PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     FreeAmerican
       General reply to FreeAmerican's posts

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

So by your reasoning, Christianity is evil, after all, it was Hitlers religion and he used it to justify the atrocities he inflicted on the world....

Was Hitler relying on a bona fide definition of Christianity?  The NT makes it absolutely clear that Jesus was a Jew and that Jesus taught "love your enemies".  Since this is the opposite of what Hitler actually did he could not have been a Christian.  Unfortunately, very few Germans could claim that status either.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 10:22 AM on June 13, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Was Hitler relying on a bona fide definition of Christianity?  The NT makes it absolutely clear that Jesus was a Jew and that Jesus taught "love your enemies".  Since this is the opposite of what Hitler actually did he could not have been a Christian.  Unfortunately, very few Germans could claim that status either.

But you miss the point, it doesn't matter what the definition of a true christian was or whether Hitler was one or not.  Creationists always paint him as an evil evolutionist, that he used evolution as a basis for his final solution.  The Theory of Evolution is a scientific theory and had nothing to do with the atrocities that Nazi Germany unleashed on the world. But look how Gabor ties "evolution", "racist" and "fuhrer" together, inferring that evolution is racist and somehow partly responsible for Hitler's evil.  Yet when the same logic is applied to Hitler's christianity, some outraged fundmentalist always cries "but he wasn't a true Christain!".
It's a double standard that many creationists dishonestly use to bash the Theory of Evolution.
Yes I know Hitler wasn't a true Christian, but he also wasn't a "true" evolutionist either.

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:24 PM on June 13, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes I know Hitler wasn't a true Christian, but he also wasn't a "true" evolutionist either.

How was Hitler not a “true” evolutionist?  Charles Darwin was noted for his liberal opinions.  He opposed slavery, campaigned against child labor and was a philanthropist in his community.  But, Darwin also saw a struggle between advanced and savage races.  In Darwin’s view it was inevitable that Britain establish an empire over the world’s inferior people.  How was Hitler different from Darwin?

In 1863 Ernst Haeckel introduced Darwinism to Germany in a speech before the annual meeting of the Association of German Scientists and Physicians. Haeckel saw Darwin’s message as one of change and progress and thus liberation.

In the late 19th century Haeckel founded Monism, a philosophy that saw everything in terms of matter.  Moninsm joins spirit to the creative power of matter.  Haeckel saw Darwinism as a non-miraculous creation.  Darwinism could explain everything in the universe.  Haeckel designed Monism to be an alternative to religion; religion was not needed to answer questions about the origin of the world or the life therein.

In 1906 Haeckel founded the Monist League as an apparatus to put his philosophy into political practice.  Within five years the League had 6,000 members scattered in 42 cities and towns in Germany and Austria.  Haeckel insisted that Germany was facing ruin unless German society was brought into harmony with the laws of biology- that is Darwinism and survival of the fittest.  Nations had to struggle against one another for existence in the political world as organisms had to in the biological world.  Long before Hitler entered the public stage Haeckel postulated that the higher races, the Aryan/German, were compelled to subjugate the world’s inferior people. Nazi ideologues would rely heavily on monism in the 1920s.

It is an undeniable fact that Hitler usurped Christianity for his movement.  It is lamentable that Germany’s Lutheran and Roman Catholic Churches did nothing to prevent Hitler’s rise to power. But such inaction was to be expected.  In his Berlin Diary William Shirer, a newspaper and CBS radio reporter stationed in Germany in the 1930s, remarked that Germany was nothing more than a pagan society that had a veneer of Christianity.


 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 6:54 PM on June 13, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How was Hitler not a true evolutionist? Why he twisted the theory of evolution to support his lunatic agenda!  Where in the "Origin of the Species" does it propose a theory on nationalistic expansion?
The Theory of Evolution never dealt with the manifest destiny of nations.  It was proposed to explain the diversity of life.  Hitler clearly twisted it's meaning as a propaganda tool.  As has been shown there is no superior race, we are all one race.  So you are wrong, Hitler was not a true evolutionist.  What Darwin thought about the British empire has no relation to the Theory of Evolution.  How Haeckel saw Darwin's message, again, has no bearing on the Theory of Evolution.  Haeckel founded Monism, a philosophy.  The Theory of Evolution is NOT a philosophy, it is a scientific theory and like all of science says nothing about religion.
Are you foolishly asserting that everything Darwin thought, believed in was part and parcel of the Theory of Evolution?



 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:00 PM on June 13, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The Theory of Evolution never dealt with the manifest destiny of nations.

It was proposed to explain the diversity of life.


In the Darwinian world aren’t humans nothing more than animals and as such aren’t humans just as subject to natural selection as any other animal?  Dogs have to struggle against their fellow dogs in order to survive.  In Darwin’s world the same goes for humans as well.  The struggle between nations is simply Darwinian group selection.

Hitler clearly twisted it's meaning as a propaganda tool.

No twisting was necessary.

Anyone who claims Darwinism does not have a racist component knows little of Darwin’s ideas or world history.

http://aids.hallym.ac.kr/d/svk/asv02.html
Material posted by the director of Hyundai Learning Center in Yongin, Kyonggi-do.

Captain Cook and other explorers prior to the voyage of the Beagle described the native peoples they encountered as “intelligent”, “skillful” and “mild and cheerful, without reserve or jealousy of strangers”.  Native women were described as “excellent mothers”.  

These natives were also conscious enough of their languages to prompt one explorer to comment that the natives “often roared with laughter when, trying to repeat what they said, if I made a mistake or pronounced them badly”.

But then along came Darwin- Erasmus that is, Charles Darwin’s grandfather.  The elder Darwin helped spread the idea of an elite race overtaking the world’s “savage” people.  In the Darwinian world view not all humans were all that human.  It was common to associate the world’s native peoples i.e. the non-Europeans as savages, more like monkeys than man.  Witness Charles Darwin’s description of the natives of Tierra del Fuego, South America as “miserable degraded savages”.

Writing in the journal New Scientist Martin Brooks said “A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder of the eugenics movement-Darwin's cousin, Francis Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe.” Brookes made the claim that racists “hijacked” Darwin’s science, but this is not a justifiable statement in light of Darwin’s own express views and actions.

http://www.goodschools.com/darwin.htm

Note the subtitle of Darwin’s evolutionary Bible: The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.   Thus Darwinism began with the concept of race.

In his book, The Descent of Man, Darwin declared, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world.  At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.”

http://aids.hallym.ac.kr/d/svk/asv02.html
Darwin’s prediction was carried out by the decimation of the natives of Tasmania.  It had been fashionable in Erasmus Darwin’s day to exhume the bodies of Tasmanian dead and preserve them for “scientific” investigations.  The Royal College of Surgeon amassed a collection of 10,000 such bodies.  Charles Monaghan, of Syndey, Australia’s The Bulletin, reports how Charles Darwin wrote to a museum and requested the skull of a pure blooded Tasmanian.

Note what Darwin’s bulldog, Thomas H. Huxley, said in his Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews: "No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man. And if this be true, it is simply incredible that, when all his disabilities are removed, and our prognathous relative has a fair field and no favor, as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried out on by thoughts and not by bites."  So did Darwin ever publicly condemn the racism of his fellow evolutionist?

In the article "The Evolution of the Human Races," published in the journal Natural History, Jan./Feb. 1926 evolutionist Henry Fairfield Osborn wrote, "The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolian, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characters such as the teeth, the genitalia, the sense organs, but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.

Charles Darwin The Man and His Influence
Peter J. Bowler
Basil Blackwell
Oxford, U.K.
1990

“Whatever his initial feelings about slavery he was now convinced that the coloured races had lagged behind the whites in the ascent from the apes. He accepted measurements given by several contemporary authorities according to which the average brain capacity of the white race was larger than that of any other. He assumed that a larger brain meant a greater level of intelligence, thus placing Europeans at the head of a hierarchy of racial types. Like most of his contemporaries, Darwin became convinced that the Europeans were conquering the world not just because they had superior technology but because they were brighter than the other races. He commented at length on the various factors which seemed to drive the ‘lowers races into a decline towards extinction when confronted by white colonists. In this respect, if no other, Darwin was a ‘social Darwinist’. He still disapproved of overtly harsh treatment of blacks but he accepted the inevitability of white supremacy.”



 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:34 AM on June 15, 2003 | IP
Void

|      |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Guest whoever you are you are fighting a pointless battle here.

Smearing the names of people in the past, whether true or not, is not going to change reality. Evolution is either true or false depending on fact not on the people that discovered it.

In society humans treat each other with respect. We don't simply go "oh because we are animals lets fight". We try and coexist.

Still, how humans behave is not going to change the facts.
You can't change reality with wishful thinking. You can stick your fingers in your ears to your hearts but this form of smearing is just pathetic.

I would also encourage anyone who accepts evolution not to use the phrase "evolutionist". It is a daft phrase that tries to equate evolution with some sort of religion.

I don't go around saying I am a atomist because I believe in atomic theory, neither do I run around saying I am a gravitist because I believe in gravitational theory.
Say you "accept evolution" rather than you are an "evolutionist."
 


Posts: 66 | Posted: 1:24 PM on June 15, 2003 | IP
nothing_satisfies

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Smearing the names of people in the past, whether true or not, is not going to change reality. Evolution is either true or false depending on fact not on the people that discovered it."

Void makes a very good point here.  We're supposed to be discussing ideas not making personal attacks.

I don't see why it's important if evolution is racist or not, it can be interpereted that way if you want it to be.  It comes down to the idea of survival of the fittest and if you wish to interpret it as racism that's your call, you can also view as sexist, specist, geographical discrimination, there are a lot of ways you can view it as biased.  However that's because when it comes down to it, evolution is biased,  whichever species, race, sex, whatever is strongest and most adaptive to their surroundings will survive, that's the harsh truth of it, and arguing that it's not politically correct doesn't change that fact.  We're not dealing with Social ethics or politics, this is survival, life and death.  

Hitler used a lot of stuff as propaganda, that's part of the reason he gained dictatorial status.  Neither beliefs nor scientific theory can be judged by the distorted actions and claims of one man they must be taken at face value and analyzed for what they propose and represent.  However, the people use them needs to also be taken into account as a part of this analysis to determine how they're interpreted, but this must be done on a large scale not an individual scale and this holds less weight towards the validity of these beliefs or theories.  That's why arguing who what and how Hitler molded is irrelavent in this discussion.
 


Posts: 8 | Posted: 12:12 AM on June 16, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anyone who claims Darwinism does not have a racist component knows little of Darwin’s ideas or world history.

The Theory of Evolution does not have a racist component to it, you are wrong, once again.  their is only one race, the human race.  You make claims that Darwin was racist and imply that this was due to the TOE.  Nothing could be further from the truth!  This was the prevailing social attitude of the times, almost all Europeans believed this and it had nothing to do with the TOE.  As I said before you foolishly confuse Darwins ideas on society, which were held by all of contemprary Europe at the time, with the Theory of Evolution.  No matter how many people you quote, they are attempting to twist evolution into something it is not.  Evolution is a theory that best explains the diversity of life on this planet.  Charles Darwins concepts of society  have nothing to do with the Theory of Evolution.
There is no imperative inherent in the TOE that justifies the extermination of any group of people or the atrocities of Hitler.  You are desperate to somehow cast the Theory of Evolution as an evil force and you will do anything to accomplish that goal. Look how you twist history to suit your purposes.  And yet, when the same logic is applied to Christainity, you are the first to cry foul!  As I said, you dishonestly employ a double standard.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:20 AM on June 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They who won’t see the bigotry inherent in evolution claim that Hitler and his fellow bigots did not define evolution as Darwin defined evolution.  I wonder if the evolutionists who say there is only one race are defining race the way Darwin defined race.

Bigots like drunks seldom own up to their avocation.

 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 08:27 AM on June 16, 2003 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

They who won’t see the bigotry inherent in evolution claim that Hitler and his fellow bigots did not define evolution as Darwin defined evolution.  I wonder if the evolutionists who say there is only one race are defining race the way Darwin defined race.

Bigots like drunks seldom own up to their avocation.


So let me get this straight, you claim that the Theory of Evolution is inherently racist?!  You still don't get the fact that it doesn't matter how Darwin defined race 150 years ago, that is not part of the TOE.  The Theory of Evolution is no more racist than the Theory of Gravity.  Your insistance that it is somehow evil marks you as a dishonest, unthinking zealot afraid to face reality.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 8:43 PM on June 16, 2003 | IP
Guest

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Demon38 and other accepters of evolution -- I stumbled onto this discussion and have enjoyed and learned much from your sincere and honest effort in seeking and attempting to pursuade others of the truth of reality.

You of course realize it is a fruitless battle owing to the fundamental schism between your epistemology (nature of human knowledge and how it is acquired) and that of those who accept creation.

One cannot serve two masters.  One must accept the primacy of either reason (an epistemology requiring uncompromising use and synthesis of the evidentiary perceptions of the senses and integrations of concepts via logic) or faith (an epistemology of revelation, and willful evasion of the senses and rational mind).  To accept reason, one MUST reject faith -- and visa versa.

Your opponents have accepted faith and thus rejected reason, which is glaringly obvious from reading these posts.

I salute you for trying nonetheless, for I've wasted too much of my own precious time in years past beating my head against such walls with virtually no success.  Good luck nonetheless -- the love you show in such effort makes your behavior far closer to Christ's than the insincere and mean-spirited behaviors demonstrated throughout this discussion by your oppoents!   - Shain
 


Posts: 0 | Posted: 03:26 AM on July 18, 2003 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.