Ben Stein: Science Leads to Killing People

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaxson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Continued-
Because even Mary’s people finally realized that Darwin and the Darwinists were right. Too bad they didn’t listen earlier, um?
I didn’t read her comments.
Let’s be honest here,for a bit. The things the Nazis did can be found in Martin Luther’s writings long before Darwin. It’s time for you to face the truth about that.
Sure, no argument here. And before Martin Luther as well. We have been selectivley breeding animals for how long now? None of this is new, and it is as old as time. Yeah, sure, I admit that.
No you know better. God said man came from the earth, not Darwin
.

Ok yeah, I admit I didn’t explain it all the way. Modern Darwinists belive that we are from mud, with no God. See how things “evolve” From Darwin’s semi belief in God, to nothing.
No. By the 1930s, that idea was dead in science. By 1871, Darwin had denounced it as evil, and by 1933, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan had shown it was bad science.
Well, it died because of the Nazis, after they saw what it all lead to. And of course it was bad science. But even science saw the dangers in what they are discussing. That was why they stopped it.
No scientists herded his family into the gas chambers. It was just another of his lies.
But they did kill Jews. Scientists, doctors, did kill Jews. That is not a lie. And he was referring to Jews as a whole, does it really matter if HIS family died that way? Many Jews DID die that way. This is just reaching.
They were, the few of them that did it, doctors, not scientists. And certainly not Darwinists. Stein lied about that. Isn’t it time you faced the truth?
Oh you are nitpicking here. Doctors, not scientists? Come on man. Again, Eugenics, coined by Darwins cousin, was drawn from Darwin. Darwinists may not have been for what happened, butit was drawn from Darwin. And I am sure, that some were Darwinist, or believers in Darwin.
No. His “point” was that it was the fault of Darwinists. The very people who called it evil, and exposed it as unscientific. He is making excuses for the Nazis, ignoring the fact that racism was the cause, and blaming the very people who first denounced the idea.
But not limited to racism. Genetics did have a big part to play in this.
Ben Stein denies the evil that caused the Holocaust, and blames the very people who warned against it. And all for his petty ideological causes. An evil, sick little man.
I disagree. Denying God for Darwin, is sick and evil, in my opinion. But again, Much of this was drawn from Darwin(science), Darwin, as a scienticit theory, was just a stepping stone, as it is today
 
The Barbarian;3805289]
On the other hand, a prominent creationist, as late as 1993, was asserting the intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. And he was honored by being given the top post in the largest creationist organization in the world.
And now we have one going to the White House. Or should I say, the half White House.
This is an key difference between scientists and creationists. Eugenic ideas espoused by a scientist, no matter how capable, can destroy his career. Eugenic ideas espoused by a creationist can help his career.
Hey, it is no suprise that political correctness is jam packed in acedemia. lol
 
Barbarian observes:
On the other hand, a prominent creationist, as late as 1993, was asserting the intellectual and spiritual inferiority of black people. And he was honored by being given the top post in the largest creationist organization in the world.
And now we have one going to the White House.
Maybe. There are still a lot of creationists like that in America. They’re not dumb enough to make their racism known, but it will be a factor. I think Obama will lose.
Or should I say, the half White House.
Yeah. Stuff like that. The point, of course, is that evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races. “Race” is a cultural construct that varies depending where you live.

Barbarian observes:
This is an key difference between scientists and creationists. Eugenic ideas espoused by a scientist, no matter how capable, can destroy his career. Eugenic ideas espoused by a creationist can help his career.
Hey, it is no suprise that political correctness is jam packed in acedemia. lol
Holding people accountable for racist claptrap isn’t what I think of as “political correctness.” We’ll just have to disagree about that.
 
Ok yeah, I admit I didn’t explain it all the way. Modern Darwinists belive that we are from mud, with no God.
Wrong on both counts. First, Darwinism is not about the origin of life. Darwin never attempted to explain how life began; he just wrote that God did it. You’ve never actually studied Darwin, um?

Barbarian observes:
No. By the 1930s, that idea was dead in science. By 1871, Darwin had denounced it as evil, and by 1933, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan had shown it was bad science.
Well, it died because of the Nazis, after they saw what it all lead to.
It’s not dead. Right wing racists like the guys in the Pioneer fund are alive and spewing their anti-science eugenics.
And of course it was bad science. But even science saw the dangers in what they are discussing. That was why they stopped it.
Darwin denounced it as “evil.” Punnet and Morgan and Muller savaged it as an unworkable psuedoscience.

Barbarian observes:
No scientists herded his family into the gas chambers. It was just another of his lies.
But they did kill Jews.
No.
Scientists, doctors, did kill Jews.
Doctors, not scientists. In the entire list at Nurenburg, one scientist, who was also a doctor. That would put scientists just above nuns as participants in the Holocaust.
That is not a lie.
It is a blood libel. He is accusing the very people who denounced Hitler’s program, and is excusing the Nazis who he says were just misled by Darwin.
And he was referring to Jews as a whole, does it really matter if HIS family died that way?
No one died that way. No scientists put anyone in those chambers. Why do you think Jews despise him so much?

**Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
Code:
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism **
Many Jews DID die that way. This is just reaching.
See above. Stein stabbed his own people in the back, just to get at the people he hates.

Barbarian observes:
They were, the few of them that did it, doctors, not scientists. And certainly not Darwinists. Stein lied about that. Isn’t it time you faced the truth?
Oh you are nitpicking here. Doctors, not scientists?
It’s a fact. One scientist. But he was also a doctor. Stein lied. Get used to it.
Come on man. Again, Eugenics, coined by Darwins cousin, was drawn from Darwin.
Darwin condemned the idea, and later Darwinists showed it was unscientific garbage. You might as well say that geologists want to bury people alive, because they study avalanches.
Darwinists may not have been for what happened,
Ya think?
butit was drawn from Darwin. And I am sure, that some were Darwinist, or believers in Darwin.
Barbarian observes:
Some were Christians, and believed in God. Will you then blame Christianity? Stein is making excuses for the Nazis, ignoring the fact that racism was the cause.
But not limited to racism. Genetics did have a big part to play in this.
In refuting it. For example, Punnett showed mathematically that it would not work. Many on the right wing still believe in it, but Darwinists made clear that it was scientifically indefensible.

Barbarian observes:
Ben Stein denies the evil that caused the Holocaust, and blames the very people who warned against it. And all for his petty ideological causes. An evil, sick little man.
I disagree.
His own people acknowledge it. They have denounced him for his denial of the causes of the Holocaust.
Denying God for Darwin, is sick and evil, in my opinion.
Denying God for anything is evil. However, no one with any sense thinks that accepting Darwin’s theory or his denunciation of eugenics, is denying God.
But again, Much of this was drawn from Darwin(science),
As you learned, Darwin denounced it, and Darwinists refuted it as a science. Isn’t it time you were willing to accept the truth?
 
Following on the success of Expelled, M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening is the biggest pro-Intelligent Design movie of the year so far.
 
Following on the success of Expelled,
Reggie, at the end, they were paying people to come and see it.
getexpelled.com/schools.php
M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening is the biggest pro-Intelligent Design movie of the year so far.
This?

**The Happening is at its most ridiculous when Wahlberg’s Elliot starts talking to a pot plant in a bid to prevent a potential attack of poisonous toxins. Let’s face it, trying to make vegetation seem threatening only really works if you’re dealing with Triffids.

Even though it’s about 90 minutes, this feels like quite a plodding, preachy eco-film – as if George A Romero was invited to direct An Inconvenient Truth. Indeed the noble truth is that M Night Shyamalan’s new thriller isn’t that bad. But the awful truth is that it’s not really that good, either, just a tame and tepid puzzlement.**
news.scotsman.com/entertainment/Film-review-The-Happening.4184822.jp

O.K. Marginally less goofy than “Expelled”, and certainly not as vicious in spirit. Might be the best ID film yet. 👍
 
Expelled is the 12th biggest documentary film ever produced.

Box Office Mojo shows Expelled given an A rating by 62% of readers.

GRADE THIS MOVIE
Readers B- (435 votes)
Your Grade Log in
GRADE BREAKDOWN
As: 273 62.8%
Bs: 18 4.1%
Cs: 3 0.7%
Ds: 3 0.7%
Fs: 138 31.7%
 
The Barbarian;3805833]
Maybe. There are still a lot of creationists like that in America. They’re not dumb enough to make their racism known, but it will be a factor. I think Obama will lose.
I meant a racist.
Holding people accountable for racist claptrap isn’t what I think of as “political correctness.” We’ll just have to disagree about that
Of course it is. Look at Watson. Racist, but was still able to do his job. To fire someone for being a racists, is anti freedom. Being a racists, does not mean that you are all about killing people or hurting them. You can’t even say anything negative about gays, but you can call Bush Hitler. Where is the fairness or freedom there? It’s all PC.
 
Barbarian observes:
Maybe. There are still a lot of creationists like that in America. They’re not dumb enough to make their racism known, but it will be a factor. I think Obama will lose.
I meant a racist.
Me too. Still a lot of them out there.

Barbarian observes:
Holding people accountable for racist claptrap isn’t what I think of as “political correctness.” We’ll just have to disagree about that
Of course it is. Look at Watson. Racist, but was still able to do his job.
Sorry. He was in a management position. When I was in the Air Force, they had a policy, which is a sensible one. “Racists are unfit to command or supervise.”
To fire someone for being a racists, is anti freedom.
By definition, they are unable to supervise on ability along. As long as they aren’t in a supervisory or management position, they may be able to do their job acceptably. But they should never be permitted to supervise or manage.
Being a racists, does not mean that you are all about killing people or hurting them. You can’t even say anything negative about gays,
Maybe you can’t. Their sexuality is gravely disordered, and they have a terrible cross to bear. They are inclined to a particular sort of sinful behavior. We are all sinners, of course, but homosexual behavior is sinful.
but you can call Bush Hitler.
Maybe you can. Bush isn’t evil; he’s venial. He’s weak and morally flabby, because he was raised to think he was entitled to something special just for being someone’s son.

Bush lacks the intelligence and discipline to be anything like Hitler.
Where is the fairness or freedom there?
We are all responsible for ourselves. Can’t get more fair than that.
It’s all PC.
Sorry. Can’t agree with you there. Most of what’s wrong with America is what’s wrong with Dubya; lack of personal responsibility. Taking responsibility for yourself isn’t PC; that’s just the way it used to be in America.
 
The Barbarian;3806351]
Wrong on both counts. First, Darwinism is not about the origin of life. Darwin never attempted to explain how life began; he just wrote that God did it. You’ve never actually studied Darwin, um?
I said, MODERN Darwinists.

Barbarian observes:
No. By the 1930s, that idea was dead in science. By 1871, Darwin had denounced it as evil, and by 1933, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan had shown it was bad science.

youtube.com/watch?v=0TGyZlXvz7I
It’s not dead. Right wing racists like the guys in the Pioneer fund are alive and spewing their anti-science eugenics.
Legitimate, old era eugenics is dead.
Darwin denounced it as “evil.” Punnet and Morgan and Muller savaged it as an unworkable psuedoscience.
Barbarian observes:
No scientists herded his family into the gas chambers. It was just another of his lies.
Doctors, not scientists. In the entire list at Nurenburg, one scientist, who was also a doctor. That would put scientists just above nuns as participants in the Holocaust.
It is a blood libel. He is accusing the very people who denounced Hitler’s program, and is excusing the Nazis who he says were just misled by Darwin.
No one died that way. No scientists put anyone in those chambers. Why do you think Jews despise him so much?
**Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust
New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.
Code:
The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.
Code:
Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler's genocidal madness.
Code:
Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism **
See above. Stein stabbed his own people in the back, just to get at the people he hates.
Barbarian observes:
They were, the few of them that did it, doctors, not scientists. And certainly not Darwinists. Stein lied about that. Isn’t it time you faced the truth?
It’s a fact. One scientist. But he was also a doctor. Stein lied. Get used to it.
Darwin condemned the idea, and later Darwinists showed it was unscientific garbage. You might as well say that geologists want to bury people alive, because they study avalanches.
Ya think?
Barbarian observes:
Some were Christians, and believed in God. Will you then blame Christianity? Stein is making excuses for the Nazis, ignoring the fact that racism was the cause.
In refuting it. For example, Punnett showed mathematically that it would not work. Many on the right wing still believe in it, but Darwinists made clear that it was scientifically indefensible.
Barbarian observes:
Ben Stein denies the evil that caused the Holocaust, and blames the very people who warned against it. And all for his petty ideological causes. An evil, sick little man.
His own people acknowledge it. They have denounced him for his denial of the causes of the Holocaust.
Denying God for anything is evil. However, no one with any sense thinks that accepting Darwin’s theory or his denunciation of eugenics, is denying God.
As you learned, Darwin denounced it, and Darwinists refuted it as a science. Isn’t it time you were willing to accept the truth?
OK man, I’m not gunna go round and round here. You think what you want about Stein. I understand his big picture on this whole thing, you do not. That’s fine. Think what you like. It’s wrong, but that’s your opinion.
 
The Barbarian;3807463]
Me too. Still a lot of them out there.
I meant Obama!
Sorry. He was in a management position. When I was in the Air Force, they had a policy, which is a sensible one. “Racists are unfit to command or supervise.”
And that is the government. So, PC once again.
By definition, they are unable to supervise on ability along. As long as they aren’t in a supervisory or management position, they may be able to do their job acceptably. But they should never be permitted to supervise or manage.
I disagree. One can be a silent racist, as you mentioned before somewhere, and still be in management position.
Maybe you can’t. Their sexuality is gravely disordered, and they have a terrible cross to bear. They are inclined to a particular sort of sinful behavior. We are all sinners, of course, but homosexual behavior is sinful.
So? My problem is when government tells me what I can or cannot say without fear of repercussions.
Maybe you can. Bush isn’t evil; he’s venial. He’s weak and morally flabby, because he was raised to think he was entitled to something special just for being someone’s son.
Bush lacks the intelligence and discipline to be anything like Hitler.
You missed the whole point entirely.
We are all responsible for ourselves. Can’t get more fair than that.
Again, missing the point. Who is to tell me what I can or cannot say without fear of repercussions?
Sorry. Can’t agree with you there. Most of what’s wrong with America is what’s wrong with Dubya; lack of personal responsibility. Taking responsibility for yourself isn’t PC; that’s just the way it used to be in America.
What??? I can’t say anything negative about gays for example, without fear of repercussions. Where, you can say anything negative about Bush , even calling him Hitler, and it is acceptable. That is my point, and it is not right. I only feel that way, because of the bias. Personal responsibillity has nothing to do with any of this topic. I am the king of preaching personal responsibillity. I do not know where how you got off on this tangent.
 
Barbarian observes:
Wrong on both counts. First, Darwinism is not about the origin of life. Darwin never attempted to explain how life began; he just wrote that God did it. You’ve never actually studied Darwin, um?
I said, MODERN Darwinists.
That would mean guys like Punnett and Morgan and Muller. They were, some of them even more disdainful of eugenist ideas. And much more recently, Darwinians finally showed that there aren’t even any such things as biological human races.

Barbarian observes:
No. By the 1930s, that idea was dead in science. By 1871, Darwin had denounced it as evil, and by 1933, Darwinists like Punnett and Morgan had shown it was bad science.

Sorry. YouTube is not a substitute for evidence.

Barbarian on eugenics:
It’s not dead. Right wing racists like the guys in the Pioneer fund are alive and spewing their anti-science eugenics.
Legitimate, old era eugenics is dead.
The only scientifically legitimate eugenic ideas have to do with predicting the likelihood of devastating genetic disorder for couples contemplating marriage.

Barbarian observes:
Darwin denounced it as “evil.” Punnet and Morgan and Muller savaged it as an unworkable pseudoscience.

Barbarian observes:
No scientists herded his family into the gas chambers. It was just another of his lies.

Doctors, not scientists. In the entire list at Nurenburg, one scientist, who was also a doctor. That would put scientists just above nuns as participants in the Holocaust.

It is a blood libel. He is accusing the very people who denounced Hitler’s program, and is excusing the Nazis who he says were just misled by Darwin.

No one died that way. No scientists put anyone in those chambers. Why do you think Jews despise him so much?

**Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

New York, NY, April 29, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today issued the following statement regarding the controversial film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed misappropriates the Holocaust and its imagery as a part of its political effort to discredit the scientific community which rejects so-called intelligent design theory.

Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people and Darwin and evolutionary theory cannot explain Hitler’s genocidal madness.

Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry.

The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world’s leading organization fighting anti-Semitism**

See above. Stein stabbed his own people in the back, just to get at the people he hates.

Darwin condemned the idea, and later Darwinists showed it was unscientific garbage. You might as well say that geologists want to bury people alive, because they study avalanches.

Ben Stein denies the evil that caused the Holocaust, and blames the very people who warned against it. And all for his petty ideological causes. An evil, sick little man.

His own people acknowledge it. They have denounced him for his denial of the causes of the Holocaust.

Denying God for anything is evil. However, no one with any sense thinks that accepting Darwin’s theory or his denunciation of eugenics, is denying God.
OK man, I’m not gunna go round and round here. You think what you want about Stein.
Notice that Stein’s own people, his fellow Jews, despise him for denying the cause of the Holocaust.
I understand his big picture on this whole thing,
No, you came in with no idea of the history of eugenics, or why Darwinists denounced it. You seem puzzled why the Anti-defamation League would denounce Stein for lying about the Holocaust. It’s because by blaming Darwinists and science, he was excusing the Nazis.

Despicable, all the more so, because he stabbed his own people in the back. For nothing more than a hoped-for ideological advantage.

If that won’t convince you, then nothing will.
 
The Barbarian;3807659

No, I mean people alive right now who are Darwinists. They tend to be athiests. The people who have the Jesus fish with legs on their rear bumpers. The ones who hate religions.
Sorry. YouTube is not a substitute for evidence
Well then I do not accept any of your facts.
The only scientifically legitimate eugenic ideas have to do with predicting the likelihood of devastating genetic disorder for couples contemplating marriage.
As I said: Legitimate, old era eugenics is dead. :rolleyes:

The ADL. YOu think that Hitler was a young boy with plans to murder Jews? NO His ideas about Jews, killing them rather, and doing experiments on them, was taught to him. He read books on “science” back then. By reading the likes of Dalton and Ernst Rüdin, etc. Eugenics, was popular “science” back then, and Hitler was not the only person to be infatuated by it. Hitler took things further. Just like Einstien made his theory, science took it further and invented the bomb.
Darwin condemned the idea, and later Darwinists showed it was unscientific garbage.
But the cat was already out of the bag. It didn’t matter what Darwin thought about it. Darwin was science. Eugenics was science. Eugenics in the last century, was drawn from Darwin.
However, no one with any sense thinks that accepting Darwin’s theory or his denunciation of eugenics, is denying God.
It’s just funny how many people who accept Darwin, do not accept God.
Notice that Stein’s own people, his fellow Jews, despise him for denying the cause of the Holocaust.
Well ok. I wonder if they are denying that we have fused an animal with a human being yet?
No, you came in with no idea of the history of eugenics, or why Darwinists denounced it
Um, no I didn’t. It doesn’t matter that Darwinists denounced eugenics. Many others did not. And those who did not, were men of science just as much as Darwin was. Darwin IS science. Stein is blaming SCIENCE. Darwin made his theory, and other scientists took it and ran with it, and it lead to eugenics. That is a fact.

And I frankly don’t care what the ADL says. They wrote hate crime laws, and I do not support those. The ADL makes a living off of anti semitism. Not that it is not important, but there are other motives in the U$. They should spend more time working in Europe, than in the US, where real antisemitism is on the rise.

Stein is saying the same thing that was said about the tree of knowlege.
 
Darwin was science. Eugenics was science.
As you just learned, Darwinians conclusively showed that it wasn’t science.
Eugenics in the last century, was drawn from Darwin.
You know better now.

Barbarian observes:
However, no one with any sense thinks that accepting Darwin’s theory or his denunciation of eugenics, is denying God.
It’s just funny how many people who accept Darwin, do not accept God.
See the gallup poll. And that’s only because evangelicals accepted the Seventh-Day Adventist position that it denies God.

Barbarian observes:
Notice that Stein’s own people, his fellow Jews, despise him for denying the cause of the Holocaust.
Well ok. I wonder if they are denying that we have fused an animal with a human being yet?
Stein is a human just like anyone else. He’s just given in to his lower nature.

Barbarian observes:
No, you came in with no idea of the history of eugenics, or why Darwinists denounced it
Um, no I didn’t. It doesn’t matter that Darwinists denounced eugenics. Many others did not.
And because the Darwinists denounced eugenics, and showed that it wasn’t valid, they are to blame?
And those who did not, were men of science just as much as Darwin was.
But you can’t show me one? Isn’t that a telling fact?
Darwin IS science.
No, science is a process and a method. Darwin was a scientist.
Stein is blaming SCIENCE.
That’s why even other Jews detest his blood libel against science. By blaming science, Stein excuses the Nazis and downplays the real reason for the Holocaust.
Darwin made his theory, and other scientists took it and ran with it, and it lead to eugenics. That is a fact.
No, it’s just your fantasy. Darwin’s theory makes no mention of such a thing; he said the very idea was evil. And long before Hitler, Darwinists refuted eugenics. You have no place to hide.
And I frankly don’t care what the ADL says.
Neither did Luther and others. It doesn’t matter. They care deeply about the truth of the Holocaust and called Stein to account for lying about it.
They wrote hate crime laws, and I do not support those.
Ah, now it’s becoming clearer.
The ADL makes a living off of anti semitism.
They are a non-profit.
Not that it is not important, but there are other motives in the U$. They should spend more time working in Europe, than in the US, where real antisemitism is on the rise.
Apparently, that’s not the case. At some point, you’re going to have to come to terms with the facts. Not imagined ones, but the ones actually there.
 
No, I mean people alive right now who are Darwinists. They tend to be athiests.
Sorry, that’s not the case. Gallup Polls have been tracking this for decades, and each time, the great majority of people who accept evolution, think God is behind it.

In the 2008 poll, fifty percent of Americans accept evolution as a fact, with 36 percent saying God did it.
gallup.com/poll/21814/Evolution-Creationism-Intelligent-Design.aspx

Barbarian observes:
Sorry. YouTube is not a substitute for evidence
Well then I do not accept any of your facts.
You’re entitled to your own opinion. But you aren’t entitled to your own facts. You have to go with the ones that exist.

Barbarian observes:
The only scientifically legitimate eugenic ideas have to do with predicting the likelihood of devastating genetic disorder for couples contemplating marriage.
As I said: Legitimate, old era eugenics is dead.
Darwinists showed that classical eugenics weren’t “legitimate.”
YOu think that Hitler was a young boy with plans to murder Jews? NO His ideas about Jews, killing them rather, and doing experiments on them, was taught to him.
True. As a young man, he actually admired the Jews, and wrote some complimentary things about them. But as his dreams of being an artist (he was never interested in science) fell apart, he almost starved. Here’s what actually happened:

Now, at age 21, he was becoming keenly interested in politics, watching events unfold around him in Vienna.

**After witnessing a large protest march by workers, he immersed himself in an intensive study of the politics of the workers’ party, the Social Democrats. He gained appreciation of their ability to organize large rallies and use propaganda and fear as political weapons.

From the sidelines, he also watched the two other main parties, the Pan German Nationalists and the Christian Social Party, which heightened his interest in German nationalism and anti-Semitism.

Vienna, a city of two million, had a Jewish population of just under two hundred thousand, including many traditionally dressed ethnic Jews. In Linz, Hitler had only known a few “Germanized” Jews. The poor men’s home Hitler lived in was near a Jewish community.

Among the middle class in Vienna, anti-Semitism was considered rather fashionable. The mayor, Karl Lueger, a noted anti-Semite, was a member of the Christian Social Party which included anti-Semitism in its political platform.

Hitler admired Lueger, a powerful politician, for his speech making skills and effective use of propaganda in gaining popular appeal. He also admired Lueger’s skill in manipulating established institutions such as the Catholic Church. He studied Lueger carefully and modeled some of his later behavior on what he learned. **
historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/homeless.htm
He read books on “science” back then. By reading the likes of Dalton and Ernst Rüdin, etc. Eugenics, was popular “science” back then, and Hitler was not the only person to be infatuated by it. Hitler took things further. Just like Einstien made his theory, science took it further and invented the bomb.
Pure fantasy. Hitler never had an interest in science.

Hitler had a passion for reading, grabbing all the daily newspapers available at the men’s home, reading numerous political pamphlets and borrowing many books from the library on German history and mythology. He had a curious but academically untrained mind and examined the complex philosophical works of Nietzsche, Hegel, Fichte, Treitschke and the Englishman, Houston Stewart Chamberlain. Hitler picked up bits and pieces of philosophy and ideas from them and wound up with a hodgepodge of racist, nationalistic, anti-Semitic attitudes that over time became a die-hard philosophy, later to be described in his book, Mein Kampf.
(same source)

You can’t just spin up stories about the way you’d like it to be, and then call them facts. Well, you can, but it won’t bring you anything but grief.

Barbarian observes:
Darwin condemned the idea, and later Darwinists showed it was unscientific garbage.
But the cat was already out of the bag.
Since Martin Luther, it was. As you know, Darwin and his fellows opposed it and exposed it for the lie it was.
It didn’t matter what Darwin thought about it.
Not to Stein, it doesn’t. He twisted the truth 180 degrees.
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS PART 1
(given to encourage a statment of logic)
Barbarian I can’t go back and repeat the same arguments over and over. I find it extremely hard to take yourapproach of the one liner comment, out of context and then respond to that as if that poitn hasn’t been addressed.

We have already agreed that Darwin, himslef, could not have possible foreseen or wanted what others construed his ideas ro lead to. Over and over you want to defend science and Darwin as if it is a religion to you. You can rest assured that even ID people are not out to destroy Darwin completely, they just want to be able to add to the conversation. I think that Darwin can be criticized for some things. In my mind it is a big leap to say becuase you can observe physical changes evolving it shows that the human conscience can be said to be a matter of evolved instinct. How can that be proved really? If so, can that not be the basis for mind control techniques like brain washing, another unsavory and unethical practice.

At the same time you attack me for being ‘unscientific and religious’. I have admitted not having a cience background but I have read the posts you gave and looked at the science articles, even posting some of darwin’s writings. I posted a bit from a science article that showed the logic of always started with Darwin as posing problems in that it can lead to wrong conclusions. No matter what I bring up you counter it more with insults rather than logical, progressive facts.

The topic here was 'Science leads to killing" and we have ended up going back and forth over whether Darwin’s theory of evolution led to the eugenics movement. Your argument is that Darwin’s idea concerning the development of sympathy in people showed how he felt that anyone who acted against sympathy would be letting go of their nobler nature.

However I also showed that beyond this one statement by Darwin he had lots of statement in 'Descent of Man" which would lead others to draw the conclusion that if you could apply animal husbandry techniques toward unfit or inferior types you could improve the human species. Staticians like Puttin showed this would take many generations and could not come about through the positive eugenics approach of the Nazis. However, despite this
‘proof’, which was given to the London Eugenics society, eugenics did continue in different forms all through the twentieth century. I have shown that the London eugenics group is still alive as the Galton Institute.

Scientists have been involved with all along with the Galton Institute and as the basis for social and political policies that have led to death… Some of the present forms are more acceptable because they don’t involve rounding up people and killing them in mass, yet the introduction of ‘personal choice’ by people by Margaret Sanger, have led to millions of tiny newly conceived human beings being chosen to die around the world. Other little fr human beings are kept prisoner as frozen embyos and their fate is pretty dire. Many of these were created from taking sperm and egss from donors. The cold way of treating human procreation reminds me of the scientific experimentation on humans in the Nazi camps rather than a compassionate approach respecting the human person as having a soul. ( end part one, contiued in next post)

In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
 
Summary of arguments Part II

Barbarian, you tend to bring up the religious view when it is a need for your argument or for sympathy for you but then switch and say science has no values at other times. You are inconsistent in this point of view.

I have tried to see it from your side, that pure science is just fact and not values. But Darwin (and many of these other scientists we have brought up), did infuse values as soon as he started down the road that human consience was equal to any other developed animal trait and was like an ‘instinct’…in other words sympathy, conscience can be altered. Unfortuantely that is exatly what has happened here. People altar their sympathy based on ‘evidence’, some of which comes from scientific communities. Haeckel, the German scientist, offered false drawings, linking human species to made up organism. His drawings falsified the image of the human embryo and for years his false drawings were still used in some text books. Even Darwin it seems continued to used them past the point they had been falsified. The result allowed some peole to be taken as less human that others. In Germany some racial groups were considered less human as well as the mentally retarded and disabled. Today we see that policy contiued when babies are tested for abnormalities in the mother’s womb and mother’s are encouraged to abort those that test positive.

I posted something fromTime magazine that showed Carl Sanger had used similiar evidence based on the appearance of the human embryo to say it was not a huma being yet. That is not much different from Haeckel, even if Sagan was working with pictures of the human embryo. He infused his values rather than stating a fact that it is a human at this stage of development. He did so with a purpose, to make it ok to proceede with abortion, and possibly for experiementation on embryos.

If the argument is about ‘science leads to killing’, then it has in these situations. I have tried to say that good scientists abound as well and that many miracles of saving and improving life are brought about by science as well. In that I hope we agree and perhaps it would have been proper for Ben Stein to acknowledge that positive application of science more strongly. However his aim was to say we need to relook at the values that are being driven in the sciences, because infusing science with atheism
has not left it ‘valueless’.

Now you offer your summary of the discussion if you will.

I want to thank “leftistdestroye”, Reggie and Ricmat for added comments and logic as well during this discussion…

I preferr if the arguments be posted in a paragraph form so that people can follow the logic developed by posters rather than the side by side comments which become confusing, so I hope Barbarian you will do that right now. It was getting too confusing to follow the short comment format.

In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
 
Barbarian, you tend to bring up the religious view when it is a need for your argument or for sympathy for you but then switch and say science has no values at other times.
That is an egregious falsehood, Mary. I have consistently pointed out that science cannot provide values, but that they must come from other things. And I have consistently expressed my faith in God. The truth should matter to you.
I have tried to see it from your side, that pure science is just fact and not values.
It’s true. You might as well expect plumbing to give you values.
But Darwin (and many of these other scientists we have brought up), did infuse values as soon as he started down the road that human consience was equal to any other developed animal trait and was like an ‘instinct’…in other words sympathy, conscience can be altered.
No. The fact that there might be uncomfortable truths does not mean that there are no values.

In fact, as you know, Darwin considered humans to be different than other organisms, and consistently said so.
If the argument is about ‘science leads to killing’, then it has in these situations.
In fact, as you know, it was racism and religious intolerance that led to the Holocaust. Be honest here.
I have tried to say that good scientists abound as well and that many miracles of saving and improving life are brought about by science as well.
This does not excuse you from repeating Stein’s blood libel against science. As you saw, even his fellow Jews are angered by his excuses for the Nazis, and his denial of the causes for the Holocaust.
In that I hope we agree and perhaps it would have been proper for Ben Stein to acknowledge that positive application of science more strongly.
It would have been proper for Stein to not have lied about the causes of the Holocaust. It would have been proper for him to have not made excuses for the Nazis. It would have been proper for him to acknowledge that Darwin and Darwinsm condemned the thinking that led to eugenics and the Holocaust.

But that wouldn’t have served his purposes. So, being the sort of person he is, he lied.
However his aim was to say we need to relook at the values that are being driven in the sciences,
Truth? I can see where that would offend him. His professional life has been in combat against the truth.
because infusing science with atheism
Which doesn’t happen. That’s why people with all sorts of beliefs can do science.

Obviously, Stein is regarded with disgust, even by his own people. His libel against the very people who opposed the Holocaust not only makes excuses for the Nazis, but denies the real factors that caused it.

It’s more than an attack on science and Judaism; it’s the formula for more holocausts. He deserves what he’s getting.
 
Barbarian I can’t go back and repeat the same arguments over and over.
You can, but the facts won’t change. And I’ll keep reminding you.
I find it extremely hard to take yourapproach of the one liner comment, out of context and then respond to that as if that poitn hasn’t been addressed.
It’s hard to hide a falsehood one line at a time.
We have already agreed that Darwin, himslef, could not have possible foreseen or wanted what others construed his ideas ro lead to.
No. As you know, his ideas led to the rejection of eugenics. I think he understood that. What you want to convince us, is that Darwinism was the cause of eugenics and the Holocaust, even though you have seen that it had an entirely different source.
Over and over you want to defend science and Darwin as if it is a religion to you.
One more falsehood, Mary? Why bother. I am angered by Stein’s libel against Darwin, as many others are. Don’t pretend it’s a religion. Notice that his own people have assailed him for his lies.
You can rest assured that even ID people are not out to destroy Darwin completely, they just want to be able to add to the conversation.
The “things” being libels against science, and excuses for Hitler. It’s not working.
I think that Darwin can be criticized for some things.
He was wrong about a lot of things. He was right to criticize eugenics, however, and it’s despicable to pretend he didn’t.
In my mind it is a big leap to say becuase you can observe physical changes evolving it shows that the human conscience can be said to be a matter of evolved instinct.
Why would it be so terrible, if God did it that way? Nature is His tool in this world, and it’s how He does almost everything here.
If so, can that not be the basis for mind control techniques like brain washing, another unsavory and unethical practice.
All knowledge can be turned to evil. But God says truth is a good thing. A Christian should never be afraid of the truth.
At the same time you attack me for being ‘unscientific and religious’.
Another falsehood, um? Never attacked you for being religious. Isn’t it time you stopped this kind of thing, Mary?
I have admitted not having a cience background but I have read the posts you gave and looked at the science articles, even posting some of darwin’s writings.
Not knowing about the issue is what made you easy prey for evil people who misled you. Notice that the “Darwin’s writings” you posted where carefully edited to make it appear that he thought things he did not.
I posted a bit from a science article that showed the logic of always started with Darwin as posing problems in that it can lead to wrong conclusions.
It’s the way science works. You might not like it, but it has been spectacularly successful.
No matter what I bring up you counter it more with insults rather than logical, progressive facts.
Be honest, Mary. Go back and look at the thread. You know that isn’t true.
The topic here was 'Science leads to killing" and we have ended up going back and forth over whether Darwin’s theory of evolution led to the eugenics movement.
As you know, he denounced the idea as evil. And Darwinists later showed it couldn’t work. The truth matters, Mary.
However I also showed that beyond this one statement by Darwin he had lots of statement in 'Descent of Man" which would lead others to draw the conclusion that if you could apply animal husbandry techniques toward unfit or inferior types you could improve the human species.
He thought so. But he said it would be evil to do. Later Darwinists showed that it wasn’t even workable.
Staticians like Puttin

, and he was also a Darwinian biologist)
showed this would take many generations and could not come about through the positive eugenics approach of the Nazis. However, despite this ‘proof’, which was given to the London Eugenics society, eugenics did continue in different forms all through the twentieth century.
Yes, your people, not scientists. The classical eugenics that Darwin assailed now only exists in little right-wing enclaves like the Pioneer fund. Even the Galton society has nothing to do with classic eugenic ideas, now.
 
I am angered by Stein’s libel against Darwin, as many others are. Don’t pretend it’s a religion. Notice that his own people have assailed him for his lies.

quote]Staticians like Puttin
(Punnett, and he was also a Darwinian biologist)
mary: sorry I got the name wrong.

I would really preferr if you just answer in a straight paragraph. "You say the ‘facts won’t change’, “accept the truth”, but I am unsure of what truth you want me to accept.
I really am trying here, and I would appreciate it if you would stop sprinkling insults along with your statements. This should be a respectful conversation. Don’t be so condesecnding just becuase yo work in the sciences. If you take time to explain things other people can understand, givemn it is a logical, reasonable explanation.
You said some things are true and it is just hard to accept. In otherwords you are agreeing with Darwin that the human conscience was evolved the same way that physical characteristics evolved and that the human conscience is nothing more that a highly developed social mechanism…it has nothing to do with God’s imprint on the soul of what is right and wrong.
In other words the passage in the bible that says God has written His Law on the human heart is not true to you.
Jeremiah 31:33
33 This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the LORD. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
My understanding is that a Catholic believes there is a universal law that is knowable to every person. Even if your culture is pagan you can find the universal law because i is written on the human heart. Right and wrong can be reasoned according to universal laws that are true at all times and places.
I would say that Darwin was saying that the laws of conscience develop over time and thus are formed by culture and social relationships which is not the same thing is it?
So what is the uncomfortable turth you want me to recognize or
accept? That Darwin was right about how conscience in human beings was formed? That natural selection is the only means of God creating life? Please be specific.
That is my first question.

My second question is what is the ‘other source’ for the eugenics movement that you claim you have shown me? I know you mentioned it came from Martin Luther, but his writings had been around for a couple of hundred years so it doesn’t make sense that all of a sudden they were put into this very calculated program of genocide that included not just Jewish people but gypsies, political enemies, retarded people, disabled people, elderly people…all people that would have been considered, weak, inferior, degenerates, according to the eugnics people.
So, my second question, what was the main source that gave validity to for the Nazi program in your mind, with the understanding that explaining it simply with Martin Luther doesn’t work? Also explain why Hitler used the word ‘evolution’ so many times in Mein Kaph. Why should I not think he was referring to Darwin’s work?
Ok, you are saying I am editing Darwin’s writings to make them appear to have different meanings. I had to edit them to fit my response on the allowed limit of characters. I put down the statements that made reference to the fact that Darwin saw some people as unfit or less than others. The point was that he did not see all human beings as equally desirable. I also posted statement referring to animal husbandry. Just by bringing animal husbandry techniques into a written piece on the development of human beings was a dangerous thing for Darwin to do and it indicated a pattern of thought which included thinking of people in terms of animals…all very coherent with the rest of his writings which gave natural explanations for all of creation. That is why atheists like Karl Marx originally liked Darwin…although you have pointed out what problems they found in the idea of competition, and some agricultural applications. But they liked the idea everything could be explained without God. That is a value based way of looking at life.
It is too bad that some of that became the basis for eugenics.
I found this quote from Corinthians:
1 Corinthians 15:39 (New International Version - UK)
New International Version - UK (NIVUK)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
39 All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another.
In Christ,
MaryJohnZ
(continued in next post)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top