RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 337 338 339 340 341 [342] 343 344 345 346 347 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2013,09:58   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 01 2013,06:34)
Quote (REC @ Oct. 31 2013,21:52)
VJtorley:

   
Quote
Scientology founder Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (1911-1986) (pictured above in 1950; public domain image, courtesy of Wikipedia) proposed a much longer timescale: in his chronology, Incident I, which may have corresponded to the beginning of the universe, took place four quadrillion years ago. That’s about 300,000 times longer than the currently accepted age of the universe, and nearly one million times longer than the currently accepted age of the Earth. (I should add that I personally accept the modern scientific estimate, just as I accept common descent.)


Suppose the (fictional) vertion particles emanating from Tom Cruise's ass float upwards, despite having substantial mass. Suck that gravity!!!

WTF even is this? Must we reject scientific hypotheses if they encounter contradiction in fictional universes?

Saw that and had to read it three times to be sure.  It's pretty rare to come across tard so powerful it leaves me almost speechless.  Vjtorley however managed it without breaking a sweat with his latest "gotcha!" for evilution.

Apparently we're suppose to imagine that L. Ron. Hubbard's lunacy is true, the world really is 4,000,000,000,000,000 years old, and we have to explain why that is too much time for evolution to produce today's extant life.  

WUT?????

It's so off the wall it's hard to know how to respond.  That's batshit77 level of unintelligible work there folks.

VJ has sneaked up Batshit's ass to be born.

And Batshit is thinking what's that in my ass? A new universe?

...Gawd i had to come back and edit this.

NO UD DUMBFUCKS ITS A TURD!!!!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2013,12:41   

The blistering level of self-unawareness by VJ is really something:

Quote
If Professors Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran or P. Z. Myers want to weigh in, I’d be delighted.


There is NO proper reply but to laugh. No one who WOULD give a reply is welcome at UD. And good god, even if, you think they are going to waste time on you and some musings on L Ron. Hubbard?

  
KevinB



Posts: 525
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2013,13:28   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 31 2013,21:36)
Vjtorley ignores the real predictions of evolution, and demands a prediction that nobody ever claimed the evolutionary theory could make.  Gee, I wonder why...

 
Quote
My point about setting an upper limit to how much time evolutionary theory will allow for the evolution of life on Earth is a vitally important one. It’s no use having a scientific theory that says you need more than 100 million years (say), if that theory is unable to come up with even a ballpark estimate for how long evolution should take, from the first living thing to the life-forms we observe on Earth today. Any theory of origins that could cheerfully accept billions, trillions or even quadrillions of years for the age of the Earth, doesn’t deserve to be called a proper scientific theory.


Oh yeah, so how long does ID theory predict that design should take?  3, 4 billion years?  Actually, six days seems about right for a very intelligent designer, if a bit generous.  Fail, unless, say, the IDiot designer is about as smart as evolutionary processes are.

We do have lower limits for evolution, as 20 million years would almost certainly be too little.  Not that evolutionary theory gives very precise lower limits, yet how did that all work out?  Oh right, Torley starts with that fact, then moves the goalposts because he didn't like how that turned out.  And science owes all of the answers, creationism/ID owes none, because, you know, it's religion.  "Pathetic details" are all we're supposed to have, but hey, IDiocy has never aspired so high, so it's supposed to be given a pass.

Glen Davidson

Vjtorley is digging himself a deep hole.

The whole point of his story is that the "Darwinists" (and the Geologists) were insisting that (based on the evidence) the age of the Earth was much greater than Kelvin the Physicist would (based on current physical theories) allow, and that at the end of the day the Darwinists and the Geologists were proved right, and Kelvin was shown to be arguing on an incomplete theoretical framework and was, therefore, wrong.

Let's save the point up for the next time that someone tries to deny Evolution because there is no proven theory about the Origin of Life.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2013,14:33   

Over at UD they wait until the dust settles over a thorough refutation, then lead with same tired arguments again hoping we've forgotten. We haven't:

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2008....in.html

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2013,15:19   

Today must be Bonus Tard Friday over at the Dense place. Or maybe it's November Fool's Day. Here's the latest refutation of evolution by someone named Laszlo Bencze.  From his link he's a commercial photographic artist with zero scientific credentials or training.  He tells us that ToE is impossible because there is no such thing as a beneficial or even a neutral mutation.  The reasoning?

1. Go to an art gallery.
2. Make random ink dots on an existing painting.
3. The painting will only be damaged, not improved.
4. Therefore all mutations are bad.

Serious folks, that's the argument.  

linky

Even discounting the "eye of the beholder" angle that's got so much other FAIL it's another case of not knowing where to begin.

This board really need a facepalm emoticon.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2013,15:58   

A commercial photographic artist should know better.
The techniques of modifying existing paintings as well as techniques such as creating art based on the smoke smudges left by holding paper near/over candle flames were put to good (as well as bad) use in the 20th century.  
Dali used paint spatters created from explosive devices loaded with paint and fired at canvases as the basis of some of his later work.
It is shameful that an alleged artist knows so little about the history of his field as to make this sort of error.  The arrogance of stupidity knows no bounds.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2013,16:38   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 01 2013,13:19)
1. Go to an art gallery.
2. Make random ink dots on an existing painting.
3. The painting will only be damaged, not improved.
4. Therefore all mutations are bad.

Two words: Thomas Kincade.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2013,17:56   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 01 2013,16:38)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 01 2013,13:19)
1. Go to an art gallery.
2. Make random ink dots on an existing painting.
3. The painting will only be damaged, not improved.
4. Therefore all mutations are bad.

Two words: Thomas Kincade.

Yeah, day late and a dollar short, IDiots:

http://rogeralsing.com/2008....na-lisa

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2013,18:32   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 01 2013,15:56)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 01 2013,16:38)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 01 2013,13:19)
1. Go to an art gallery.
2. Make random ink dots on an existing painting.
3. The painting will only be damaged, not improved.
4. Therefore all mutations are bad.

Two words: Thomas Kincade.

Yeah, day late and a dollar short, IDiots:

http://rogeralsing.com/2008.......na-lisa

But the program was designed.  Therefore Jesus.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2013,21:21   

Quote (REC @ Oct. 31 2013,21:52)
VJtorley:

Quote
Scientology founder Lafayette Ronald Hubbard (1911-1986) (pictured above in 1950; public domain image, courtesy of Wikipedia) proposed a much longer timescale: in his chronology, Incident I, which may have corresponded to the beginning of the universe, took place four quadrillion years ago. That’s about 300,000 times longer than the currently accepted age of the universe, and nearly one million times longer than the currently accepted age of the Earth. (I should add that I personally accept the modern scientific estimate, just as I accept common descent.)


Suppose the (fictional) vertion particles emanating from Tom Cruise's ass float upwards, despite having substantial mass. Suck that gravity!!!

WTF even is this? Must we reject scientific hypotheses if they encounter contradiction in fictional universes?

Also, explain why if my Aunt had balls she would not be my Uncle.  Checkmate, Darwinists!

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 2564
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2013,07:50   

I suspect Denyse doesn't appreciate the implications what she wrote for creationism:
Quote
If the only thing to be said about disease is that the gods send it, that doesn’t leave much of a field for research. And indeed, people who believe that do not do any research; they, wisely from their perspective, put their energies into placating the gods.


--------------
It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2013,08:11   

Quote (Bob O'H @ Nov. 02 2013,15:50)
I suspect Denyse doesn't appreciate the implications what she wrote for creationism:
 
Quote
If the only thing to be said about disease is that the gods send it, that doesn’t leave much of a field for research. And indeed, people who believe that do not do any research; they, wisely from their perspective, put their energies into placating the gods.

Or for that matter faith healing.


Funny that, Behe brought palm reading into disrepute by bringing that up on the stand at Dover.

Creationism, no one with a disease wants it as a treatment.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2013,12:34   

Quote
Fri nite frite: Accused man-eating tigers released back to wild


You mean...without a trial?  Why accuse them without going forward with the trial, or at least a very thorough investigation of the accusations by detectives?

Or one could write, "alleged man-eating tigers," if one prefers intelligently designed writing.  Minor compared with the unintelligently designed (but yes, still designed) ID "theory," yet it'd be nice to see any sort of competence over there (say, from a self-styled journalist, as the odds would suggest).

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2013,08:47   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 01 2013,16:38)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 01 2013,13:19)
1. Go to an art gallery.
2. Make random ink dots on an existing painting.
3. The painting will only be damaged, not improved.
4. Therefore all mutations are bad.

Two words: Thomas Kincade.

It's been done: http://www.tiefighters.com/post.......ett-has

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
hotshoe



Posts: 42
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2013,14:20   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 03 2013,08:47)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 01 2013,16:38)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 01 2013,13:19)
1. Go to an art gallery.
2. Make random ink dots on an existing painting.
3. The painting will only be damaged, not improved.
4. Therefore all mutations are bad.

Two words: Thomas Kincade.

It's been done: http://www.tiefighters.com/post.......ett-has

I like the bottom print the best, with the AT-AT walkers looming in the foggy background.  What a great juxtaposition.

I was tickled to google "Empire walker" and see that the first result is the wikipedia on Star Wars; surely there must be many other "empire walker" ideas/entities/organizations in the real world, but google knows what's important :p

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2013,15:04   

Vjtorley is back to sniffing glue again, issuing another idiotic "challenge" based on his fantasies.  Last week it was "pretend L. Ron Hubbard was right and the Earth is 4 gazillion years old;  defend modern ToE in that scenario!!"

No one took him seriously so no one answered.  Now's he on the other end of the IDiot spectrum with ""pretend the Earth is only 4 million years old or less, defend modern ToE in that scenario!!"  He threw in a five more supposed "gotcha" questions at the end too.

linky

Not sure what he hopes to demonstrate with these "pretend your aunt had balls, why wouldn't she be your uncle??" just plain goofy lines of attack.  We already know he's quite scientifically inept and clueless.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2013,15:57   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Nov. 05 2013,08:04)
Vjtorley is back to sniffing glue again, issuing another idiotic "challenge" based on his fantasies.  Last week it was "pretend L. Ron Hubbard was right and the Earth is 4 gazillion years old;  defend modern ToE in that scenario!!"

No one took him seriously so no one answered.  Now's he on the other end of the IDiot spectrum with ""pretend the Earth is only 4 million years old or less, defend modern ToE in that scenario!!"  He threw in a five more supposed "gotcha" questions at the end too.

linky

Not sure what he hopes to demonstrate with these "pretend your aunt had balls, why wouldn't she be your uncle??" just plain goofy lines of attack.  We already know he's quite scientifically inept and clueless.

You beat me to it, OA. As I write Neil Rickert is doing a pretty good job on vjt's wrongheadedness. Sample:
   
Quote
   
Quote
“If someone could prove to you that the Earth was ten or even one hundred times younger than the currently accepted figure of 4.54 billion years, would you give up your belief in evolution by natural selection? Or putting it another way, what’s the youngest age that you, as a Darwinian evolutionist, would accept for the age of the Earth? How low would you go?”


This is far too hypothetical.

Evolution is supported by a mountain of evidence. Much of that evidence also counts as support for the age of the earth. Nobody could prove the earth to be much younger, without first countering that evidence.

How can we answer your question without knowing which evidence for evolution has been countered, and how? Science isn’t a game of playing logic with propositions. It’s a practice of dealing with real evidence and often digging for more evidence.

...but I like part of his next response more:
 
Quote
The question does not make sense.


--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2013,18:14   

Neil Rickert tears VTorley apart. With little effort.

   
REC



Posts: 638
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2013,11:55   

Eric Anderson shows us that ID "research" hasn't even gotten to square one:

Quote
I hear your point about wanting more precise definitions of words like “intelligence” and “design.” However, I can’t help but feeling like perhaps this is an example of selectively-applied skepticism.


Hyper- and selective skepticism are favorite words at UD. It is sooo mean to ask an intelligent design advocate to define intelligence and design. No fair.

ETA: scare quotes around ID "research"

Edited by REC on Nov. 05 2013,11:56

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2013,13:47   

Fancy a cheap giggle?

As you know, during the Dover trial Jon Buell failed to convince anyone that the Foundation for Thought & Ethics was anything other than a Christian enterprise.

And if you look at the earliest available newsletter (October 2006) you won't find a single mention of God, the bible or anything overtly religious beyond a spirited promotion of ID.

Here's how Buell signs off the October '06 newsletter....
   
Quote
And now, the good news! For a minimum of 30 days, the entire evening will be available on the internet for viewing around the world! Wherever it is seen, the interview of Bill Dembski and a detailed graphic will instruct interested viewers how to receive their own 20% introductory discount on The Design of Life. This discount can be secured anytime through the end of calendar year, 2006.

Be very encouraged, friends. Most of the thousands in attendance were young. Intelligent design is on the march! Some day soon, millions of young people, whether they are able to study ID or not, will be eagerly devouring it on their own. Your continued generous support will help speed that day!

Sincerely,

Jon Buell, President

See? No religion here. How dare anyone think otherwise.

(Insert 8 years of increasing irrelevance, shrinking coffers and mounting desperation)

So, here we are in 2013. Let's check out FTE's April newslet....
   
Quote
Storming the Strongholds

Friends, at a time when many fear that our freedoms are slipping forever away, let me offer you a perspective that will strengthen your hope and turn dread into rejoicing!

We never tire of reminding you and all our partners that II Corinthians 10:3-5 captures the founding vision, the mission, and the work of FTE:

For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.


.....umm, Jon, I thought...?

   
Quote
The Power of the "Untutored"

Jon and Linda with Kerby Anderson In Mind and Cosmos, Nagel states "I would like to defend the untutored reaction of incredulity to the reductionist neo-Darwinian account of the origin and evolution of life" (p.6). Friends, you and I are among the "untutored" Nagel would defend. Let me go a step further. You may not hold a Ph.D. in science, mathematics or philosophy, but God can and is using you to fulfill His agenda for the world. When you join with us and with others in this battle, you are fueling resistance to the Lie facing this generation. You are a vital part of this work. You are helping bring down the strongholds. I urge you to continue partnering with us as fully as you can and to stand and walk tall in the footsteps of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego. We are advancing to victory!

Because He lives,

Jon Buell, President


Ah well, at least you gave it a go, Jon. That's the main thing.

:D

Edited by Woodbine on Nov. 05 2013,19:47

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2013,03:51   

KF just blew my irony meter:
Quote
I think on matters of real controversy, there should be open debates and panels, or better yet, both. A debate, responded to by a panel, with comments then questions and then opened to the floor. But, such works only if there is willingness to admit that informed and serious people hold diverse views. The ad hominem laced strawmsn caricature stereotyping –> scapegoating and branding with a scarlet letter –> no true scotsman put-down game is all too common, and underlies Dawkins’ outrageously sophomoric dismmissals: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

Unfortunately too much of the above from LT reeks of this attitude, and I don’t think he recognises how unnecessarily polarising and off-putting his behaviour is.


LOL - I'm laughing because I really have no words ...

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2013,11:31   

Quote (BillB @ Nov. 06 2013,01:51)
KF just blew my irony meter:  
Quote
I think on matters of real controversy, there should be open debates and panels, or better yet, both. A debate, responded to by a panel, with comments then questions and then opened to the floor. But, such works only if there is willingness to admit that informed and serious people hold diverse views. The ad hominem laced strawmsn caricature stereotyping –> scapegoating and branding with a scarlet letter –> no true scotsman put-down game is all too common, and underlies Dawkins’ outrageously sophomoric dismmissals: ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked.

Unfortunately too much of the above from LT reeks of this attitude, and I don’t think he recognises how unnecessarily polarising and off-putting his behaviour is.


LOL - I'm laughing because I really have no words ...

Gordon Mullings: ignorant, stupid, insane and wicked.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 2363
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2013,20:05   

Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked?
 
Quote
Think of the programing language as the genotype and the program itself as the phenotype. How one gets from the genotype to the phenotype is termed development.

Mung

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2013,00:45   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 06 2013,20:05)
Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked?
 
Quote
Think of the programing language as the genotype and the program itself as the phenotype. How one gets from the genotype to the phenotype is termed development.

Mung

That's not an exclusive 'or'…

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2013,01:35   

Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 07 2013,02:05)
Ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked?
   
Quote
Think of the programing language as the genotype and the program itself as the phenotype. How one gets from the genotype to the phenotype is termed development.

Mung

I'd go for 'misguided' myself.

Above that:

   
Quote
If it doesn’t accumulate, it’s evolution. If it does accumulate, it’s evolution. Ain’t modern evolutionary theory grand!


Er ... yes! If a lineage ends up a giraffe, that's evolution. If it ends up something other than a giraffe, that's evolution too. Is a 'correct' theory only supposed to produce one outcome?

Edited by Soapy Sam on Nov. 07 2013,07:36

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2013,01:39   

Rich pickins! WJM, upthread:

 
Quote
Nothing useful can be gleaned from the materialist approach; only the assumption that the macro-feature was designed and purposefully engineered offers a worthwhile, actionable investigatory pathway.


Get actioning, then!

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2013,01:44   

Quote
wd400: there are large amounts of data that purely Darwinian evolution can’t explain (notably, the preponderance of junk DNA in many eukaryote genomes

BA77: LOL, yep your a Darwinist alright! You may deny it trying to save face, but only a Darwinist would ever claim that!

Oh, how I love to chortle!

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

  
BillB



Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2013,03:52   

KF is still ranting about Darwin and Hitler:
 
Quote
Evolution plays a central role in the chapter in Mein Kampf on “Nation and Race,” which was the only chapter published as a separate pamphlet, thus circulating widely to promote Nazi ideology. 19 In that chapter Hitler explains why he thinks racial mixing violates evolutionary principles:  
Quote
Any crossing of two beings not at exactly the same level produces a medium between the level of the two parents. This means: the offspring will probably stand higher than the racially lower parent, but not as high as the higher one. Consequently, it will later succumb in the struggle against the higher level. Such mating is contrary to the will of Nature for a higher breeding of all life.

If KF actually understood evolutionary theory, and had read Darwins work, he would realise that this doesn't feature at all in the actual theory. Even if this thinking was actually based on Darwins work it makes a total and utter mess of it.

The fact that Hitler cites Christ as an inspiration isn't of course something you are allowed to mention in KF's presence, not are you allowed to point out that the Nazi's condemned Darwins works as deviant and listed them as books to be burnt. No doubt KF believes that this was a devious tactic by the Nazis to hide Darwins influence ;)

  
Mark Frank



Posts: 46
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2013,05:54   

Quote (BillB @ Nov. 07 2013,03:52)
the Nazi's condemned Darwins works as deviant and listed them as books to be burnt.

I didn't realise that - I think I will add it to the UD thread.

On second thoughts - looking at the sheer quantity of incomprehensible verbiage on the thread I maybe won't bother.

  
sparc



Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2013,06:10   

If you want to read something reasonable about Hitler's relation to evolution theory I recommend Robert J. Richards' Was Hitler a Darwinian?.
Until I read his article I was not aware that Weickart had to translate the German word "Entwicklung" as "evolution" rather than as "development" to produce a connection from "Mein Kampf" to Darwin.

Edited by sparc on Nov. 07 2013,06:10

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 337 338 339 340 341 [342] 343 344 345 346 347 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]