 |
Outlaw Forum
9 out of 5 Ancient Monkey Spirits recommend Rat Laboratory
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
andre
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 7371
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 7:27 pm Post subject: Andre Leave Darwinian Evolution Believers Speechless |
 |
|
On two recent Myspace blogs*, I went up against the vicious, mind-controlled hoards of Darwinian Evolution followers, and left every one of them unable to even respond, proving that they had virtually nothing to back up their religious belief. They were all emotional like women, proving that their belief in the secular-humanist philosophy is the sole result of emotive indoctrination, and has nothing to do with reality. This is almost a study in the psychology of belief.
As far as I can tell, they are all also believers in the official 9/11 fairy tale.
It is worth checking out the original blog, as long as Myspace allows it. Most of the Darwinian believers came on and just called me names, refusing to present information or ideas of any kind. Several of them came on repeatedly and claimed I was deleting their posts, because they did not know how to flip to the second page of comments. Overall, it was a sad statement about the current state of human consciousness, but I think the Darwinist fundamentalists appeared so ignorant and absurd that many people who have not devoted their entire lives to this religion were woken up to just how silly it is.
Below I have posted some of the more brutal beatings these religious fundamentalists received by my hand.
*http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=131371508&blogID=325659786, http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=131371508&blogID=332036637
Before each exchange, the name of the commenter is given in bold. Their words are italicized, mine are indented.
Ageless Stranger:
Evolution is not population control. Evolution does not mean "upgrade". I find it fascinating how you can dismiss all the evidence for evolution based on political drivel snd past philosophical blunders when neither is pertinent to biology. Maybe the government is "planting" evidence for evolution all around us and in our own DNA at that.
| Quote: |
"Planting evidence" is silly, especially when you can get people to believe this tripe on circumstantial evidence alone; however, there has been implemented a planned indoctrination of the youth of the world into secular humanist philosophy (the main justification for which is Darwinism), done through the schooling system, which has taken place over the last 50+ years. This is a fact that cannot be debated.
Do you know who Burtrand Russell is? Alice Baily? Annie Bassant?
You don't know who B.F. Skinner is, because you never replied above. But you know his ideas, and promote them, because they have been marketed into your brain. Look up what he did to his daughter.
I just don't understand how you are able to respond so definitively about things you've never even heard of; it's so haughty and childlike.
The only place in the world that Darwinism is not taught is the countries we are at war with, or getting ready to goto war with. This fact alone seems incredibly relevant. It has begun to be taught in Iraq, since UNESCO got in. They will teach them political correctness, sex ed and democracy as well, and the generation that are children now will grow up to run the country for the global elite. |
Lojikbom:
As for this blog ...
>>Darwinian evolution ... is clung on to by so many intelligent people.
Maybe that should be your first clue. The best educated people on the planet adhere to evolutionary theory because it's the best way of explaining what we see in the field.
>>Darwinism, at it's core, is a religious belief (it cannot be proven) based on eugenics.
I want you to define "eugenics" for us. I want *you* to do it instead of me, because I actually want you to open up a dictionary and find out for yourself.
Darwinism came about *before* eugenics, so Darwinism cannot be based on eugenics. In fact, it was Darwin's theory of natural selection that influenced Galton's theories on eugenics, not the other way around.
>>As we know, eugenics are behind the plan to kill off the majority of the world's population
wtf? "As we know"? No, I'm afraid we don't. Why don't you explain to me how eugenics is going to kill us all.
>>the plan to re-engineer humanity through genetics and nanotechnology that interfaces with >>our nervous system.
... and our precious bodily fluids as well, no doubt (Dr. Strangelove).
This blog is wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin. In fact, I don't even need to say another word because you've gone and shown everyone what a radical loony you really are.
Darwinists: 1 Mr Loony Tunes: 0
| Quote: |
Another condescending Darwinian apologist? Who would've thought?
But seriously...
>>The best educated people on the planet adhere to evolutionary theory because it's the best way of explaining what we see in the field.
All of the best educated people do not 'adhere' (again, religious terminology) to Darwinian Theory, and just because you don't know the chemical composition of the moon does not mean it is made of cheese, even though that might be 'the best way of explaining what we see'.
>>I want you to define "eugenics" for us. I want *you* to do it instead of me, because I actually want you to open up a dictionary and find out for yourself.
Eugenics is the purposed breeding of certain types in order to produce specific types of offspring; it not a complex concept.
>>Darwinism came about *before* eugenics, so Darwinism cannot be based on eugenics. In fact, it was Darwin's theory of natural selection that influenced Galton's theories on eugenics, not the other way around.
Come now - you are incredibly haughty for someone who knows so little about that which he speaks. You didn't read Plato's Republic as part of your fancy university instruction?
“The best men must have intercourse with the best women as frequently as possible, and the opposite is true of the very inferior."
Plato goes on to advocate giving every citizen a qualitative ranking, by which it would be decided whom they could breed with; he then talks about breeding short squat people to go down in mines, and tall people to pick apples.
And what would you call it when the priests of ancient Egypt and Sumer choose the mates of the royalty and aristocracy? What about the obsessive inbreeding of all other royalty and aristocrats all throughout recorded history, to present day? I mean, we all know that the royalty of Europe got to the point where they were almost exclusively marrying their siblings.
Another point of relevance is that the Darwin family was already practicing eugenics before the theory was introduced to the public, breeding with only the Wedgewood family. Speaking of keeping it in the family, Galton was Charles Darwin's cousin.
Still, even with all your lack of knowledge on the subject, you do not dispute the fact that Darwinism has been used to justify an incredibly sick philosophy.
>>"As we know"? No, I'm afraid we don't. Why don't you explain to me how eugenics is going to kill us all.
I was generally speaking to a crowd that is apparently much better read than you are. Yes, there is a plan to cull the global population, and allow only certain types of humans to breed.
Where to start?
Do you know the UN has a department of population control? What do you think they mean by that? Do you think that an organization that believes in evolution is going to be prone to 'controlling the population' of 'better and lesser types' equally? What if I told you one of the key players at the start of the UN population control department was Frederick Osborn, the ex-President of the American Eugenics Society? The same guy who paired with John D. Rockefeller III to found the Population Council?
The Rockefeller family, who I assume you would agree are among the most powerful people on the planet and have played a lead role in shaping the course of world history over the last couple hundred years, have continued to vehemently fund and promote both eugenics and population control. This is only a 'nutty conspiracy theory' to those who are too indoctrinated to bother to look any of it up. None of it is a secret, and there is no aspect of what I am telling you that is theory - theories are your department, I just deal with the facts.
Julian Huxley (grandson of Charles Darwin's best pal Thomas Huxley), was the first head of UNESCO and a prominent eugenicist. He was the first person to advocate global abortion, specifying particularly that it should be pushed among the lower class and less developed (mainly non-white, i.e. less evolved) countries. He talks about this in several of his books, I'm not going to get them out and quote it to you, but you're a big boy, you can look it up.
Jonas Salk, who created the polio vaccine, which has been widely believed to cause sterilization (in several specific cases - I am obviously not saying that everyone who gets the vaccine becomes sterile), and contains a live simian-40 virus that causes cancer, was also a member of the Eugenics Society.
Henry Kissinger said "Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign policy towards the Third World." In other words, 'we need to kill off the lesser evolved brown and black skinned people'.
I can go on and on, but you're just going to have to read some books. Look into John Stuart Mill's lists of races that could not evolve, and I would again recommend anything you can find by Lord Burtrand Russell, who along with pioneering the techniques of scientific indoctrination through education, was also a proponent of eugenics.
Anyway, it is an established fact that the most prominent people and organizations in the world are calling for drastic cuts in the global population. I fail to see how you've missed this, but check into a few of these references.
>>the plan to re-engineer humanity through genetics and nanotechnology that interfaces with >>our nervous system.
http://www.pbs.org/22ndcentury/about.html
Beyond that man you’re just gonna have to look it up. I’m not getting paid to give you an education, and I’ve already established that every single thing you’ve written here is objectively wrong.
>>This blog is wrong on so many levels, I hardly know where to begin. In fact, I don't even need to say another word because you've gone and shown everyone what a radical loony you really are.
Sadly, this irrational conclusion you have come to is a result of an extreme lack of knowledge on the subject matter on which you speak. Much of what I have explained here does provide an expanded context for what I am saying, and I think if anyone takes the time to verify the references I have given - though you may not instantly agree with everything I'm saying - it will become extremely difficult to continue with this haughty 'shuttup ya fucking retard' thing that you people have been doing. I do not claim to be any kind of officially sanctioned scientific expert, nor do I claim to know everything, but I have read some books, and thought these things through.
Sorry to have made you look so silly, but you really did kinda deserve it. In the future, you should consider acting like an adult. |
4article1:
How do you figure that evolution cannot be proven? You are typing on a machine that evolved. A machine that was created because man designed it around another theory, relativity. And then man copied what he witnessed in nature and kept advancing his creation.
You make a very mistaken assumption, that theories are guesses that people believe despite evidence to the contrary, that really would be faith. But scientific theory is the process of proving something beyond just being true, it is witnessed, has laboratory evidence and can be recreated. Think we got there, because we've bred animals to have definitive traits and qualities that make them more adaptable, developed new species of plants that can thrive in regions they were previously unsuited for, and developed new cures for diseases by modifying the virus or bacterium that made you sick. See, faith is when you say, I can't figure out how it was done so God must have done it. That is ID, not science. Science says I can't figure out how it was done, so I will see if I am asking the right question and I will look here for another possible answer.
You know your four wheeler pick up truck? Someone advanced their designs because it is natural for us to follow evolutionary principles. Human beings copy what they see whether they are conscious of it or not. Ask any advertising agent. And remember, things that don't evolve become extinct! 
| Quote: |
Hey, great job - I see you're really good at repeating things you've been told by people who you percieve to be authorities. You've really got a great hold on your repertoire. What I am hoping is that there are people who are able to work ideas through in their own minds, and use logic and intuition in order to draw their own conclusions. Simply repeating pre-arranged, programmed responses is definitely a valid life-choice, I just don't see much purpose in coming on here and posting the same thing we have all heard over and over and over. If we wanted to hear what you just wrote, we simply would have sat and remembered one of the countless times we have all heard this particular repertoire.
You would do better to find some evangelical Christians somewhere, and you guys can just volley your programmed trigger-responses back and forth until your little hearts are content. I really don't play those games; I look at the world around me, consider information, and attempt to draw my own conclusions, rather than simply adapt what the high priests of whatever religion/close-minded 'belief' system have dictated to me. |
Len Nobs (no bs):
Good suggestion about thinking!
I would lile to argue that ID is religious because it offers supernatural explanation, which is the basis of every religion, is it not?
Second, I am not trying to be condescending, but your understanding of evoluton is simply not correct.
And finally... "darwinism" as you call it, has numerous confirmations, from genetics, paleontology, cell biology, biochemistry... that's what makes it such a strong scientific theory ( in science theory is a much stronger than in common language, by the way). For example, based on this theory you can predict where you can find intermidiate species, and it has been done. ... but you might think that this is just "fucking retarded", good argument, dude!
You instinctivly rebel against the notion that you might be just a well-developed primate shaped the way you are by natural (as opposed to supernatural) selection, but this is something you will have to get over yourself.
| Quote: |
I don't know what your idea of 'separation of church and state' is, but in the United States, this was set up as a provision against a religious establishment being married to the state in the way that the Catholic and Anglican churches were in Europe, and has nothing to do with banning concepts that could in a specific context relate to spirituality. We can argue all day about the wording as it appears in the constitution, but it would be easier if you went and read what the founders wrote about why they incorporated that in. It's not complicated. As far as it being a 'supernatural' explanation - I don't exactly understand what that means. If it happened, it was natural - unless you're using the word to mean 'hard to believe'.
I've read a few books, but I'm no scientist - I don't have to be in order to understand the plain fact that it is insane that anyone could believe such a ridiculous notion as natural selection being solely responsible for the diversity of life on the planet on faith. I also have a very difficult time with who Darwin was - he was completely inbred, from a Freemasonic family. His grandson wrote a book called 'The Next Million Years', outlining a plan for the future of scientific control of people's minds through indoctrination and technology. His best friend was Thomas Huxley (shouldn't have to explain my issue with him). Evolution was first put forward by Charles Darwin's grandfather, and he was laughed at, so they relaunched it through Charles, this time giving him incredible media coverage, proclaiming that he was a 'genius'.
I'm not going to change your mind about this anymore than I can change a Christian's mind about that - and I don't desire too. If you truly wish to remain locked in this fantasy world which has been created for us by the 'scientific' elite, it is fully your choice to do so.
I just get sick of hearing from you hardcore brainwashed fanatics that it's somehow obvious. Do you believe in man-made global warming as well? |
Ghost in the Machine:
It is obvious to anyone with half a brain and who has not been the victim of religious indoctrination. Enema Combatant, you do not appear to be religious in the traditional sense, so I think I've narrowed down the reason for your difficulty understanding. Maybe you should just stick to shilling for Lyndon Larouche or whatever other conspiratorial nut-job inspires you.
| Quote: |
Where did you people all come from? Who sent you? Good joke about the enema though. Classy. It's got quite a bit of life left in it too, see if you can slip it in a few more times.
Seriously though, you believe Arabs did 9/11? |
Yes, "classy" indeed. Expect such responses when you denounce people who believe in actual empirical evidence as "fucking retarded". And yes, it was islamic fundamentalists who commited the acts of 9/11. Now go take your meds.
| Quote: |
How did you get here? You must have taken a wrong turn somewhere. You've just said Muslims did 9/11, which plainly proves that the proggramming is so sunk into your mind that you're not qualified to speak on anything at all. You are going to simply parrot the officially sanctioned explanation for everything. No one with any kind of cognitive thinking processes remaining in their brain believes the 9/11 commission report. What are you, a Neoconservative? You think jet fuel melts steel?
This is from over a year ago:
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
Might wanna check this out too - a list of government and military people who have publicly come out against this lie:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
Robert Baer, the guy George Cloony played in 'Syriana', probably the most famous CIA agent in history, is the latest to come out and say the government did it.
Anyway, I am not really making this point for your sake, because you are really too far gone. I am making this point so that the sentient people that read this will dually note that people who come on here and troll for Darwinism also believe in other, even more ridiculous fairy tales, simply because they are sanctioned by the authorities. |
Len Nobs (no bs):
Andre has a long way to go...
step one: stop calling something that you have no idea about a "ridiculous notion", it only makes you look ridiculous.
step two: loose "know-it-all" attitude
step three: educate yourself
you think you can do it?
| Quote: |
You're suggesting that because I do not share your view, I 'have no idea' about the subject?
I have read Grand Master Darwin, and High Pope Dawkins, I simply believe that it is religious propaganda put forth the the elite and the state, as part of their vastly documented agenda to create a scientifically run and perfectly efficient society.
I notice you have not responded to any of the statements I've made about the historical context of Darwinism. Were you aware of these issues regarding Darwin's family? If not, I am confused as to how you justify the assertion that you are so greatly informed, and that I am the one in need of an education.
I am always open to information, but what you and you cohorts are presenting is nothing more than a repertoire. I would love to see some original thought, rather than haughtiness and condescension utterly lacking in intellectual content.
Here, let me just ask you - how do you believe that Darwinian theory and the secular-humanist philosophy that it spawned has affected the fabric of society? Has the outcome been largely positive or negative? Where do you believe the ideology of secular-humanism is ultimately heading? |
Andre,
1. These are your words: " As far as it being a 'supernatural' explanation - I don't exactly understand what that means." I think we are missing bsomething basic here.. any voulteers to help me explain the difference between natural and supernatural?
2. Your statement about Darwin being an "inbred" shows us the side of you that I don't think I care to see... You cannot invalidate his theory based on his family history, or historic ciscumstances, the theory stands on its own and has been time-tested.
If you are not religious, as you say, but neither you accept evolution, then what is YOUR explanation of , for example, the origin of man, just curious. ...aliens?
| Quote: |
No, I don't believe in aliens. I don't 'believe' in anything beyond my own life's experiences, and what I've learned, because otherwise I would be embracing something that can only be described as 'religious'.
I don't think we are meant to have explanations for everything. The reason I have a problem with the ID people is that many of them do try and replace the apparent random series of astronomical coincidences that Darwinism proposes with some other type of dogmatic explanation. I imagine things are much more complex than anything that is able to be summed up with some simple formula (and don't say 'well, Darwinism isn't a simple theory, because I have done quite a bit of reading and understand that - however, the basic principle at the core of Darwinian theory is that we are the result of an incredible series of cosmic coincidences, and that is rather simple, intellectually).
Our existence is infinitely relevant, as this world is the place where spirit and matter meet. We are not simply conditioned responses, although without a belief in our own innate value as sentient beings, we do inevitably revert to that; however, there is a Ghost in the Machine. |
Mike:
dont kid yourself thinking that ID is anything BUT a religious (specifically christian) ideology.
Here's The Wedge - the Discovery Institute's document
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
It's interesting to note they still havent developed Phase 1 after how many years.. seven?
They've got nothing except Ben Stein whining about some mythical conspiracy to keep their non-theory out of science classrooms
| Quote: |
I have said a couple of places on here that I don't really endorse the intelligent design people's conclusions, and I'm not even sure they have any. What I do endorse, and what appears to be the main goal of the scientists who are being classified as believing in 'intelligent design' is the fact that they are making public many of the issues that the general body of scientists take with the present state of neo-Darwinism. I don't know what conclusions can be drawn by proving that Darwinism cannot happen in the manner that it is being taught in High Schools - I personally do not feel comfortable drawing any conclusions from this. I simply do not think it makes sense to endorse Darwinism simply because there is not a better explanation. That isn't really science, is it? I would rather open debate be allowed - I think stifling the debate on Darwin as many leaders in the academic community are clearly doing (the same way the Egyptologists refuse to allow discussion of alternative dating of the Pyramids and the Sphinx, though they are clearly wrong - it doesn't have to be a 'conspiracy' - people who have devoted their careers to certain beliefs simply don't like to consider other possibilities) creates a terrible educational climate, where progress of ideas is impossible. It is equivalent to putting people in prison for questioning the amount of people who died in the holocaust - if they're so sure they're right, why do scholars need to be put in prison for disagreeing?
Anyway, I do not believe in ID, I just feel it is more progressive and interesting than Darwinism. |
Len Nobs (no bs) - (my words first):
| Quote: |
I am not religious, and we are not talking about religion. I understand that it is difficult though for people to understand how I can believe in neither Darwinism nor religion, as the dialectic is already fixed in your minds, and the massive scientific indoctrination our society has undergone makes it physically impossible for most of you to reason on your own.
I hope that instead of shutting down and going into trigger-response mode, some of you will decide to consider what I'm saying, and maybe do some of your own research into the social, political, religious and historical context of Darwinian evolutionary theory.
It doesn't take an extremely intelligent person to figure out what the purpose of this whole secular-humanist philosophy is, it simply takes someone with the strength of will to break out of the incredibly well-structured matrix of indoctrination that you have all been inundated with since birth. |
Andre.. you keep going back to "social, political, religious and historical context of Darwinian evolutionary theory". Why is it so important to you. Why can't you discuss this theory on its own merits, as a theory. It's either supported or not.
Just listen to yourself: Evolution is not supported because the man who proposed it was serving his social class. this says nothing about theory itself. C'mon, grow up a little. Consider the evidence. Consider the fact that you can make predictions based on this theory (i.e. where fossils of intermidiate species should be found if they evolve from one another, ehich has been done), genetis ( 2 primates chromosomes merging into human chromosome2), etc etc.
Callins evolution a "religion" really makes me question your logic, Andre. You don't like when people go into what you call "trigger mode" response, but you are the one who provoked it. People that responded to you thought really hard about this stuff, and are willing to defend their conclusions. and you keep saying: think think! we have.
| Quote: |
Yes, people have thought it through and coincidentally come to a predetermined conclusion that happens to be exactly what was marketed into their brains through massive indoctrination.
It is a religion because it requires belief, and it is a religion because it is a basis of a worldview. I see this belief as unfounded and this worldview as extremely detrimental to society.
I have considered the evidence. There is a mass of circumstantial evidence that, without anything concrete, cannot ever add up to anything but conjecture - that is why it is so bizarre that so many of you believe it religiously, and will play the zealot and attack me in an instant. The only logical explanation for this behavior is that this 'belief' has religious significance to you - otherwise you would be willing to discuss a theory in polite terms, and have an open mind when intelligent people question it's dogma. That ability to even consider other possibilities is what fully evidences that many of you are simply triggered to defend your indoctrination whenever someone questions it, like any religious person would.
As far as attacking the theory's 'own merits', there can be no point in this, because you have all have the indoctrination that whatever the scientific authority says is always right. I can talk about Behe and Dembski, but the high priests of the universities haver already issued statements decrying them, that very few of you will understand the science of, but will quote as evidence that they have been disproved, when no such thing has happened at all.
Let me put this same scenario in the context of a different type of indoctrination. Jet fuel cannot melt steel and steel framed buildings cannot collapse from fire. This is a fact, clear to anyone that understands physics. However, an (apparently) respected science magazine claims that floors can just 'pancake'. Thus, rather than engage people in this kind of discussion, it is much more prudent to cite other relevant facts: the NORAD stand down, the massing of troops on the border of Afghanistan, the fact that so many of the 'hijackers' are still alive, building 7, etc.
In other words, I am trying to get people to think along different lines, and come at the problem in a different way, and then the scientific side of it is much more likely to make itself evident.
Ultimately though, I am not trying to convert the hard-line true believers. I am simply trying to get the people who still have the capacity to be sentient to consider the cause and effect of the global establishment promotion of Darwinian theory. |
Betty:
When did our society undergo a massive scientific indoctrination?
Is that why the majority of people in this country believe in the bible and reject science?
You don't know what the hell you're talking about.
| Quote: |
For the most part it has been over the last fifty years. The strategy that would be used is heavily documented by Lord Burtrand Russell, particularly in a book called "The Impact of Science on Society", and well as in "Education and the Good Life". He talks about how to use kindergarden to 'scientifically indoctrinate' (his words) children, as was necessary in order to assure that their parents cannot taint them with 'contaminated ideas', citing religion and 'old' morality as a danger to the coming scientific age. So, yes, though I believe religion itself clearly a for of indoctrination, the present lack of religion is a direct result of indoctrination.
You will also want to check into the work of B.F. Skinner, the behaviorist, to see the science behind many of the methods of indoctrination that are being employed - his book entitled 'On Behaviorism' is a pretty good place to start.
These are complicated issues, but I assure you, without having studied them, you are going to have a hard time drawing conclusions here. You can contact me if you would like suggsestions for further reading, but Russell is a good place to start.
Charles Galton Darwin, the grandson of Charles, is another good character to read, but his books are more difficult to find. |
Well, I'm 57 years old, and I somehow missed out on this scientific indoctrination. I don't know how you get the idea that there is a lack of religion. There may be a lack of spirituality, but there's no shortage of religion.
I do think there's an elite agenda, but I don't think any of those elites are evolutionists. I'm researching that subject, but I haven't came to any definite conclusions about it. I think maybe your confusing a fringe group of scientists with real scientists. I'm no authority on science, but I think this ID thing is bullshit. It's being promoted by the Religious Right because they are trying to maintain control of society in this country.
The books you mentioned might be worth investigating.
| Quote: |
I assure you, evolution is one of the pillars of the elite religion. It also includes a bunch of bizarre Kabbalistic stuff, but basically it is a version of Hinduism - the vedas were in fact the first place where the idea of single-celled organisms rising up from the ooze and slowly evolving through natural selection appeared.
The elite believe strongly in eugenics, as they believe they are the most highly evolved beings on the planet, and by the 'law of nature', that gives them the right to rule. The concept of 'social Darwinism' is heavily mixed with the basic evolutionary concepts.
As all of these things are published in books written by the people who run society, it is impossible to say they are on the fringe in the sense that you are implying.
The 'religious right' are a joke, though a very dangerous one. They will latch on to anything that they feel can propel their agenda, which is much more political than it is religious. Still, I am not going to going to let the fact that a mass of incredibly feeble minded people believe something stop me from considering it's relevance.
The fact is, when they began teaching Darwinism in public schools, it was against the will of the large masses of people in this country - it is what the UN demands though, and so the will of the people was disregarded. Now, it happens that people believe that to question Darwin would be a violation of the 'separation of church and state', mainly because people read so much less now, and are largely unwilling to sit down and read the actual writings of the people who came up with that law.
As I believe I've stated above, I don't agree with a lot of the conclusions the ID people draw, I simply like the fact that they are willing to question Darwin - especially in such a fascist academic climate, where you can get fired for doing so.
Oh, and the people who are at the very top of the religious power structures do not actually believe the religions - they never have in history. Niether does George Bush - the man is clearly a drug addict and a homosexual, as most politicians are (Google 'Jeff Gannon' or 'the Franklin Cover-up'). Religions are used as a method of social control. As we have all seen, they can be used to get masses of people to support killing millions for reasons that make no sense to anyone, as they claim to be doing God's will in protecting the 'chosen' master race. It's all very bizarre and disturbing, to be sure. |
Mike (quotes me):
"If you've got a level of intellectual honesty low enough to dismiss Behe's work based on a government smear campaign, go ahead. "
Let's see your evidence of a government smear campaign. His work was dismissed by actual working biologists
Behe admitted he was wrong about the blood clotting system (dolphin's blood clotting system uses 1/2 the proteins of most mammals), admitted In Court that he hadnt read the literature on the flagellum, and stated himself he accepts common descent. No conspiracy necessary-his own words are enough.
"I actually read the book and understand the concept."
Do you understand the concept of Argument from Ignorance? 'That flagellum is awfully complicated - it must be GOD!'
"You thing the parts of a flagellum are interchangeable, like Dawkins claim, and you also believe the pancake theory."
If the evolutionary explanation for the flagellum is wrong, what is your alternative? Aliens? Magic Man? Pretending to poke holes in one theory isnt a theory in itself.
| Quote: |
"If the evolutionary explanation for the flagellum is wrong, what is your alternative? Aliens? Magic Man? Pretending to poke holes in one theory isnt a theory in itself."
This is exactly my point. We all know there are holes all through Darwinism. If you don't know that, please ask any biology professor - I have asked four and every one has agreed - this hardline thing you guys play is ridiculous, and we all know it, except the retards who would could just as easily be on here telling us were all going to hell if that's what they would have been taught at school. This is the fact of the matter.
What I'm getting at here is that I don't have another explanation - it is the dialectic in action that makes you believe one is needed. If you do not believe in God how can you believe we are Gods? We cannot know everything. Don't tell me that 'it's not scientific' to not have a counter-theory, because you know that isn't true. Science is not supposed to be a belief system, it is supposed to be a method of study, with the intent of furthering understanding; one cannot further one's understanding while refusing to admit he is wrong.
You seem smarter than the rest of the zombies here (even if you do believe in the pancake theory), and I think you probably do understand that the Darwinian explanation of complex micro-cellular systems is at least somewhat lacking. The problem is, saying 'it must be evolution', even though that doesn't exactly explain it is no different than saying 'it must be god'. What we need is open discussion. I know you were arguing with Amanda about this, and she wasn't saying it exactly as I would, but what if there is some innate intelligence with the fabric of the universe itself, as the very concept of 'natural law' implies? I am not proposing this as a counter theory, merely stating that this is a line of thinking that should be permitted in the debate. Hard line dogmatic Darwinists should be able to have their say, in universities and everywhere else, but I don't think that other people's ideas, intelligent people's ideas, should be stifled and dismissed as Christian propaganda, when much of it is far from it. |
Lojikbom (quotes another commenter):
"the darwinism theory helped create and shape communism"
Which must make communists psychic considering "The Communist Manifesto" was written a decade before "Origin of Species". Neat trick, Marx! Do it again, read scientific papers from the future!
| Quote: |
Once again, your haughtiness is incredible considering how poorly read you are. Read what Marx wrote about Darwinism - read what Hitler, Stahlin and Lennin wrote about it as well.
You have also again dismissed the fact that the whole Darwinian theory was originally published by Charles' grandfather, Erasmus. I have a biography of him right in front of me - it's by Desmond King-Hele, and goes fully into how he was the original publisher of the Darwinian evolutionary theory. Get it from the library, and stop acting like you know everything.
You never responded to my response to your silly commentary on the other blog. I didn't figure you would be back after having been so throughly flogged; everything you wrote was wrong, and I cited sources to prove it. I dare you to go on there and play the neocon and just say I'm making it all up, and none of those individuals or books ever existed. |
Mister Iconoclast:
Let's bring up the Popes that endorsed the Crusades and the Inquisition, to the tune of even more millions dead.
Like I said, I always take the word of mass murderers as gospel.
But if you believe that the millions dead at Stalin's or Lenin's hands were anything but political, you should re-read your history books.
| Quote: |
Yeah, you read your history books - I read their own writings, where they explicitly cite the necessity to kill off the lesser types.
The Crusades were clearly political, a precursor to Christian Zionism, but mainly they were just tremendously profitable, due to the treasure that was looted and the incredible economic value of controlling the Middle East.
What political advantage do you believe Stalin achieved by killing 50 million of his own people, I wonder? What do your government approved college history books say about that one? |
"Stalin, as head of the Politburo, consolidated near-absolute power in the 1930s with a Great Purge of the party, justified as an attempt to expel 'opportunists' and 'counter-revolutionary infiltrators'. Those targeted by the purge were often expelled from the party, however more severe measures ranged from banishment to the Gulag labor camps, to execution after trials held by NKVD troikas.
The Purges commenced after the assassination of Sergei Kirov, the popular leader of the party in Leningrad. Kirov was very close to Stalin and his assassination sent chills through the Bolshevik party. Publicly Stalin merely reacted to this assassination by tightening security by seeking out alleged spies and counter-revolutionaries, but in effect he was removing those who might have threatened Stalin's leadership. This process then transformed itself into extensive purges."
Source [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_StalinThe_purges]
As for the millions that died during the famines caused by Stalin's drive to industrialize the Soviet Union, he didn't consider them 'lesser people', he just didn't care if they lived or died as long as he achieved his goals.
| Quote: |
"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows" (Darwin 1886)
The is the philosophy that every mass murderer of the twentieth century cited. Maybe they were crazy, but it sure does make all the whining you people do about how religion causes wars look unbelievably ridiculous. Stalin alone killed more of his own people than all the previous wars in history combined. Mao killed more than he did - the Chi-com social policy that starved 40 million people was call the 'Great Leap Forward' for christssakes. There is no angle you can come at this thing and somehow get a different answer.
As far as your little wikipedia quote there, I'm not sure what you're trying to imply. That's the kind of tripe they publish in college history books - just names and dates without any context whatsoever. Sadly though, as I just said to Len Nobs below, we cannot discuss things that you have not researched. You would do better to just keep saying 'it's science, it's science', because when we get into the social implications of Darwin, you're gonna look end up looking totally uneducated every time.
I'm gonna just say this one more time - Hitler, Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao - every one of them - wrote in their own works about viewing Darwinian theory as a justification for mass murder. This is a matter of public record. It cannot be debated.
Quoting some rubbish from wikipedia that is not relevant to anything means nothing at all. Stalin purposefully starved and worked to death 50 million people under the banner of adapt or die. He also executed scientists who objected to Darwinism and the projects developed from it, such as soaking seeds in cold water for extended periods of time and expecting them to adapt to low temperatures. |
Ageless Stranger, Len Nobs (no bs), respectively:
"Yeah, you read your history books - I read their own writings, where they explicitly cite the necessity to kill off the lesser types. "
You can base an irrational belief off of anything. The Origin of the Species does not necessitate the killing off of lesser types.
| Quote: |
| It does provide philosophical justification. |
you are a sick man, Andre
| Quote: |
I'm confused about what you don't get. There is nothing sick in stating an obvious fact - Darwin provided moral and intellectual justification for mass murder. This is not debatable, and if you people would simply read what Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Hitler wrote about Darwin, we would not be having this conversation. You just look silly to the people who have actually read and understand the history of 20th century mass-murder. Darwinist ideology was the driving force, and based on the fact that none of it would have happened if it wasn't for the ideology of better and lesser types, the philosophy behind Darwinism was the sole cause. Again, maybe this doesn't effect the science of Darwinism, but if you do believe in it, and really believe in it, it becomes very difficult to oppose killing off the unfit.
This is basic logic we're dealing with here folks. Put your womanly emotions aside and think it through real quick. |
Betty (quotes me, from the second blog, which I wrote about the Darwinists loosing the first debate):
"See Andre slaughter them like the dogs that they are!"
The only thing you've proved is that you have a really nasty attitude. It might very well be true that there are certain scientists who are collaborating with an "evil elite" to misuse their scientific genius to do horrible things to humanity, but that doesn't prove or disprove evolution. I don't think anyone ever stated the definition of eugenics, which is...
The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.
Well, even an old chicken farmer knows how to use eugenics when breeding his chickens. The Chinese were doing that before Darwin was born, but that's really not my point.
The knowledge you have of conspiracy theories comes from other people who have been doing research for 30 to 40 years. I'm talking about people like Jordan Maxwell, not Alex Jones. Nobody has all the answers, and certainly not you. You're only 23 years old. I don't think your knowledge of science is any more extensive than your knowledge of history. I think your arrogance is all too typical of a younger generation who know far less than they think they know.
| Quote: |
That's fine. I don't think I know everything, but it is a fact that I have read more books than most people that are your age.
The term 'eugenics' refers specifically to human breeding, but when Plato talked about the same concept in the Republic, he did compare it to livestock breeding.
You are correct that the fact that Darwinism is being used as the justification for mass murder and the total enslavement of the human race does not disprove the theory, but it does prove why the UN and all national governments around the world (save the ones we are at war with) have laws that evolution has to be taught in high school, even though it is no longer taught in colleges (macro evolution, that is - Darwinism). That is my point. Maybe Arabs did do 9/11, and it's just a coincidence that there is no evidence of that whatsoever, and the Project for a New American Century published the year before that they needed a 'pearl harbor like event' in order to justify the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Syria, in that order. I tend to believe that there are reasons behind events, and the reasons behind the mass indoctrination of the youth with secular humanism and the belief that they are animals is obvious in and of itself, but also heavily documented by the people who brought it about.
But maybe I'm just an idiot 23-year-old who knows nothing, and you're somehow more knowledgeable and intelligent because you are older. Could be, who knows.
The 'slaughter them like dogs' thing is obviously in good humor - or rather I believed it to be obvious. I fully respect everyones right to believe whatever they've been programmed to believe.
Oh, and Jordan Maxwell believes in aliens. He is CIA, spreading that kind of trash mixed in with the truth. Same with Tsarion and Icke. |
And Alex Jones is a Jesuit Coadjutor. So where does that leave us?
I agree that there are lots of things going on behind the scenes, but we can't know for certain about these things. I probably agree with you more than I disagree. I just don't see that you've made any significant point about evolution. I don't think there has been any mass indoctrination of the youth in this country, other than religious indoctrination.
I think you might be connecting the wrong dots when it comes to evolution. Belief in evolution doesn't cause people to view themselves as animals with no meaningful purpose. I don't view myself that way, and neither do other people who believe in evolution.
Age in itself doesn't make a person more intelligent or knowledgeable, and I don't think you're an idiot. I just don't think you know much about science.
Peace
| Quote: |
The problem here is, these issue cannot really be discuss on any level in the abstract. You have to have actually read the literature that these people put out.
If you read a couple of books by Burtrand Russell, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, the Darwin's and Thomas, Julian, and Aldous Huxley, you cannot claim that evolution is not the driving ideology behind the global power structure. This issue is simply not debatable, as these people make no bones about it. Whether the theory stands alone on it's scientific merit is another issue altogether.
As far as the indoctrination of children, I am confused about what planet you've been living on if you are actually claiming that schools are not engaging in mass indoctrination of the youth. This new earth-worship/environmentalism/global warming thing, and the complete collapse of sexual morals among the youth is proof enough, but you can simply read the literature of the people who designed the education system, who are very open about it's purpose. Check out Alice Baily, Annie Bassant, Arnold Toynbee - also, because these issues are so intertwined, many of the people I mentioned above were also heavily involved in the formation of the education system - Marx wrote about the need for a national education system to reinforce the absolute power of the state, Burtrand Russell pioneered what he called 'scientific indoctrination' to be used on the youth in the education system, and Julian Huxley was the first head of UNESCO.
And you're correct, science is not my best subject. It doesn't have to be, because as I keep saying, I have talked to four different university biology professors, and not one of them claimed that Darwinism is still capable of explaining the diversity of life in itself. However, I am very well informed on the subjects above, and there is no way that you can read what I have recommended and come to any other conclusion. Again, these people are so frank in their statements that there is just no room for debate. |
***
There you have it. I wonder how many of these people will have the balls to come back on here and debate me further. If you have Myspace, you can click on the links to the original blogs and send them messages of encouragement.
Anyway, I wanted to give this debate a more permanent home, and here it is. Everyone's view is welcome - but Darwinists beware: you may end up looking utterly foolish and uninformed.
Peace,
Andre
Last edited by andre on Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:30 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Khanverse
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 707
Location: Milky Way
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Liberty Warrior
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 461
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 12:27 am Post subject: No transitional species |
|
|
| Andre, Evolutions biggest problem is the 100% complete lack of transitional forms. They are unable to counter and come up with an intelligent argument to refute that fact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Betty
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I honestly don't know enough about evolution to get into a debate about it. My point was that I don't think you do either. The argument your using about evolution being used as a justification for killing doesn't disprove evolution. The bible has been used as a justification for killing also.
I don't believe in a creator god. I don't believe in the account of creation that's recorded in the bible. Evolution actually makes more sense to me, but I would not ever use it as a justification for killing people. I guess it could be twisted around that way by some people, but I don't think it was conceptualized for that purpose.
We all begin as a single cell in our mother's womb. It's not difficult for me to imagine that the first life form was a single cell that evolved into more complex life forms. We are animals, and we're really not that different from other animals. I think that should be obvious to anybody. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Betty
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Check this out...<a href="http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=170921713&blogID=334173254&indicate=1">link</a> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Betty
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 7
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khanverse
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 707
Location: Milky Way
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Betty wrote: |
I honestly don't know enough about evolution to get into a debate about it. My point was that I don't think you do either. The argument your using about evolution being used as a justification for killing doesn't disprove evolution. The bible has been used as a justification for killing also.
I don't believe in a creator god. I don't believe in the account of creation that's recorded in the bible. Evolution actually makes more sense to me, but I would not ever use it as a justification for killing people. I guess it could be twisted around that way by some people, but I don't think it was conceptualized for that purpose.
We all begin as a single cell in our mother's womb. It's not difficult for me to imagine that the first life form was a single cell that evolved into more complex life forms. We are animals, and we're really not that different from other animals. I think that should be obvious to anybody. |
How is that obvious?
Have some penguins created satellites that orbit earth?
Perhaps an orangutan has performed open heart surgery?
Maybe an eel invented the telescope?
Possibly a tiger that did experiments with humans and learned to diagnose and cure disease?
_________________
http://khanverse.com/phorum
http://www.myspace.com/khanverse |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chitahuri
Joined: 01 Dec 2007
Posts: 1596
Location: the marrow in your backbone
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Khanverse wrote: |
| Betty wrote: |
I honestly don't know enough about evolution to get into a debate about it. My point was that I don't think you do either. The argument your using about evolution being used as a justification for killing doesn't disprove evolution. The bible has been used as a justification for killing also.
I don't believe in a creator god. I don't believe in the account of creation that's recorded in the bible. Evolution actually makes more sense to me, but I would not ever use it as a justification for killing people. I guess it could be twisted around that way by some people, but I don't think it was conceptualized for that purpose.
We all begin as a single cell in our mother's womb. It's not difficult for me to imagine that the first life form was a single cell that evolved into more complex life forms. We are animals, and we're really not that different from other animals. I think that should be obvious to anybody. |
How is that obvious?
Have some penguins created satellites that orbit earth?
Perhaps an orangutan has performed open heart surgery?
Maybe an eel invented the telescope?
Possibly a tiger that did experiments with humans and learned to diagnose and cure disease? |
dont forget that monkeys came in the prymotar ooze and made humams.
darwin was smart. inbread smart
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ageless Stranger
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
In regards to evolution giving "philosophical justification" for mass murder, you must apply eugenics to modern evolutionary theory which is for the most part incompatible. The eugenics movement of the early 20th century was certainly misguided, and had no rational basis for its belief based notion that Anglo-Saxxons or Germans and so forth were the best people. In a way, eugenics in the early 20th century was a nationalist propaganda more than it was related to actual Darwinian theory.
Supposing that you could use "Survival of the fittest" as your sole philosophical justice for mass murder (which doesn't hold up to modern evolutionary theory, mind you) you would then have to decide, well, what is the fittest? Intelligence? Strength? Race? A combination of these qualities? What we see in different races are gene frequencies that might slightly differ from other races, but none the less have the same capacity for all qualities that you would see in other races. Hitler's basis for genocide of the Jewish communities, homosexuals, and so forth were based on nationalism and religious confuscation, not aft to the fact that humans are rather xenophobic. Roman catholism as widely purported in Germany at the time was highly predjudiced towards the Jewish communities for centuries. Blood libels were still in print in Germany until the early 20th century where it was said that Jews would sneak into your house and drink the blood of infants and more, and blood libels about people of Jewish orgin still persist today in the Middle East.
Modern eugenics is different than its prior and past forms as it deals with the expulsion of defects and what not. It does not advocate killing off undesirable traits or stopping particular people from breeding. You're main concern is at what point do we consider a gene "undesirable" or "negative". A negative gene would be screened for in a fetus that doesn't allow the person to produce insulin, or what have you, something that is medically beneficial if altered. Maybe removing something like sickle cell anemia would be good, too. Killing off all people with diabetes is not justifiable or a rational response especially by secular humanist concerns. The modern eugenics movement can't be justified in mass murder unless you count abortion. It would seem that abortion for fetii with severe mental retardation, down's syndrome, and other birth defects are being screened for and abortion is considered.
I am certainly for the betterment of human kind, but at what cost? The annihalation of other races because mine is somehow the best without any rational consideration? No. And if you want my opinion, if my wife was pregnant and we learned that the baby would have down's syndrome and the extra copies of chromosome 21 (hence trisonomy 21) could be removed from most cells by some method we don't have today and the child would mostly be allivieated from the disease, I would encourage my wife to have it done. Likewise, if none existed, I would make abortion an option but that would ultimately be the woman's decision, and certainly before the fetus had significant time for growth. My position on abortion is that it be done before the fetus has concsious thought/self awareness or can feel pain. Some babies can't do either as seen with encaphalitis. You could argue that even an early abortion is mudering/killing a soul, but if a soul exists, it wouldn't be separate or distinct frow what we consider the mind.
In regards to the first post at the top of the board, you show that you actually dismiss the evidence for evolution. There is no scientific alternative to evolution, only evolution by various theories and hypothesis such as punctuated equillibrium. There are many different causes for speciation aside from darwinism which you seem to dismiss without actually arguing or presenting fallacies. As seen below, your use of the word "circumstantial" confirms this. I remember you saying that you asked biology professors the same Discovery Institution question about evolution that [Darwinian] Evolution was responsbile for the diverse life on earth we see today, which is a question with spin. Not all biologist that take evolution as fact regard darwinian evolution as fact.
"'Planting evidence' is silly, especially when you can get people to believe this tripe on circumstantial evidence alone; however, there has been implemented a planned indoctrination of the youth of the world into secular humanist philosophy (the main justification for which is Darwinism), done through the schooling system, which has taken place over the last 50+ years. This is a fact that cannot be debated."
Evolution is a sound scientific theory that should be taught in biology class regardless. If evolution is the only trademark of secular humanism taught in school, I don't see where you're going with this. Are we reading secular humanist literature in Language Arts classes? Are we reading humanist literature in our college level World Lit. classes? I don't see how teaching evolution = secular humanism. Many people that see evolution as a scientificly sound theory are not humanist including myself.
As for "planned indoctorination" if evolution is the sole theory your trying to weed out because your own beliefs are incompatible with the evolutionary theory, I have no solace for you. I suppose we were all indoctorinated with gravity, mathematics, and the atomic theory as well.
"You don't know who B.F. Skinner is, because you never replied above. But you know his ideas, and promote them, because they have been marketed into your brain. Look up what he did to his daughter. "
I am familiar with Skinner, and this is completely irrelavant to the true value of evolutionary theory, which is why I did not address it in the past. The baby box? How is that a valid argument against evolutionary theory? You are certainly having to delve here, and you act as if everyone in support of evolution has to agree with everyone else also in support. You make too many generalizations.
Edit: Social Darwinism is only justifiable in Economic terms. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Betty
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| To ageless stranger: good comments! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Betty
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
To Chitahuri,
Humans are mammals. We are flesh and blood, like all mammals. The fact that some of them have fur doesn't change the fact that they are flesh and blood. We have a very similar internal physical anatomy. We were considered mammals before evolution became accepted by scientists. We have the same basic needs as other animals like food, shelter, sleep etc. We form social networks. We communicate. We have emotions. We care for our young. There are probably more similarities than differences.
Yes, our brains are more complex than other animals, and that is part of the evolutionary process. However, I question whether or not we are actually superior to other animals. We have make technological advancement, but we have also destroyed our natural resources in the process. I don't consider that to be any great achievement. And if put a human in the jungle with nothing but his body to use for survival that human will use his bare hands to kill and eat other flesh just like any other animal, and his brain will undergo a transformation to a more primitive level. This is called adaptation and this is what evolution is all about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Betty
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I forgot to mention that animals generally only kill for food. Humans kill for all kind of crazy reasons. I don't see that we are have evolved to such a high plane of existence, at least, not all of us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khanverse
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 707
Location: Milky Way
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| In regards to evolution giving "philosophical justification" for mass murder, you must apply eugenics to modern evolutionary theory which is for the most part incompatible. The eugenics movement of the early 20th century was certainly misguided, and had no rational basis for its belief based notion that Anglo-Saxxons or Germans and so forth were the best people. In a way, eugenics in the early 20th century was a nationalist propaganda more than it was related to actual Darwinian theory. |
Eugenics, 'of the early 20th century' was 'misguided'?
How about the very concept of Eugenics should be an anathema to MANKIND.
| Quote: |
| Supposing that you could use "Survival of the fittest" as your sole philosophical justice for mass murder (which doesn't hold up to modern evolutionary theory, mind you) you would then have to decide, well, what is the fittest? Intelligence? Strength? Race? A combination of these qualities? What we see in different races are gene frequencies that might slightly differ from other races, but none the less have the same capacity for all qualities that you would see in other races. Hitler's basis for genocide of the Jewish communities, homosexuals, and so forth were based on nationalism and religious confuscation, not aft to the fact that humans are rather xenophobic. |
There is
| Quote: |
| Roman catholism as widely purported in Germany at the time was highly predjudiced towards the Jewish communities for centuries. |
History doesn't agree with you there buddy. Jews were prosperous in Germany before the Zionists started WWI and after, when although Germany was winning and willing to accept peace, the opposing forces were instigated for the Balfour Declaration by Zionist Jews to continue the fight and gain assured victory when Woodrow Wilson would be coerced into bringin America in on the war and making Germany lose, then forcing Germany to pay reparations which utterly destroyed Germany's economy while the seditious Zionists living in Germany were enjoying the high-life and buying up the businesses because of their control of the banking system and runaway inflation.
If my country got fucked like that I'd be down to blame a group too... But guess what? Germany didn't! Nazism didn't gain momentum until World Jewry declared war on Germany in '33... And zionists were running the nazi movement because they need people to move to Zion and they killed their own in the concentration camps as non-zionists jews READILY ADMIT and EXPOSE.
| Quote: |
| Blood libels were still in print in Germany until the early 20th century where it was said that Jews would sneak into your house and drink the blood of infants and more, and blood libels about people of Jewish orgin still persist today in the Middle East. |
Sabbatean/Frankist ones do that, there was a video of this on youtube where a jewish lady explained this ON OPRAH, but it has since been removed... luckily i d/loaded it and will eventually upload it...
But that understates why Germans had an anti-jewish sentiment which NAZISM USED to the ADVANTAGE OF ZIONISTS and this had nothing to with racial supremacism which is distinctive of jewish scripture as read in the talmud and was what the Nuremberg laws in Germany were based on.
| Quote: |
| Modern eugenics is different than its prior and past forms as it deals with the expulsion of defects and what not. It does not advocate killing off undesirable traits or stopping particular people from breeding. You're main concern is at what point do we consider a gene "undesirable" or "negative". A negative gene would be screened for in a fetus that doesn't allow the person to produce insulin, or what have you, something that is medically beneficial if altered. Maybe removing something like sickle cell anemia would be good, too. Killing off all people with diabetes is not justifiable or a rational response especially by secular humanist concerns. The modern eugenics movement can't be justified in mass murder unless you count abortion. It would seem that abortion for fetii with severe mental retardation, down's syndrome, and other birth defects are being screened for and abortion is considered. |
Can you please provide the sources for this information? What is "modern" Eugenics? When did this modern period begin?
It seems you're oversimplifying what eugenics is, what is was meant to be and how the concept has utilized darwinism to its advantage.
| Quote: |
| As for "planned indoctorination" if evolution is the sole theory your trying to weed out because your own beliefs are incompatible with the evolutionary theory, I have no solace for you. I suppose we were all indoctorinated with gravity, mathematics, and the atomic theory as well. |
Those have not been used to deny the nature of man or make extrapolations on what the purpose or source of life is... People have used DARWINISM, which NOT synonymous with EVOLUTION to justify extremely fucked up genocides and eugenics programs of a wide segment of populations... which leads us to,
| Quote: |
| Edit: Social Darwinism is only justifiable in Economic terms. |
Hell FUCKING no, you can't justify social darwinism in any way, shape, or form. Social darwinism leads to eugenics and genocide, native american, african, and even hybrids of the two (Tribe of Ben Ishmael via Indiana Plan)
_________________
http://khanverse.com/phorum
http://www.myspace.com/khanverse |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ageless Stranger
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is no criteria on which to label a "superior race". Racism has no scientific basis, people are generally xenophobic, which doesn't justify anything. Under what criteria did the Nazi's label the "superior race"? White, Blue eyed, blonde, German.
"Eugenics, 'of the early 20th century' was 'misguided'?
How about the very concept of Eugenics should be an anathema to MANKIND. "
This is where you are terribly confused. Genetically altering a defected gene, as what would be considered a form of eugenics, is an incredible science. Removing the third chromosome in trisonomy 21 could provide a substantial method for eliminating down's syndrome if possible. Removing impairments for lactose intolerance or diabetes would be incredible as well, but we are still far off from using such techniques in practical application.
By the same reasoning, I could say that Christianity and the very concept of such should be an anathema to MANKIND based on the Inquisition, the crusades, or even the witch trials throughout the americas and europe. You might say "Oh, the crusades were political" but the same can be said of the reasoning for eugenics in the early 20th century. If nationalism isn't political in nature, I don't know what is.[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ageless Stranger
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
It seems you're oversimplifying what eugenics is, what is was meant to be and how the concept has utilized darwinism to its advantage.
Was I the one oversimplifying eugenics or was it that I keep hearing this chirping that all eugenics leads to murder and genocide for reasons that were deemed as "JUSTIFIABLE" by darwinian politicial thinking, when there were no scientific base for "superior race" at all. The thinking was like, I'm better than you are. I'm white and of Aryian decent, so other white people of Aryian decent are better than you too. I'm also German and the same holds to be true. The same line of thinking can be drawn throughout European history by the nobility class where peasants were encouraged to remain ignorant, but the nobility was never "superior" to the peasant class in any real sense. Racism and extreme nationalism are bad. There are good qualities of eugenic principles such as genetic engineering, genetic counceling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and prenatal testing, but there are also bad qualities which should not be considered like forced sterilization and selective breeding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khanverse
Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 707
Location: Milky Way
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Ageless Stranger wrote: |
There is no criteria on which to label a "superior race". Racism has no scientific basis, people are generally xenophobic, which doesn't justify anything. Under what criteria did the Nazi's label the "superior race"? White, Blue eyed, blonde, German.
"Eugenics, 'of the early 20th century' was 'misguided'?
How about the very concept of Eugenics should be an anathema to MANKIND. "
This is where you are terribly confused. Genetically altering a defected gene, as what would be considered a form of eugenics, is an incredible science. Removing the third chromosome in trisonomy 21 could provide a substantial method for eliminating down's syndrome if possible. Removing impairments for lactose intolerance or diabetes would be incredible as well, but we are still far off from using such techniques in practical application.
By the same reasoning, I could say that Christianity and the very concept of such should be an anathema to MANKIND based on the Inquisition, the crusades, or even the witch trials throughout the americas and europe. You might say "Oh, the crusades were political" but the same can be said of the reasoning for eugenics in the early 20th century. If nationalism isn't political in nature, I don't know what is.[/b] |
If you're gonna indict Christianity then we should indict Atheism/Secular Humanism too, because Stalin murdered 50 million people in the Soviet Union, more than all the deaths related to religion ALL TIME.
We're not talkin about nationalism though bro, we're talkin bout things like castrating pre-pubescent males, quarantining men and women of a specific group, infecting populations with self-replicated viruses and diseases to ensure they cannot reproduce... that's what eugenics has done... i think a different word/phrase should be used for trying to get rid of a possible disease, "preventive genetic engineering", or "selective breeding" perhaps...
_________________
http://khanverse.com/phorum
http://www.myspace.com/khanverse |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SomeAsshole
Joined: 06 Dec 2007
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Andre, you didn't present anything.
Since all of you here are professional Paleontologists, please elaborate on the following:
No chin? Occipital bun? What about the small brain case which makes it impossible for a Homosapien brain to fit inside?
Go for it kids. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Ageless Stranger
Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 31
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Khanverse wrote: |
By the same reasoning, I could say that Christianity and the very concept of such should be an anathema to MANKIND based on the Inquisition, the crusades, or even the witch trials throughout the americas and europe. You might say "Oh, the crusades were political" but the same can be said of the reasoning for eugenics in the early 20th century. If nationalism isn't political in nature, I don't know what is.[/b] |
If you're gonna indict Christianity then we should indict Atheism/Secular Humanism too, because Stalin murdered 50 million people in the Soviet Union, more than all the deaths related to religion ALL TIME.
[/quote]
I hear this argument alot, and I suppose I'll stop arguing about eugenics and religion, and go back to evolution as a scientific theory, but I will address this one point. Stalin was a communist. Organized religion, pretty much organized anything, would be considered an enemy of the state. Stalin did kill many christians, but he also killed many atheist, too. With that said, Stalin being atheist is about as relevant as Hitler and Stalin both having mustaches.
I agree that there should be separate terms for the eugenics and what could be considered as preventative genetic engineering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andre
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 7371
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Ageless Stranger wrote: |
| Supposing that you could use "Survival of the fittest" as your sole philosophical justice for mass murder (which doesn't hold up to modern evolutionary theory, mind you) you would then have to decide, well, what is the fittest? Intelligence? Strength? Race? A combination of these qualities? |
They write a lot about this. The 'fittest' in our society are those who have risen to the top of the economic system. Read John Stewart Mill - he laid out the races that would need to be eliminated: blacks, red Indians, the Irish, and any other group that could not properly adapt to the white man's way of life.
| The Ageless Stranger wrote: |
| Modern eugenics is different than its prior and past forms as it deals with the expulsion of defects and what not. It does not advocate killing off undesirable traits or stopping particular people from breeding. You're main concern is at what point do we consider a gene "undesirable" or "negative". A negative gene would be screened for in a fetus that doesn't allow the person to produce insulin, or what have you, something that is medically beneficial if altered. Maybe removing something like sickle cell anemia would be good, too. Killing off all people with diabetes is not justifiable or a rational response especially by secular humanist concerns. |
These people believe in collectivism, as well as the ends justifying the means. Of course they have to make it sound nice and fuzzy for public consumption, or they would not be able to convince anyone. Read what they write, and use your own logic. It is very clear that the plan is very similar to Adolph Hitler's 'superman' agenda.
| The Ageless Stranger wrote: |
| I am certainly for the betterment of human kind, but at what cost? The annihalation of other races because mine is somehow the best without any rational consideration? No. |
Well, then I guess you wouldn't agree with any of the top eugenicists, who all have advocated a complete restructuring of humanity itself, in complete accordance with the Darwinian ideal.
| The Ageless Stranger wrote: |
| I remember you saying that you asked biology professors the same Discovery Institution question about evolution that [Darwinian] Evolution was responsbile for the diverse life on earth we see today, which is a question with spin. Not all biologist that take evolution as fact regard darwinian evolution as fact. |
Scientists do not call theories fact. If they did, they would not be scientists, but religious enthusiasts.
| The Ageless Stranger wrote: |
| Are we reading secular humanist literature in Language Arts classes? Are we reading humanist literature in our college level World Lit. classes? |
Did you not attend public school? Of course the entire curriculum is one giant indoctrination program. You can say that math and chemistry are not part of this, but who decides what children are taught? The economic system. Indoctrination is the sole goal of standardized education, that is why it is standardized. They want everyone to think and actually be the same, as they are all intended to live and serve in the same producer-consumer society. If it was actually intended to educate the child, they would not all be taught the same thing, and people who had been through such a rigorous system would not come out of it knowing almost nothing about anything. It is a joke.
| The Ageless Stranger wrote: |
| As for "planned indoctorination" if evolution is the sole theory your trying to weed out because your own beliefs are incompatible with the evolutionary theory, I have no solace for you. I suppose we were all indoctorinated with gravity, mathematics, and the atomic theory as well. |
Children are taught guilt over the holocaust and slavery in English class. They are taught the validity of 'democracy' in social science class. They are taught homosexuality and promiscuity in 'sex ed'. They are taught to compete with each other in everything in every class, most profoundly they are taught this is gym class. They are taught the most ridiculous and laughable lies in history class, which I should not even have to go into - for instance, they are taught that the Civil War was to 'free the slaves', and that a crazy lone gunman killed Kennedy - beyond that, their entire view of history is skewed to the perspective that everything that has ever happened has been a coincidence, when the truth is the exact opposite.
Further than this, we should probably start a thread about 'Education as Indoctrination'.
| The Ageless Stranger wrote: |
| I am familiar with Skinner, and this is completely irrelavant to the true value of evolutionary theory, which is why I did not address it in the past. The baby box? How is that a valid argument against evolutionary theory? You are certainly having to delve here, and you act as if everyone in support of evolution has to agree with everyone else also in support. You make too many generalizations. |
What I am telling you is that this is the mindset that Darwinism breeds, everywhere you look. Because if we are animals, and the collective is the only thing that matters, than how can we ever say that any of Skinners theories or methods are unethical? Darwinism itself is antithetical to ethics of any sort, and that's a fact.
| The Ageless Stranger wrote: |
| Social Darwinism is only justifiable in Economic terms. |
Jesus, that's a ominous statement.
_________________
"I have learned to kill rabbits and have killed 18 rabbits so far with my slaughtering weapon that is approved and legal in sweden." --Matterik |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
andre
Site Admin
Joined: 28 Jan 2007
Posts: 7371
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Ageless Stranger wrote: |
| Racism has no scientific basis |
If you believe Darwin there is. Or would you deny that black people's physiology is rather more akin to that of a monkey than a white man's? The Darwinian scientists themselves have not ever been shy in pointing this out, though there promoters tend to try and leave it unsaid.
| The Ageless Stranger wrote: |
| By the same reasoning, I could say that Christianity and the very concept of such should be an anathema to MANKIND based on the Inquisition, the crusades, or even the witch trials throughout the americas and europe. You might say "Oh, the crusades were political" but the same can be said of the reasoning for eugenics in the early 20th century. If nationalism isn't political in nature, I don't know what is. |
You cannot claim that the mass 'adapt or die' exterminations of the Communist countries were political in any way, and I don't know where you even got the idea that eugenics was nationalistic when existing anywhere but Nazi Germany. Communism, which promoted the concept much more than the Nazis ever did, was in no way nationalistic. Neither are the Rockefellers, who have been the main promoters of eugenics from it's modern form as put forward by Galton until the present day, in at all 'nationalistic'. These are the people who give out 'world citizenship' awards, and are constantly calling for a world government.
Hitler himself believed in a world government, and the only reason he promoted nationalism was to get his people behind a giant war of conquest by appealing to their base tribal nature.
_________________
"I have learned to kill rabbits and have killed 18 rabbits so far with my slaughtering weapon that is approved and legal in sweden." --Matterik |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
