stein had chosen to smear Sanger, instead of Darwin? 👍
 
MaryJohnZ said:
The result has been advances toward forms of the pill that stop periods, not just regulate them:
Click to expand...
Yes, scientists have been working on “advances” in the birth control pill to chemically suppress birth (the pill has abortifacient qualities). No Catholic scientist could work on or support labs that did such work. Beyond that, scientists invented RU-486 which aborts children.

That was a scientific “advance” that is murderous in killing children and advancing the work of Satan in corrupting souls (of the men and women who use or support that pill).

This all happens without complaint from the scientific community.
 
Is it possible to get a prominent public figure who will explain that religion and science are absolutely not exclusive? Even if its obvious, someone needs to dismiss the idea that religion and science can’t work together.
Unfortunately, it’s the scientists who don’t want to hear that.
Click to expand...
Let’s see… prominent scientists who have said that religion and science are compatible…

Stephen Gould
Albert Einstein
Francisco Ayala
Ernst Mayr (who was an atheist, BTW)
George Gaylord Simpson
Stephen Hawking
Theodosius Dobzhansky
Lynn Margulis

Except for Hawking, these are some of the men and women who are most responsible for modern evolutionary theory. You may have noticed that all the scientists here have also said that religion and science are compatible.
Remember, Pope Benedict was recently banished from speaking at a university for that very reason.
Click to expand...
Sounds interesting. Let us see your evidence that he was “banished” for asserting that religion and science are compatible.
And I agree w/ Stein to a degree: science not tempered by faith, allowed to proceed unchecked, does lead to death.
Click to expand...
Plumbing, not tempered by faith, allowed to proceed unchecked, leads to death. Don’t see your point here.
The Nazi’s are the obvious example,
Click to expand...
If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that Nazi “science” was quackery. For example, the idea of racial cleansing had been shown to be fallacious by Darwinians before Hitler came to power.

Reality check time.
 
The_Barbarian said:
Let’s see… prominent scientists who have said that religion and science are compatible…
Stephen Gould
Albert Einstein
Francisco Ayala
Ernst Mayr (who was an atheist, BTW)
George Gaylord Simpson
Stephen Hawking
Theodosius Dobzhansky
Lynn Margulis
.

Let’s add some Catholic priest/religious scientists:

George V. Coyne, S.J
William Stoeger, S.J.
Guy Consolmagno, S.J.
Frank Budenolzer, SVD
Dennis Parnell, S.J.
Michael Heller (Poland)
Gregor Mendel (Augstinian)
Kathleen Duffy SSJ (physicist)

These are faithful Catholics who are scientists, all of whom would be completely non-plussed by the ignorant claim that evolution leads to atheism or Nazi eugenics!

StAnastasia
Click to expand...
 
StAnastasia said:
Let’s add some Catholic priest/religious scientists:

George V. Coyne, S.J
William Stoeger, S.J.
Guy Consolmagno, S.J.
Frank Budenolzer, SVD
Dennis Parnell, S.J.
Michael Heller (Poland)
Gregor Mendel (Augstinian)
Kathleen Duffy SSJ (physicist)

These are faithful Catholics who are scientists, all of whom would be completely non-plussed by the ignorant claim that evolution leads to atheism or Nazi eugenics!
StAnastasia
Click to expand...
Man! Have you read the posts here at all! The debate has not been ant-evoltution but anti-materialistic, godless evoltution as in darwinism…a difference that you seemed to have missed.
No one has made the claim above…but we have argued with evidence from Darwin’s own notebooks and journals that he was agnostic and in the Descent of man he pushed foreward a theory meant to eliminate God from the the formation of the human conscience. I guess you missed those posts.

Mary

Mary
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top