[_ Old Earth _] Is evolution based on racism?

[Brokendoll]

Hitlers belief in evolution was a aiding factor in his extermination of the Jews.

Before we go all out on this one it might, once again, be useful to examine the actual facts of the matter.

The Nazi movement was in no way based on Darwin's ideas. At best they might have used a severe misrepresentation of pseudo-science as an excuse, but in no way were their ideas based on Evolutionary Theory. If you go back to the source material, i.e. "Mein Kampf" you get the following statistics.

The number of instances of key words are as follows:
"Darwin" : Zero
"Almighty" : 6
"God" : 37
"Creator" : 8

Now, we know that Hitler was raised a Roman Catholic and we know that the Nazi belt buckles spelled out "Got Mit Uns". Does this mean that the Nazi movement was based on Christian ideals? Of course not.

The Nazi ideology was a hodgepodge of unsubstantiated pseudoscience and convenient lies cooked up as an argument used to justify their goal of domination. That is all.


Cheers

Brokendoll

 

[VenomFangX]

The Nazi ideology was a hodgepodge of unsubstantiated pseudoscience and convenient lies cooked up as an argument used to justify their goal of domination.

one could make the following statement and they have..atheist forums in different forms of saying the same thing.

The Christian ideology was a hodgepodge of unsubstantiated pseudoscience and convenient lies cooked up as an argument used to justify their goal of domination.

The point here being is that the same statement can be turned around to anything which is based on belief, faith..due to the unsubstantiated nature of the beliefs. In the past both the Nazis and the Catholic Christians have used incredibly evil sadistic methods of enforcing their ideologies: the Nazis had the Geheimestaatspolizei (Gestapo) and the deathcamps while the Christians had Tomás de Torquemada (inquisition) and the torture chambers.

All ideologies whether Political or Religious have the inherent capacity for great evil if science and rational thinking with common sense and human decency are not used.
yours
??????????

 

[Brokendoll]

All ideologies whether Political or Religious have the inherent capacity for great evil if science and rational thinking with common sense and human decency are not used.

I fully agree with the statement above.

 

[Ramsey]

Very soon after Darwin made his theory of evolution, a new political idea developed called Social Darwinism. This was the idea that the people who were on top in society got there because they were some how genetically or ability wise more gifted then others. Europeans during the time of Darwin basically ruled the world, and Social Darwinism was used to explain why. Also a science called eugenics was created soon after due to the influnce of Social Darwinism. Eugenics is the science of selective breeding of human beings to create a more perfect race.

Social Darwinism by itself is not racist, but it is used by racists to explain their beliefs.

Hitler believed in Social Darwinism and Eugenics, and these ideas fell out of popularity with the world because Hitler over did it a little with the whole "master race" and genicide thing.

On a side note, Hitler was also a follower of the German philosopher Fredrick Nietzche who said "God is Dead." Nietzche had two philosophies that greatly influenced Hitler. The first is the "will to power" which is basically a theory that says that in all living the primary drive is expand one's power. This is more important then adaptation and survival. The other theory that influnced Hitler is the oberman, or Superman. Nietzche says the oberman is a goal that humanity can set for itself to become better than itself. All human life should be giving meaning by how it advances a new generation of human beings, and works to perfect itself. This smacks of Eugenics and Social Darwinism.

 

[VenomFangX]

Age has been pushed much further back than the actual event of creation.

Great thought experiment Rick W but you do not have the slightest shred of evidence to support that hypothesis. You cannot alter the facts to fit in with your beliefs: the contrary is true however, in that your belief system may need to be modified.
yours
??????????

 

[Rick W]

Age has been pushed much further back than the actual event of creation.

Great thought experiment Rick W but you do not have the slightest shred of evidence to support that hypothesis. You cannot alter the facts to fit in with your beliefs: the contrary is true however, in that your belief system may need to be modified.
yours
??????????

lol

Is creation of something from absolutely nothing possible?

 

[researcher]

Europeans during the time of Darwin basically ruled the world, and Social Darwinism was used to explain why.

Who's ruling now?

Of course, there was probably a better explanation for why they ruled...

Act 17:26 And He made every nation of men of one blood, to live on all the face of the earth, ordaining fore-appointed seasons and boundaries of their dwelling,

Deu 7:11 Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them.
Deu 7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:
Deu 7:13 And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
Deu 7:14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.

 

[jasoncran]

[quote="Rick W":udmovuic] Age has been pushed much further back than the actual event of creation.

Great thought experiment Rick W but you do not have the slightest shred of evidence to support that hypothesis. You cannot alter the facts to fit in with your beliefs: the contrary is true however, in that your belief system may need to be modified.
yours
??????????

lol

Is creation of something from absolutely nothing possible?[/quote:udmovuic]
ask louis pasteur that question, the law of biogenesis ,should ring a bell

 

[Brokendoll]

lol

Is creation of something from absolutely nothing possible?

Site one reputable present-day scientist who has made that claim.

ask louis pasteur that question, the law of biogenesis ,should ring a bell

Yes, please, let us use 150 year old speculations as a basis for how we view modern science. :bigfrown

 

[Rick W]

lol

Is creation of something from absolutely nothing possible?

Site one reputable present-day scientist who has made that claim.

Then you're saying it's not possible?

 

[VenomFangX]

All we know at present is that matter and energy are interchangeable which accounts for the functionality of nuclear weapons. So matter can come from energy and recent advances in quantum tele-transportation have confirmed this even if it is not to the level of "Star Trek". It would seem that matter cannot come from nothing and to postulate such ideas is to delve into the realms of magic and wishful thinking. To use God as an excuse to do the impossible I think is to demean his creation.
yours
??????????

 

[Brokendoll]

[quote="Rick W":sx8a246t]lol

Is creation of something from absolutely nothing possible?

Site one reputable present-day scientist who has made that claim.

Then you're saying it's not possible?[/quote:sx8a246t]

As far as we know creating something from absolutely nothing is impossible.
Oh, and I know where you are going with this, but please, carry on. I'll answer your arguments and questions in due course. ;)

 

[jasoncran]

lol

Is creation of something from absolutely nothing possible?

Site one reputable present-day scientist who has made that claim.

ask louis pasteur that question, the law of biogenesis ,should ring a bell

Yes, please, let us use 150 year old speculations as a basis for how we view modern science. :bigfrown

you believe and 150 year old darwinian elvolution, correct, albeit modified.

 

[Rick W]

As far as we know creating something from absolutely nothing is impossible.

"As far as we know."
Why do you argue against something you're not sure about?
Tell me then. What is your opinion without the "we". I've found people post their opinions very easily and to the point on this board. ;)

but please, carry on. I'll answer your arguments and questions in due course.

Answering the questions would be nice.

"but please, carry on."
Why thank you. I really appreciate that

 

[Brokendoll]

"As far as we know."
Why do you argue against something you're not sure about?
Tell me then. What is your opinion without the "we". I've found people post their opinions very easily and to the point on this board. ;)

I'm trying to be as accurate as I can be from a scientific point of view here. ;)
Let's put it this way, we have no evidence of instances in which something is created from absolutely nothing. Also the creation of something from nothing goes against our current understanding of the rules that govern the universe. Therefore, in my opinion, it is impossible.

Will that do?

I am -so- seeing this area of discourse taking us into String Theory country on a fast track, but hey, I'm game...

 

[Rick W]

String theory is old hat in my opinion.

If I asked you can something be cooked without heat being applied before 1940 I would expect the same reply.

Let's put it this way, we have no evidence of instances in which one can cook something without heat being applied. Also cooking something without heat being applied goes against our current understanding of the rules that govern cooking something. Therefore, in my opinion, it is impossible.

Enter the microwave oven in 1946.

Same can be said about flight, the internet, space travel and on and on.

Because something "goes against our current understanding" doesn't mean it's impossible. That sort of thinking has been proven wrong a multitude of times throughout history.

 

[Brokendoll]

Because something "goes against our current understanding" doesn't mean it's impossible. That sort of thinking has been proven wrong a multitude of times throughout history.

Which is why I answered the way I did in the first place, but since you asked me to come down on one side or the other, I could do little else than follow the avaliable evidence. And since the avaliable evidence indicates that it is impossible, that's where my money is until I see evidence to the contrary.

Science does not deal in absolutes, but since creating something from nothing goes against the well established laws of Thermodynamics, the current conclusion is simple. Science is not dogmatic, though, and if sufficient evidence could be produced that showed that this was indeed possible after all, science, and I for that matter, would change our stance.

In my first reply to your answer I was being scientifically accurate, but you could just as well have asked me if I thought faeries exist. We have no evidence whatsoever that they do, so until such evidence is produced the only logical conclusion is that faeries does not exist.

 

[VenomFangX]

Everything is possible, that just depends on your imagination, it is just really a matter of probability. The probability of matter arising from nothingness is highly improbable about 1x 10-(infinity)
yours
VFX

 

[Brokendoll]

Everything is possible, that just depends on your imagination, it is just really a matter of probability. The probability of matter arising from nothingness is highly improbable about 1x 10-(infinity)
yours
VFX

Sure, and there is a theoretical possibility that quantum fluctuations could teleport a small poodle to Venus, much to his surprise I might add, but the odds against it are so astronomical that it is unlikely to happen during the estimated lifespan of the universe.

Woof?

 

[Rick W]

Everything is possible, that just depends on your imagination, it is just really a matter of probability. The probability of matter arising from nothingness is highly improbable about 1x 10-(infinity)
yours
VFX

We could narrow down the odds a bit by considering Christ's miracle of feeding the multitudes. Twice.
We don't understand the mechanics of bringing back to life a dead body after three days. Paul was able to bring back a young fellow from the dead. And Lazarus was dead long enough that his body was rotting but that was no problem for Christ to bring him back to life.
Christ didn't consider whether people understood what He did or not. He willed it to be and through HIS understanding His will was done.
There is a limit to how much man can understand. And the rules developed by man as he sees his surroundings are just that, rules developed only within the creation he finds himself.

The rules man develops himself are the only rules he has the capacity to understand. Period.
Christ doesn't limit himself only to the rules of man. And neither does the Father.