Re: Was there Really a Holocaust?
David Iain Greig
> Was there Really a Holocaust?
Yes.
The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
--D.
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Easy.
Kent Hovind can use "scientific stuff" to explain why the earth is
*only* six thousand years old, and Creationists who lack formal
education to understand the perspective on evolution, believe him...
the Holocaust Deniers have a plaque in Auschwitz that bears
contradiction, therefore, those who do not know any better are easily
brainwashed to believe "the Holocaust was not nearly as bad as what is
claimed... /more brainwashing/ in fact, it never happened... /more
brainwashing/ ... Hitler was really the good guy... /more brainwashing/
there is a worldwide conspiracy .... right down to Hitler escaping in a
UFO and is still living in the South Pole. (No, I am not joking).
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=auschwitz%20plaque&sa=N&tab=wi
Four million people suffered and died here
http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/images/plaque1.jpg
The newer 1.5 mil plaque
About One and a Half Million Men, Women and Children, Mainly Jews
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40759000/jpg/_40759329_ausplaque300other.jpg
was reduced from
Anne Frank died of Typhus, but some reporter unwittingly publishes Anne
Frank died in a gas chamber... they use this to say "See how the Jew
Controlled Media Lies," and as their evidence that an "international
conspiracy" is underway.
Michael Shermer (www.skeptic.com) wrote a book on this subject, and
explains details between the lines. For this, I've even read where some
have maliciously insulted and attacked him personally, from both sides.
sharon1...@yahoo.com
> > > Was there Really a Holocaust?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
> UFO and is still living in the South Pole. (No, I am not joking).
I'll add this too. During a conversation, one of them told me about a
German submarine they found somewhere "it wasn't suppose to be"...
instead of the ocean, it was inland, up under the ground. Don't know
the details... but these guys explained this, that it was likely Hitler
had some kind of super-advanced "machine" -- presumably a time machine
or something??? and the submarine got transported and buried inside the
earth.
Wild stories, and with enough brainwashing they do actually believe
this stuff.
Years ago, I asked my father, who was a retired officer from the Navy
-- how could that possibly be true, a submarine or ship being found
inland, away from the Ocean?
He told me it was not impossible, there's eruptions that occur under
water and sea floor collapsing, and it would be possible, and powerful
enough, that a ship could get sucked into one of these holes. He told
me the huge explosions we sometimes hear offshore here, that shake and
rattle buildings -- at times I've been afraid of the windows breaking
from its vibrations -- he told me those booms are coming from the
ocean, and they're called "Sea Farts" -- it's when a large pocket of
gas suddenly surfaces, and he said that it would be possible for a ship
to fall into the hole if it was sitting over it at just the right time.
I don't know and I never checked out the story about the ship found
inland, far away from the ocean. I don't know if there was ANY truth to
any of it to begin with. It may have all been made up... or maybe a
lie, wrapped around an atom of truth.
Vend
sharon1...@yahoo.com ha scritto:
> He told me it was not impossible, there's eruptions that occur under
> water and sea floor collapsing, and it would be possible, and powerful
> enough, that a ship could get sucked into one of these holes. He told
> me the huge explosions we sometimes hear offshore here, that shake and
> rattle buildings -- at times I've been afraid of the windows breaking
> from its vibrations -- he told me those booms are coming from the
> ocean, and they're called "Sea Farts" -- it's when a large pocket of
> gas suddenly surfaces, and he said that it would be possible for a ship
> to fall into the hole if it was sitting over it at just the right time.
Where do you live, if may I ask? Hawaii?
Ray Martinez
We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this and how
come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
done the same ?
You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
Ray
sharon1...@yahoo.com
East coast
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
> Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this and how
> come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
> done the same ?
>
> You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
You apparently misunderstood the context.
He wrote : some day I'd like to research it ... "the mental state
behind being able to ignore reality."
What he was saying had nothing to do with implying "Creationists deny
the Holocaust".
>
> Ray
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
> Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this and how
> come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
> done the same ?
>
Denying the Holocaust, as in hatred of Jews?
Here's some Christians (which were no doubt, Creationists):
"By 435 a law threatened any heretic in the Roman Empire with death.
Judaism remained the only other legally recognized religion. Yet, Jews
were isolated as much as possible, with intermarriage between Jew and
Christian carrying the same penalty as adultery: the woman would be
executed. The Church had triumphed. The belief in but one God had led
to the legal enforcement of but one religion."
-page 29, The Dark Side of Christian History, Helen Ellerbe
"The crusades were a means of uniting much of Europe in the name of
Christianity.<br>
Crusaders, caught up in their sense of righteousness, brutally attacked
the Church's enemies. Pope Gregory VII had declared, "Cursed be the man
who holds back his sword from shedding blood." The chronicler, Raymond
of Aguilers, described the scene when a band of crusaders massacred
both Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem in 1099:
Wonderful things were to be seen. Numbers of the Saracens were
beheaded... Others were shot with arrows, or forced to jump from the
towers; others were tortured for several days, then burned with flames.
In the streets were seen piles of heads and hands and feet. One rode
about everywhere amid the corpses of men and horses. In the temple of
Solomon, the horses waded in the blood up to their knees, nay, up to
the bridle. It was a just and marvelous judgment of God, that this
place should be filled with the blood of unbelievers.
Nicetas Choniates, a Byzantine chronicler, wrote: "Even the Saracens
(the Muslims) are merciful and kind compared to these men who bear the
cross of Christ on their shoulders."
-page 65, The Dark Side of Christian History, Helen Ellerbe
To the Pope, the rape of Constantinople was just punishment for not
submitting to the Roman Catholic Church. Biblical passages suppoted his
stance. "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Following the
attack, a Latin patriarch subject to the Pope ruled the domain until
1261. Constantinople, however, was left severely weakened and in 1453
fell to Turkish conquest.
In the roughly 200 years of crusades, thousands, if not millions, were
killed. Invading crusaders destroyed in much the same way as the Church
had at the onset of the Dark Ages. They burned any books they found.
Hebrew scrolls such as 12,000 volumes of the Talmud and the works of
Maimonides were burned. ... European Jews were often the first victims
of a crusade. But Christian persecution of Jews continued long after
the crusades ended. Jews became the scapegoats for many problems that
the Church could not fix. When, for example, the black death, the
bubonic plague, struck in the fourteenth century, the Church explained
that Jews were to blame and prompted attacks upon them. A whole
folklore developed claiming the Jews kidnapped and ate children in
Jewish rituals of cannibalism, and that Jews stole and profaned the
blessed Christian sacraments. These were the same tales that Romans
once told of the hated Christians, the same tales that Christians would
tell of witches, and the same tales Protestants would tell of
Catholics. Pogroms, the raiding and destroying of Jewish synagogues and
ghettos, became a common demonstration of Christian righteousness.
Jews were easy targets for they had never been embraced by Christian
society. Under the feudal system, a ceremony of investiture involving a
Christian oath excluded Jews from working the land and sent them into
commerce and crafts in the towns. However, with the rapid population
expansion of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and the consequent
influx of people to the cities, artisan guilds were established, each
with its own patron saint. Jews were again driven from the crafts into
what fields remained: banking, money-changing and money-lending.
Persecuting Jews, therefore also became a convenient means of getting
rid of one's creditors. Religious arguments were taken up by indebted
kings to <strong>justify the confiscation of Jewish property and their
expulsion of Jews from their domains.
-Excerpts from page 68-70, The Dark Side of Christian History, Helen
Ellerbe</p>
By far the cruelest aspect of the inquisitional system was the means by
which confessions were wrought: the torture chamber. Torture remained a
legal option for the Church from 1252 when it was sanctioned by Pope
Innocent IV until 1917 when the new Codex Juris Canonici was put into
effect. Innocent IV authorized indefinite delayes to secure
confessions, giving inquisitors as must time as they wanted to torture
the accused. Although the letter of law forbade repeating torture,
inquisitors easily avoided this rule by simply "continuing" torture,
calling any interval a suspension. In 1262 inquisitors and their
assistants were granted the authority to quietly absolve each other
from the crime of bloodshed. They simply explained that the tortured
had died because the devil had broke their necks.
Thus, with lisence granted by the Pope himself, inquisitors were free
to explore the depths of horror and cruelty. Dressed as black-robed
fiends with black cowls over their heads, inquisitors extracted
confessions from nearly anyone. The Inquisition invented every
conceivable devise to inflict pain by slowly dismembering and
dislocating the body. Many of these devices were inscribed with the
motto "Glory be only to God." The rack, the hoist and water tortures
were the most common. Victims were rubbed with lard or grease and
slowly roasted alive. Ovens built to kill people, made infamous in
twentieth century Nazi Germany, were first used by the Christian
Inquisition in Eastern Europe. Victims were thrown into a pit full of
snakes and buried alive. One particularly gruesome torture involved
turning a large dish full of mice upside down on the victim's naked
stomach. A fire was then lit on top of the dish causing the mice to
panic and burrow into the stomach. Should a victim withstand such pain
without confessing, he or she would be burned alive at the stake, often
in mass public burnings called auto-da-fé.
The Inquisition often targeted members of other religions as it did
heretics. The Inquisition now lent its authority to the long-standing
Christian persecution of Jews. Particularly during the Christian Holy
Week of the Passion, Christians frequently rioted against Jews or
refused to sell them food in hopes of starving them. At the beginning
of the thirteenth century, Pope Innocent III required Jews to wear
distinctive clothing. In 1391 the Archdeacon of Seville launched a
"Holy War against the Jews." By 1492 the Inquisition in Spain had
become so virulent in its persecution of Jews that it demanded either
their conversion to Christianity or their expulsion. Muslims
experienced little better. Not surprisingly, Islamic countries offered
far safer sanctuaries to escaping Jews than Christian lands.
-Excerpts from page 83-86, The Dark Side of Christian History, Helen
Ellerbe
Martin Luther believed that differences in gender, class, race, and
belief indicated superior and inferior states of being. In 1533 he
wrote, "Girls begin to talk and to stand on their feet sooner than boys
because weeds always grow up more quickly than good crops." In 1525 he
supported the merciless suppression of the Peasants' War, a rebellion
that his own spirit of independence from the Roman Church had helped to
ignite. Although Luther could find no scriptural warrant for
exterminating Jews, he believed that they should be enslaved or thrown
out of Christian lands and that their ghettos and synagogues should be
burned.
-page 99, The Dark Side of Christian History, Helen Ellerbe
"Hitler offered himself as a messiah with a divine mission to save
Germany. On one occasion he displayed the whip he often carried to
demonstrate that "in driving out the Jews I remind myself of Jesus in
the temple." He declared, "Just like Christ, I have a duty to my own
people." He even boasted that just as Christ's birth had changed the
calendar so his victory over the Jews would be the beginning of a new
age. "What Christ began," he said "I will complete." In a speech just
days after becoming chancellor, he parodied the Lord's Prayer,
promising that under him a new kingdom would come on earth and that his
would be "the power and the glory. Amen." He added that if he did not
fulfill his mission, "you should then crucify me."
Hitler did become a god for millions. Rudolf Höss, commander of
Auschwitz, stated before his execution in 1947 that he would have
gassed and burned his own wife, children, and even himself if only the
Führer had commanded it. Much of the nation came under the spell of a
man who was hailed as the long-awaited Savior of a people who had
become weary of poverty and humiliation.
At one of the Nuremberg rallies, a giant photo of Hitler was captioned
with the words, "In the beginning was the Word." The Lord's Prayer was
changed by some to read, "Our Father Adolf who art in Nuremberg,
Hallowed be thy name, the Third Reich come..." If you did not say,
"Heil Hitler!" when you entered a restaurant or a business
establishment, you would not be served.
Hitler's Cross by Erwin W. Lutzer
The Revealing Story of How the Cross of Christ Was Used As a Symbol of
the Nazi Agenda
> You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
>
> Ray
After reading all that, it puts the phrase "Final Solution" into better
perspective.
Had these events occured only a few centuries earlier, Hitler would
have been hailed a saint by the Christian Church.
APOCALYPSE
They present "evidence" that doesn't stand up to independent scrutiny.
Unfortunately, most people don't understand the importance of
independent verification and before the frauds are exposed, they think
"Why would they make up these facts if they could be easily disproven?
They must know what they're talking about."
Andrew Arensburger
> David Iain Greig wrote:
> > That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
> > and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
> > the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
> Michael Shermer (www.skeptic.com) wrote a book on this subject, and
> explains details between the lines. For this, I've even read where some
> have maliciously insulted and attacked him personally, from both sides.
I believe it was "Why People Believe Weird Things". I'd give
more details, but unfortunately my copy is on loan.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
A penny for your thoughts; $20 to act it out.
eyelessgame
Ray Martinez wrote:
> David Iain Greig wrote:
> > LC <LCi...@this.com> wrote:
> > > Was there Really a Holocaust?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
> >
> > That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
> > and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
> > the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
> >
> > --D.
>
> We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
> Holocaust.
Stopped clocks. There are Creationists who believe we should help the
poor and scientists who believe we should bomb Iran. Being wrong on
one topic doesn't make you wrong on everything. Finding a
reprehensible fool who agrees with your opponent doesn't make your
argument better.
> You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
Ray, of course, is telling us we should use *proper* methods of
argument, like ad hominem.
eyelessgame
David Iain Greig
Your reading comprehension needs polishing. The mental state of
'denial' is the interesting issue - Creationists deny the evidence
behind evolution, Holocaust Deniers deny the historical and physical
evidence of the Holocaust. The subject denied is different, the modus
operandi is the same. The use of misquotes or distorting of evidence
is, for example, frequent in both camps.
--D.
Tom McDonald
Ray Martinez wrote:
> David Iain Greig wrote:
> > LC <LCi...@this.com> wrote:
> > > Was there Really a Holocaust?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
> >
> > That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
> > and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
> > the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
> >
> > --D.
>
> We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
> Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this
DIG knows this very well. Google 'giwer greig holocaust' to see how
well.
> and how
> come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
> done the same ?
Done what? DIG wasn't accusing creationists of denying the Holocaust;
he was suggesting that the mindset that allows some creationists to
deny evidence may be related to the mindset that causes some other
people to deny the evidence of the holocaust. It's a general
dysfunction (or adaptation to a palife stressor) that afflicts most
people about some things, and some people about most things.
But you will probably just accuse DIG of calling all creationists
holocaust deniers (which he most emphatically has not; but your rage =
need to deny truth may lead you to fixate on this untruth). Or can you
rise above, and understand what DIG was really getting at?
> You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
No, he asked a question = was curious about something. But don't let
that stop you reading his mind and making up whatever vile crap you
think will make an 'evolutionist' look bad.
Lee Oswald Ving
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1161022329.686797.60960
@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> David Iain Greig wrote:
>> LC <LCi...@this.com> wrote:
>> > Was there Really a Holocaust?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
>>
>> That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
>> and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
>> the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
>>
>> --D.
>
> We know Darwinist Matt Giwer
Neo-Nazi Giwer.
Claims to be an atheist, too. Considering Hitler outlawed atheist groups,
it's pretty easy to guess he's a fetid bag of neuroses.
> shows up here and argues against the
> Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this
Greig knows little loon very well.
> and how
> come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
> done the same ?
Well, since David didn't make that claims, I think you're even more
confused that usual.
> You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
Ahhh...hate to break it to you, but the original Nazis were pretty much
universally religionists, the majority being Chritians of one sort or
another. They were pretty well known for making up their own version of
history.
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
> Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this and how
> come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
> done the same ?
>
Of course too, you may have been implying *one* Darwinist who denies
the autrocities committed by the Third Reich, and using that as an
exception to the rule... therefore, the line of reasoning is, "All
Evolution and Darwinists ... is the mental state behind being able to
ignore reality." That is to say, "Creationism is reality". I'm not sure
if that's what you meant but he was clearly implying both the Holocaust
denier and Creationist share one thing in common, a denial of
reality...
One man's opinion on World War II though, has no bearing on "...the
fossil record, comparative morphology, comparative embryology,
comparative biochemistry, molecular biology..."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/4f412ec1bb003587/a21e78040f7a7e97#a21e78040f7a7e97
> You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
>
> Ray
It is serious, yes, but innuendo is wrong.
"Innuendo" is used in lawsuits for defamation (libel or slander),
usually to show that the party suing was the person about whom the
nasty statements were made or why the comments were defamatory.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=970&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
Because what he said is actually true.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1161022329....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
David is quite aware that Matt Gwier is a holocaust denier, and has argued
against him several times. David was saying that holocaust denial and
creationism are similar, in their regard to denying objective reality.
It's obvious from the post that is what he meant. Do we now have to assume
that you really meant that, and not what you said?
>
> You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
No, he did not make any "charge". You jumped to false conclusion, or are
we supposed to infer that you really didn't meant it?
DJT
Ray Martinez
We know the Nazi's were Darwinists and armed with your theory they
selected the Jews for extinction.
In fact, Hitler was the most imfamous Theistic Evolutionist:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
sufferer but as a fighter." -- Adolf Hitler (1922).
We also know that Supreme Court justices who are also Darwinists/TEists
keep the death penalty alive in the U.S.
All the communist nations of the 20th century accepted Darwinism and
they murdered hundreds of millions of innocent persons.
Atheists and Darwinists have murdered more persons in the 20th century
than in the previous history of mankind combined.
We also know that I have already identified you as a trouble-maker -
remember ?
Looks like I was right, who else would post a pathetic hate topic like
this blaming the Holocaust on Christians ?
Ray
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> I believe it was "Why People Believe Weird Things". I'd give
> more details, but unfortunately my copy is on loan.
>
Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They
Say It? (Hardcover)
by Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman
http://www.amazon.com/Denying-History-Holocaust-Never-Happened/dp/0520216121
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> We know the Nazi's were Darwinists and armed with your theory they
> selected the Jews for extinction.
Who's this "we"? and they were also armed with centuries of hostilities
toward Jewish people, but Creationists usually omit that, including
diverting away from their bloody history when its brought up (i.e., The
Thirty Years War), many holocausts happened, and not only against Jews.
>
> In fact, Hitler was the most imfamous Theistic Evolutionist:
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
>
> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
> fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
> a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
> men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
> sufferer but as a fighter." -- Adolf Hitler (1922).
You admit then, Hitler was Christian. We're getting somewhere.
>
> We also know that Supreme Court justices who are also Darwinists/TEists
> keep the death penalty alive in the U.S.
>
> All the communist nations of the 20th century accepted Darwinism and
> they murdered hundreds of millions of innocent persons.
And many Catholics and Protestants accepted Creationism and they too
murdered millions, so what?
>
> Atheists and Darwinists have murdered more persons in the 20th century
> than in the previous history of mankind combined.
>
> We also know that I have already identified you as a trouble-maker -
> remember ?
what does that suppose to mean?
Here's some excerpts:
Weikart, the Discovery Institute, and History
A Review of the Book, From Darwin to Hitler : Evolutionary Ethics,
Eugenics, and Racism in Germany by Richard Weikart
Reviewer: Edward T. Babinski
Dr. Weikart is a senior fellow of The Discovery Institute, an
Intelligent Designer think tank funded by a millionaire Evangelical
Christian. Dr. Weikart's writings reflect the Discovery Institute's
agenda to get "design" and a "Designer" mentioned in school whenever
theories of origins are discussed. Since Weikart is a historian rather
than a biologist, his contribution to the I.D. movement is a bit beside
the point. Because even if his work does succeed in getting more people
to think of Hitler whenever Darwin or Darwinism are mentioned, his book
does not address the truth or falsity of the scientific theory of
evolution (not any more than a book about atrocities committed by
Christians addresses the historicity of the Gospels).
Perhaps Dr. Wiekart could have emphasized in his book that the threads
of history point in many directions, and that although there are
connections between Darwin and Hitler, there are also connections
between Martin Luther and Hitler (as pointed out in the online book,
Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor). There are also threads in
history connecting Christianity with
anti-Semitism-racism-slavery-torture-murder-wars-irrational fanaticism.
There are also the views of those who are not members of the Discovery
Institute, and who accept both God and Darwin's theory of evolution. I
am speaking of Christian Darwinists and/or fine-tuners (who believe God
set the laws of the universe in motion in the beginning and nature
worked things out thereafter). Books by such folks include: Finding
Darwin's God; Darwinian Natural Right; Darwinism Defeated? (debate
between an I.D.ist and a Christian Darwinistic biologist); Random
Designer; Perspectives on an Evolving Creation (a collection of essays
by Christian evolutionists); The Tree of Life (forthcoming from Michael
Denton, a former Discovery Institute associate who asked his name be
removed from their website); and, God and Evolution (the last book
being written by Christian population biologist, David L. Wilcox).
There is also the journal, Zygon, that has been publishing articles on
the connection between religion, ethics and Darwinism, including many
articles by Christian theologians, scientists and philosophers.
/ excerpt
>From Darwin to Hitler (Edward T. Babinski) / Addressing Answers in
Genesis
BERGMAN: The Nazis relied heavily upon the work of Hans F.K. Günther,
professor of 'racial science' at the University of Jena
ED: Note the admission, "relied heavily upon the work of Hans F. K.
Günther," whose "work" consisted of "proving" the "inferiority of the
Jews." Why "the Jews" you ask? Because Günther and many other Germans
"knew" that the "Jews" were inferior long before Günther ever did his
first "racial science" experiment (sic). In fact, many Germans believed
that "Jews" were inferior for CENTURIES, because the Bible and Martin
Luther told them so. So really, what DOES the Holocaust come down to?
Günther's "racial science," a Jew-hating pseudoscience, based firmly
on centuries of Jew-baiting and Jew-hating under the Christian cross
BERGMAN: Poliakov notes that many intellectuals in the early 1900s
accepted telegony, the idea that 'bad blood' would contaminate a race
line forever, or that 'bad blood drives out good' , just as bad money
displaces good money. Only extermination would permanently eliminate
inferior genetic lines, and thereby further evolution. . Darwin even
compiled a long list of cases where he concluded bad blood polluted a
whole gene line, causing it to bear impure progeny forever.
ED: This idea of "telegony" does not necessarily warrant
"extermination" in the sense of killing people, just sterilization. I
also wonder whether Darwin ever mentioned the words "bad blood" and
spoke about it "polluting" a whole gene line. He probably did collect
examples in which a pedigreed dog or pigeon was bred with a wild type
and the children of that offspring no longer bore pedigreed offspring.
But so what? Does that mean build ovens and kill Jews, homosexuals,
Poles, and Gypsies? Darwin did invent a theory of inheritance that
involved gemmules carried in the blood that carried physically
inherited information, but it was disproven long ago. Nobody believes
Darwin's theory of inheritance any more.
CHRISTIANITY AND JUDAISM
[The Theodosian Code appeared in 438 A.D. It was a collection of the
edicts of earlier Christian Roman Emperors brought together in a single
book.] The Code characterized Judaism as "abominable superstition" and
Jewish religious gatherings are referred to as "sacrilegious
assemblies." The presence of Christians in a synagogue was regarded as
lese-majeste liable to persecution. From 423 on, no new synagogue could
be erected without the permission of the Church. Similar restrictions
applied to Jews throughout the Middle Ages. A Christian who converted
to the Jewish faith lost his property and his right of behest. In the
fifth century, capital punishment was imposed upon Jews who solicited
new adherents for their faith. In the seventh century, the Jews in
Spain, Italy, and France were ordered to chose between baptism and
expulsion. Saint Isidore of Seville (ca. 560-636) summoned a
persecution of Jews, and thereupon King Sisebut ordered their forcible
conversion. Although the Church did not endorse this procedure
officially, it did subject the Jews to all penalties for heresy if they
could be accused of inclination to their former faith, from which they
had been averted by force. The reason given was that baptism once
performed is indelible, even if it is performed by coercion. In 694,
the Council of Toledo decreed perpetual servitude for Jews. The Fourth
Lateran Council of 1215, which had particular significance for the
treatment of heretics. determined that Jews should wear a distinctive
dress or particular badge, putting these regulations into Canon Law.
The Protestant Reformer, Martin Luther, was similarly intolerant toward
the Jews and their public worship. His advice is "that their synagogues
and schools be set on fire, and that those portions which will not burn
be covered up with earth. And this should be done to the honor of our
Lord and of Christendom, so that God may see that we are Christians and
have not knowingly tolerated not willed such public lies, maledictions,
and blasphemies against His Son and His Christians." [Luther's Works
(German), Erlangen Edition, 37,233]- Mensching, Tolerance and Truth in
Religion, trans., Hans-J. Klimkeit <br>
(Alabama: The University of Alabama Press, 1971)
In 1543 Martin Luther wrote two violent books against the Jews. His
intercourse with several Rabbis filled him with disgust and indignation
against their pride, obstinacy, and blasphemies. He came to the
conclusion that it was useless to dispute with them and impossible to
convert them. [Luther saw things this way.] Moses could do nothing with
Pharaoh by warnings, plagues and miracles, but had to let him drown in
the Red Sea. The Jews would crucify their expected Messiah, if he ever
should come, even worse than they crucified the Christian Messiah. They
are a blind, hard, incorrigible race. He went so far as to advise their
expulsion from Christian lands [and forbidding them "safe passage" as
well -- E.T.B.], the prohibition of their books, and the burning of
their synagogues and even their houses in which they blaspheme our
Savior and the Holy Virgin. In the last of his sermons preached shortly
before his death at Eisleben, where many Jews were allowed to trade, he
concluded with a severe warning against the Jews as dangerous public
enemies who ought not to be tolerated, but left the alternative of
conversion or expulsion.<br>
- Philip Schaff [Professor of Church History in the Union Theological
Seminary, New York] Modern Christianity: The German Reformation = Vol.
VII of History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B.
Eerdmanns, second edition revised, 1910)
THE NAZIS AND THE JEWS
It took Nazi "pseudo-science" to redefine that hatred and scorn in
terms of the latest fad, biological "inferiority," but such a
redefinition did not redirect the focus of the scorn, since it had been
directed for centuries at "the Jews."
Neither did the Nazis reject the earlier Christian anti-semitic
arguments, they used every variety of argument at their disposal. For
instance, Hitler prominently dispalyed Luther's book, ON THE JEWS AND
THEIR LIES, in a glass case at his rallies. There were also religious
propganda pamphlets from the Nazis showing that they also employed the
racial inferiority arguments that CREATIONISTS were using during that
same time period as well.
Note that the Christian religion and racism also have a past together,
not just Nazism and racism. South Africa, ruled by a conservative
Protestant white minority, featured a school system that taught
creationism right beside apartheid teachings of the racial inferiority
of Blacks, and apartheid in South Africa lasted a long time. The most
religious part of the United States, the South, with the fewest most
harmonious religious denominations, Southern Baptists, Southern
Methodists and Southern Presbyterians, split with their northern
brethren over the right of ministers to own slaves, defended the right
to own slaves, and ever after the Civil War, continued to advocate the
inferiority of the Black race. Even today, you can visit the website of
the KKK in America and read, "We [the Ku Klux Klan] are born-again
Christians and intend to remain so."
-- Pastor Thomas Robb, ordained Baptist minister and National Director
of the Ku Klux Klan, [Source: "Christian Witness Doctrine: Politics
from a White Christian perspective -- the way our country was meant to
be! 'What we need is more Patriotism in the Christians and more
Christianity in the Patriots.'"])
In short, it was evolution, creation, and yes, religion too, that
maintained the anti-Jewish prejudice in Germany. Neither did Hitler
or the Nazis abandon "God," which would obviously have been more of a
Bolshevik error! How the Nazis hated those atheistic Bolshevists!
Was Catholic Hitler "Anti-Christian?" See, On the Trail of Bogus Quotes
by Richard C. Carrier [The essay excerpts research published later as
"Hitler's Table Talk: Troubling Finds." German Studies Review 26.3 (Oct
2003): 561-76)] "We often hear accusations that 'Adolf Hitler was an
atheist and look what he did!' The idea that Hitler believed in God,
that he even claimed Christ as his own, is so shocking to people that
they will go to any lengths to deny it. But the notion that Hitler was
an atheist has already been soundly refuted.1 For more,
http://ffrf.org/fttoday/2002/nov02/index.php?ft=carrier.html
MORE ON JEWS AND CHRISTIANS
Historian Dagobert Runes (whose mother was killed by the Nazis) blamed
the Christian church for the Holocaust. He wrote: "Everything Hitler
did to the Jews, all horrible, unspeakable misdeeds, had already been
done to the smitten people before by the Christian churches. The
isolation of Jews into ghetto camps, the wearing of the yellow spot,
the burning of Jewish books, and finally the burning of the people --
Hitler learned it all from the church. However, the church burned
Jewish women and children alive, while Hitler granted them a quicker
death, choking them first with gas."
Dr. Runes said Christian priests and ministers still were inculcating
hostility to Jews as the Third Reich arrived. "The clergymen don't tell
you whom to kill; they just tell you whom to hate," he wrote. "The
Christian clergymen start teaching their young at the tenderest age
that THE Jews killed the beloved, gentle Son of God; that God Himself,
the Father, punished THE Jews by dispersion and the burning of their
holy city; that God holds THE Jews accursed forever. For all the 2,000
years, there was no act of war against the Jews in which the church
didn't play an intrinsic part. And wherever there was a trace of mercy,
charity, or tolerance to be found amid this savagery, it came not from
the church but from humanitarians in the civil world, as in Napoleonic
France during the American Revolution. Some fancy that these brutal
outrages. occurred only in the Dark Ages, as if this were an excuse.
Nay, when George Washington was president, Jewish people were burning
on the spit in Mexico. Wherever there are Christian churches there is
anti-Semitism."
When Nazism finally came, it was rooted in a fundamental fact: Religion
had split Europe into a dominant majority and a vilified minority.
Madmen rode this division to destruction. Fifteen years after the
ghastly contents of the death camps were revealed, reformer Pope John
XXIII offered this prayer: "The mark of Cain is stamped upon our
foreheads. Across the centuries, our brother Abel has lain in blood
that we drew, and shed tears we caused by forgetting Thy love. Forgive
us, Lord, for the curse we falsely attributed to their names as Jews."
[p. 163-165]
- James A. Haught, Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious
Murder and Madness (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1990)
MARTIN LUTHER, HITLER'S SPIRITUAL ANCESTOR
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/MartinLuther-HitlersSpiritualAncestor.html
ANTI-JUDAISM IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-nt.html
The question of why the Jews were chosen to be exterminated is
obviously more complicated than what creationists would like people to
believe. (So is the question of the founding of America, but that's
another question entirely.)
>
> Looks like I was right, who else would post a pathetic hate topic like
> this blaming the Holocaust on Christians ?
There you are in denial of reality, again.
>
> Ray
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Looks like I was right, who else would post a pathetic hate topic like
> this blaming the Holocaust on Christians ?
>
Yes, and with very good reason.
BBC News | Europe | Vatican apologises over holocaust
In his letter accompanying the apology, the Pope said the holocaust
remained an indelible stain on the 20th century. The Vatican's
long-anticipated response ...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/65889.stm
Online NewsHour: A Papal Apology, March 13, 2000
There was no specific reference to the Holocaust, and when the pope
replied, ... what kind of internal process led up to this apology being
written and ...
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june00/apology_3-13.html
Race Matters - Papal Apology
Papal Apology. This is a menu of the topics on this page (click on
any): Apology and the Holocaust; The Pope's in a Confessional, And Jews
Are Listening By ...
http://www.racematters.org/papalapology.htm
More
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=pope+apologize+holocaust
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
snip
> We know the Nazi's were Darwinists and armed with your theory they
> selected the Jews for extinction.
No, we don't "know" that. You assert that, with no evidence to support you.
>
> In fact, Hitler was the most imfamous Theistic Evolutionist:
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
>
> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
> fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
> a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
> men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
> sufferer but as a fighter." -- Adolf Hitler (1922).
How does this make him an "evolutionist"?
>
> We also know that Supreme Court justices who are also Darwinists/TEists
> keep the death penalty alive in the U.S.
The death penalty is largely supported by fundamentalist Christians. There
is no reason a "darwinist" would necessarily support the death penalty.
>
> All the communist nations of the 20th century accepted Darwinism and
> they murdered hundreds of millions of innocent persons.
Acutally, the communist nations of the 20th century rejected Darwin's
theory. Stallin preferred Lysenko's views. The murders committed by the
communists were due to political, and personal reasons, not because of any
scientific theory.
>
> Atheists and Darwinists have murdered more persons in the 20th century
> than in the previous history of mankind combined.
What evidence do you have that "Darwinsts" have murdered anyone?
>
> We also know that I have already identified you as a trouble-maker -
> remember ?
Your "identification" can be wrong, and is usually wrong. Tell me, Ray,
does being a "troublemaker" include taking someone's words out of context,
and deliberately twisting that person's words?
>
> Looks like I was right, who else would post a pathetic hate topic like
> this blaming the Holocaust on Christians ?
Since the Holocaust was at least partly due to the anti-semitism promoted by
"Christian" leaders such as Luther, it's not that much of a stretch.
Darwin, on the other hand, did not make any pronoucement about the Jews, and
his theory showed that all populations of modern humans are equal.
DJT
Andrew Arensburger
> Andrew Arensburger wrote:
> > I believe it was "Why People Believe Weird Things". I'd give
> > more details, but unfortunately my copy is on loan.
> Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They
> Say It? (Hardcover)
> by Michael Shermer, Alex Grobman
> http://www.amazon.com/Denying-History-Holocaust-Never-Happened/dp/0520216121
AFAICT (judging by the index at Amazon) that book doesn't
discuss creationism at all. DIG was asking about the similar mental
state of evolution-deniers and holocaust-deniers. "Why People Believe
Weird Things" talks about both (though I don't remember whether
Shermer thinks they're connected, or similar).
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Excellent day for drinking heavily. Spike office water cooler.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:
He didn't say Creationists had done the same. Perhaps a
remedial reading class would help you?
>You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
>
>Ray
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
wm
suggest we take a moment to reflect on the bloodiest centruy on record.
Especially, consider the following notable atheists and other decidedly
non-Christian people and groups/events:
1. Joseph Stalin
2. Pol Pot
3. Mao Zedong
4. Hideki Tojo
5. Adolf Hitler
6. Kim Il Sung
7. The Janjaweed (Darfur)
8. The Rape of Nanking
9. Ismail Enver (the Armenian Genocide)
10. Kim Jong Il
My point is not that Christians and Athiest have equal amounts of blood
on their hands (atheists, by the numbers, have far more), I seek only
to remind that the non-religious (and non-religious ideologies) can be
evil too.
wm
decide. None of the historic Christian churches would claim him. Would
any of us from our knowledge of Christianity honestly put him in that
category? You would be very jaded indeed to do so (that, or perhaps
very isolated). Using a creed as a slogan for propaganda and believing
within its tradition are not the same.
Bill Hudson
Don't top post, please. It makes the conversation difficult to follow.
I agree with your statements. The 'root of all evil' invariably turns
out to be us (humans) and not political philosophies, religious
doctrines, money or the desire for physical things. It's good to
remember that evil has been perpetrated in the name of just about every
concept imaginable, including 'peace' and 'love'.
--
Bill Hudson
sharon1...@yahoo.com
wm wrote:
> In response to Sharon's "Christian's are the source of all evil", I
a person isn't allowed to discuss some of the autrocities of
Christendom, without being the brunt of ridicule, exaggeration or
sarcasm? I never wrote anything to imply, "Christians are the source of
all evil". gross inaccuracy and exaggeration is incidentally what
prompted this thread "the mental state behind being able to ignore
reality." taking my words out of context.
Historical facts speak for themself, with or without my personal
opinions.
> suggest we take a moment to reflect on the bloodiest centruy on record.
> Especially, consider the following notable atheists and other decidedly
> non-Christian people and groups/events:
>
> 1. Joseph Stalin
> 2. Pol Pot
> 3. Mao Zedong
> 4. Hideki Tojo
> 5. Adolf Hitler
You didn't read your list before posting.
wm
> > In response to Sharon's "Christian's are the source of all evil", I
> a person isn't allowed to discuss some of the autrocities of
> Christendom, without being the brunt of ridicule, exaggeration or
> sarcasm? I never wrote anything to imply, "Christians are the source of
> all evil". gross inaccuracy and exaggeration is incidentally what
> prompted this thread "the mental state behind being able to ignore
> reality." taking my words out of context.
Please forgive me for using hyperbole, if it caused you harm. While I
understand your point and your hurt feelings, consider not comparing my
comment to that of someone 'denying the holocaust'. By so doing, you
will avoid being guilty of your own accusation.
> > 1. Joseph Stalin
> > 2. Pol Pot
> > 3. Mao Zedong
> > 4. Hideki Tojo
> > 5. Adolf Hitler
>
> You didn't read your list before posting.
Incorrect, I do not deny the Holocaust, and see Hitler's actions during
WWII as a grave evil.
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Bill Hudson wrote:
> wm wrote:
> > My point is not that Christians and Athiest have equal amounts of blood
> > on their hands (atheists, by the numbers, have far more), I seek only
> > to remind that the non-religious (and non-religious ideologies) can be
> > evil too.
> out to be us (humans) and not political philosophies, religious
> doctrines, money or the desire for physical things. It's good to
The bloodiest century on record (I believe you meant last century) and
its not because of Atheism or any ideologue. it's the invention of
motorized and air transportation, and innovations in more and more
lethal weapons.
try picturing the Thirty Years War, in a world when machine guns, germ
warfare and nucler warheads were readily available.
> remember that evil has been perpetrated in the name of just about every
> concept imaginable, including 'peace' and 'love'.
and with enough weapons to wipe out all life on earth several times
over today, what other real choice do people have?
>
>
>
> --
> Bill Hudson
sharon1...@yahoo.com
> Please forgive me for using hyperbole, if it caused you harm. While I
> understand your point and your hurt feelings, consider not comparing my
You read way too much into things. There's no hurt feelings, why would
my feelings be hurt by anything you say, even if you imagined that,
just as you're now imagining I falsely accused you of denying the
Holocaust.
> comment to that of someone 'denying the holocaust'. By so doing, you
> will avoid being guilty of your own accusation.
Maybe you can explain how that works? I'm not an expert like you are at
using argument fallacies.
>
> > > 1. Joseph Stalin
> > > 2. Pol Pot
> > > 3. Mao Zedong
> > > 4. Hideki Tojo
> > > 5. Adolf Hitler
> >
> > You didn't read your list before posting.
Hitler was a Christian. You labeled the list "Atheists" and other
Non-Christians.
You said Christians don't want him,
"I doubt the identification of Mr. Hitler as Christian is for Hitler to
decide. None of the historic Christian churches would claim him."
and you believe Atheists do?
>
> Incorrect, I do not deny the Holocaust, and see Hitler's actions during
> WWII as a grave evil.
Nobody said you were denying the Holocaust, but you did deny Hitler was
a Christian:
You wrote: "...consider the following notable atheists and other
decidedly non-Christian people and groups/events:"
1. Joseph Stalin
2. Pol Pot
3. Mao Zedong
4. Hideki Tojo
5. Adolf Hitler
Hitler is in your list of "notable atheists" and non Christian.
"Using a creed as a slogan for propaganda and believing within its
tradition are not the same."
Hitler was well within "tradition" with his propaganda slogans against
Jews and bloodshed in the name of God. The church had been doing this
for centuries.
You wrote: "I doubt the identification of Mr. Hitler as Christian is
for Hitler to decide. None of the historic Christian churches would
claim him. "
So that makes him an atheist?
Anyway... sort of enjoyed the conversation, but things are getting a
little too weird for me. (argument fallacies).
Bill Wayne
Ray Martinez wrote:
> > After reading all that, it puts the phrase "Final Solution" into better
> > perspective.
> > Had these events occured only a few centuries earlier, Hitler would
> > have been hailed a saint by the Christian Church.
>
> We know the Nazi's were Darwinists and armed with your theory they
> selected the Jews for extinction.
Actually, Hitler was a creationist.
The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of
its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable
crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord
commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and
contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)
The undermining of the existence of human culture by the destruction of
its bearer seems in the eyes of a folkish philosophy the most execrable
crime. Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord
commits sacrilege against the benevolent Creator of this miracle and
contributes to the expulsion from paradise. (Hitler 1943, 383)
> In fact, Hitler was the most imfamous Theistic Evolutionist:
>
> http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
>
> "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
> fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by
> a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned
> men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a
> sufferer but as a fighter." -- Adolf Hitler (1922).
I fail to see how this proves he was a "Darwinist". In fact, he proves
he's a creationist. By your logic, a Darwinist is an atheist. Hitler
was not an atheist, therefore he is not a Darwinist.
> We also know that Supreme Court justices who are also Darwinists/TEists
> keep the death penalty alive in the U.S.
> All the communist nations of the 20th century accepted Darwinism and
> they murdered hundreds of millions of innocent persons.
The USSR refused to accept evolution in favor of Lamarkianism. I can't
find any material on China, but I doubt they believe in evolution.
Also, Christians murdered millions during the Crusades and the Spanish
Inquisition, not to mention the systematic destruction of Native
Americans. By your logic, Christianity is evil. QED
> Atheists and Darwinists have murdered more persons in the 20th century
> than in the previous history of mankind combined.
I've shown that many of the people you've said were "Darwinists" were,
in fact, not.
> We also know that I have already identified you as a trouble-maker -
> remember ?
>
> Looks like I was right, who else would post a pathetic hate topic like
> this blaming the Holocaust on Christians ?
No, you're wrong.
> Ray
Bill
Tom McDonald
wm wrote:
> I doubt the identification of Mr. Hitler as Christian is for Hitler to
> decide. None of the historic Christian churches would claim him. Would
> any of us from our knowledge of Christianity honestly put him in that
> category? You would be very jaded indeed to do so (that, or perhaps
> very isolated). Using a creed as a slogan for propaganda and believing
> within its tradition are not the same.
First, good job learning not to top-post (as seen in later posts). Now
if you can learn to snip (and mark, as I have below) the parts of a
post you are not replying to, you will have everyone's gratitude.
Second, while you may doubt that Hitler really was a Christian, that
isn't up to us to decide. That's something between ol' Schickelgrueber
and his God (or lack thereof). We don't get to make that call.
And I am not at all certain that Martin Luther would have distanced
himself from Hitler's actions against the Jews. As well, many Christian
churches were just fine with pogroms that had the same intent, only on
a smaller scale.
The history of the New World is also rife with genocide under color of
Christianity. Many tens of millions of Native Americans died because
Christians wanted their land, and didn't think they were worthy of
life.
I think Sharon made an excellent point about the 30 Years War; and I'd
like to extend that to other wars and mass killings justified by
religious differences.
I agree that the point cannot be that either theists or atheists are
more prone to genocide. But I must say I find it more honorable for
theists to concentrate on theists' evils, and atheists on atheists'
evils; with an eye to finding ways to not kill people just because they
differ from you.
But I'm afraid that we like killing too much to do more than speak
prettily at the problem.
<snip>
bullpup
"Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1161041882.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
<snip>
> > We also know that Supreme Court justices who are also Darwinists/TEists
> > keep the death penalty alive in the U.S.
Crap!! I haven't been following this "Ray" (I'm waiting for his "opus" that
demolishes the ToE), but has he ever *read The Bible*?? Christ-on-a-cracker,
the Bible was used to *justify* death penalties!
And Ray is going to demolish the ToE? (Snort!) I, for one, am no longer
holding my breath.
<snip>
Boikat
--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters-
Earle Jones
David Iain Greig <dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
> LC <LCi...@this.com> wrote:
> > Was there Really a Holocaust?
>
> Yes.
>
> The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
>
> That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
> and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
> the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
>
> --D.
*
It's a mental state that I will never understand. A few weeks ago,
I posted this:
My visit to Oswiecim, Poland.
A couple of weeks ago, I was in Krakow, a beautiful old city in
central Poland. Having survived a German invasion, WWII, and Soviet
occupation in relatively undamaged condition, Krakow today is a
great example of the old medieval European city, with its large
central square and surrounding structures.
I took a bus with my fellow wanderers to the city of Oswiecim, about
an hour or so outside Krakow.
Oswiecim is better know by the name the Germans gave it: Auschwitz.
I wish that every American -- in fact I wish every person in the
world -- could visit this place and try to understand what brought
it here.
I was somewhat surprised by the general pleasantness of the
surroundings as one approaches the place -- nice brick barracks and
lots of green grass and trees. The famous sign, "Arbeit Macht Frei"
reminds us of what the place is and why it is here. As we get
closer, we see the electrified barbed-wire fences that enclosed the
camp.
There were hundreds of tourist visitors there in well-organized
groups with knowledgable leaders. We walked through the exhibit
areas in the old barracks. We saw what you probably have seen in
photographs: Huge piles of the personal belongings of the
unfortunate who were taken there. There were piles of shoes -- tens
of thousands in a stack perhaps ten feet high. Eyeglasses taken
from those who would no longer need them. Pots and pans and knives
and forks and thousands of other personal items. There was a very
large mound -- perhaps 20 feet long and about 8 feet high of human
hair, collected from the women who were to be exterminated.
There were perhaps a hundred barracks at Auschwitz.
However, the truly 'mass-production' went on at what was called
Auschwitz II or Birkenau, which was situated nearby on something
like 350 acres. Near the end of the war, the Nazis destroyed most
of the wooden barracks (originally horse stables) that covered these
acres, but their brick chimneys still stand, perhaps three or four
hundred -- almost as far as the eye can see.
Auschwitz I had one 'extermination' area and crematorium Birkenau
had four large crematoria. Even then, when they were overloaded,
prisoners would be taken outdoors to a large ditch, perhaps 100
meters long, and shot. Their bodies were burned in place, then they
were covered with dirt.
Much of the historical record comes from thousands of photographs,
most of which were taken by Nazi soldiers, who were evidently
pleased with their work. I spent perhaps four hours here. I
thought about the thousands, the millions of victims who died here
and their families and friends, who were also victims.
But I also thought about the anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers and
truly wished that they could have joined me there. I thought about
some of the more avid posters -- like David Ford, Nashton, Ray
Martinez, Nando Ronteltap (Mohammed Nor Syamsu), and others who are
clearly disturbed and see some vast conspiracy at work. I would
have liked to take this tour with them to hear their attempts to
convince us that this is all a conspiracy.
Take a look at: http://www.remember.org/auschwitz/
and you might get a small idea of my recent visit.
earle
*
sharon1...@yahoo.com
> > He told me it was not impossible, there's eruptions that occur under
> > water and sea floor collapsing, and it would be possible, and powerful
> > enough, that a ship could get sucked into one of these holes. He told
That may have been the gas bubble "Sea Fart" I got mixed up wth the sub
supposedly buried inland...
...so, a ship possibly falling in and sinking in the hole produced when
the gas surfaces (he even suggested this might be why boats and low
flying planes have disappeared around Devil's triangle)... that's
debatable I guess, and I really wouldn't know the difference, though on
the discussion of how a ship (submarine) got stuck so far inland,
underground, I may have been partially wrong on that. it's been over a
decade since that brief conversation...it seems my memory has gotten
fuzzy, he may have mentioned something like this....
CDNN :: When Blood Fizzes - Diving the UB-88 Submarine
Raine and Walker made their first dive to the World War I submarine
last August. ... More recently, he and Raine penetrated 2 miles into an
underwater cave ...
http://www.cdnn.info/news/article/a040127.html
Maybe a sub went into one of these underwater veins and the cave
collapsed, or maybe currents got to it and sucked it in... I'm not
sure and I guess it doesn't matter except for technicalities. Anyway.
If a sub was really ever found buried inland [for real], there's a
reasonable explanation how it got there, not "time machines".
Ray Martinez
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On 16 Oct 2006 11:12:09 -0700, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >
> >David Iain Greig wrote:
> >> LC <LCi...@this.com> wrote:
> >> > Was there Really a Holocaust?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
> >>
> >> That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
> >> and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
> >> the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
> >>
> >> --D.
> >
> >We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
> >Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this and how
> >come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
> >done the same ?
>
> He didn't say Creationists had done the same. Perhaps a
> remedial reading class would help you?
>
Don't be naieve Bob, that is exactly what he is saying. To even put the
two in the same breath is making the hate assertion at the expense of 6
million murdered Jews. Since Sharon the Troublemaker and DL Greig are
atheists and Darwinists all is explained.
Could we expect atheists to do anything else ?
The point is that the Nazi's believed the taxonomy (we are apes) and
decided to select their enemies for extinction. Darwin (who was an
atheist of course) caused the Holocaust.
I suggest you remove the blinders and somehow obtain the ability to see
hate "slightly disguised".
Ray
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> > He didn't say Creationists had done the same. Perhaps a
> > remedial reading class would help you?
> >
>
> Don't be naieve Bob, that is exactly what he is saying.
I'm glad to now understand what point you were trying to make earlier.
It wasn't clear.
> To even put the
> two in the same breath is making the hate assertion at the expense of 6
> million murdered Jews.
>From our page on Holocaust Denial and "why" people deny it, I quote:
ED TO DR SHERMER: How do you think the battle against the Revisionists
is going? Are they gaining ground with their claims of the "Dwindling
Death Toll?" The revisionists seem as tireless in their evangelism and
tract-peddling as evangelical Christians.
DR SHERMER TO ED: Ed, The Nizkor web page is the best on the subject.
These guys (Holocaust Deniers) are nothing like the creationists in
terms of their impact, and they never will be because of the
association with the Nazis. The numbers killed at Auschwitz is now very
well established at just below a million. And the technology of how it
was done there is also well established, even better since my book came
out.
Michael
Tom McDonald
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Bob Casanova wrote:
> > On 16 Oct 2006 11:12:09 -0700, the following appeared in
> > talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
> > <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
> >
> > >
> > >David Iain Greig wrote:
> > >> LC <LCi...@this.com> wrote:
> > >> > Was there Really a Holocaust?
> > >>
> > >> Yes.
> > >>
> > >> The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
> > >>
> > >> That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
> > >> and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
> > >> the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
> > >>
> > >> --D.
> > >
> > >We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
> > >Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this and how
> > >come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
> > >done the same ?
> >
> > He didn't say Creationists had done the same. Perhaps a
> > remedial reading class would help you?
> >
>
> Don't be naieve Bob, that is exactly what he is saying. To even put the
> two in the same breath is making the hate assertion at the expense of 6
> million murdered Jews.
I think that you are suffering under a blinding penalty of your own,
Ray. You are blind to what DIG was saying, and that has caused you to
sin against him by your unfounded accusations.
I can think of no other reason than a blinding penalty for your
inability to see this. You showed that same penalty when you accused
Dana of making racist remarks in a thread where the only such remarks
were yours.
As long as you are in thrall to Scott, you will most likely continue in
this blindness. It causes you to commit many sins, and separates you
from the One who should alone have your worship. Repent, come back to
Jesus, and let the scales fall from your eyes.
> Since Sharon the Troublemaker
Sharon causes her share of trouble, as do we all. She seems to have
your number, to have you so enraged at being unable to refute.
> and DL
D *I*
> Greig are
> atheists and Darwinists all is explained.
No, what is explained is that you have become blind as a penalty for
your worship of a mortal man.
> Could we expect atheists to do anything else ?
Atheists (I don't know where Sharon stands on religion right now, nor
what David's position is) can be expected to do a lot of things. They
are not some monolithic group. That you think they are is evidence that
you have allowed your idolitry of Scott and your rage to blind you to
what is right in front of your face.
>
> The point is that the Nazi's believed the taxonomy (we are apes) and
> decided to select their enemies for extinction. Darwin (who was an
> atheist of course) caused the Holocaust.
> I suggest you remove the blinders and somehow obtain the ability to see
> hate "slightly disguised".
'O wad some power the giftie gie us,
Tae see oursel's as others see us.'
Blinders off, Ray. Blinders off.
<snip>
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snip
> >
> > He didn't say Creationists had done the same. Perhaps a
> > remedial reading class would help you?
> >
>
> Don't be naieve Bob, that is exactly what he is saying.
No, Ray, you are misinterpeting him, just as you tend to misinterpet
much of what you read.
> To even put the
> two in the same breath is making the hate assertion at the expense of 6
> million murdered Jews. Since Sharon the Troublemaker and DL Greig are
> atheists and Darwinists all is explained.
The point is, that the creationists tend to deny reality, just as
holocaust deniers do. David did not say that creationists are Nazis.
>
> Could we expect atheists to do anything else ?
Well, yes, we could, and we do not see "atheists" doing anything of the
sort. You are mistaken, or deliberately lying.
>
> The point is that the Nazi's believed the taxonomy (we are apes)
There's no evidence that the Nazis believed the taxinomic evidence,
which ideed shows that humans are a species of ape. It really
wouldn't matter, as non-Nazis also accepted the taxonomy.
>and
> decided to select their enemies for extinction.
How is this different from the Inquisition doing the exact same thing
to their "enemies"? Natural selection does not mean that one
population decides to kill other members of the same species. That
would be not only unnatural, it would be foolish as well.
> Darwin (who was an
> atheist of course) caused the Holocaust.
Darwin was not an atheist, and can't be held responsible for an act
that he neither supported or suggested.
>
> I suggest you remove the blinders and somehow obtain the ability to see
> hate "slightly disguised".
Ray, when we see your posts, we don't see hate "slightly disguised", we
see it openly presented. Your hatred of Darwin, and anyone who shows
you to be wrong is clearly and violently expressed.
DJT
Mitchell Coffey
His pronouncements and actions regarding Jew were seldom but notable:
In Chapter 7 of Descent of Man Darwin writes:
"The singular fact that the Europeans and Hindoos, who belong to the
same Aryan stock, and speak a language fundamentally the same, differ
widely in appearance, whilst Europeans differ but little from Jews, who
belong to the Semitic stock, and speak quite another language, has been
accounted for by Broca, through certain Aryan branches having been
largely crossed by indigenous tribes during their wide diffusion."
--
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-descent-of-man/chapter-07.html
This would have got Darwin sent to a camp had he been so unfortunate to
have been German in the 1930s. (It also shows some of his surprisingly
modern view that the traditional "racial" categories commonly held by
most people even today were not very meaningful. On the other hand,
his erroneous confusion of what we now know as genetic relations and
linguistic categories was the standard view of his day.)
Darwin seldom ventured into public, much less politics. When he did it
usually came about when Huxley or Spencer approached him to lend his
prestigious name, and donate some money, to a cause. I know of no such
cause which ID/Creationist do not retroactively claim, now that the
battle's faught and won, and their help is little needed, to support.
One of these causes was an organized effort to combat a wave of
antisemitic oppression then-occurring in Eastern Europe. (See:
Rubinstein, William D. and Rubinstein, Hilary L.; Philosemitism:
Admiration and Support in the English-Speaking World for Jews,
1840-1939 [Studies in Modern History], Macmillan Press, 1999. I'll
need to go back for page numbers.)
Mitchell Coffey
Chemical Pete
news:1161037318.3...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> I doubt the identification of Mr. Hitler as Christian is for Hitler to
> decide. None of the historic Christian churches would claim him.
Not so. Hitler was born and raised Roman Catholic. He never renounced that
religion and the church never excommunicated him. He therefore died, as he
had lived, a Christian
Chemical Pete
er...@swva.net
> In response to Sharon's "Christian's are the source of all evil", I
> suggest we take a moment to reflect on the bloodiest centruy on record.
> Especially, consider the following notable atheists and other decidedly
> non-Christian people and groups/events:
>
> 1. Joseph Stalin
> 2. Pol Pot
> 3. Mao Zedong
> 4. Hideki Tojo
> 5. Adolf Hitler
> 6. Kim Il Sung
> 7. The Janjaweed (Darfur)
> 8. The Rape of Nanking
> 9. Ismail Enver (the Armenian Genocide)
> 10. Kim Jong Il
>
> My point is not that Christians and Athiest have equal amounts of blood
> on their hands (atheists, by the numbers, have far more), I seek only
> to remind that the non-religious (and non-religious ideologies) can be
> evil too.
>
Bzzt! What a Johnny come lately. You evidently are under the mistaken
notion that we haven't seen such a list of "atheist mass-murderers"
before, when in fact, creationists repeatedly try to argue from
consequences, blaming atheism or science for all sorts of atrocities.
Sharon's mention is wrong in that it's a "you are, too" argument, but
it is more understandable and excusable in that it is a response to
something the science-haters started _first_, and do continually. Your
trotting out the original creationist diatribe is thus very bumbling
and ill-aimed.
Also, you should reply _below what you are talking about. This isn't
e-mail.
(snip)
Eric Root
Eric Root
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Tom McDonald wrote:
> > Could we expect atheists to do anything else ?
>
> Atheists (I don't know where Sharon stands on religion right now
Sharon is still a Deist.
This is a little off topic, but regarding another thread that's been
going 'what can ID offer science'. So far as I can see absolutely
nothing, but to quote the author of it...
- "offering a window into the mind of it's designer."
Are they really so certain God is their "designer"? I'm not so sure
these days. After reading over some of the articles Darwinists have
produced on horrible "designs" in nature -- some of them monstrous,
nature doesn't seem to imply design anymore than it implies atheism, it
implies indifference of religion.
Not to mention every animal species I've acquainted, are atheists.
"A window into the mind of God if you will."
Fine, they should do that then and quit imposing designer on the
entity, presupposing it is a designer.
- "The opportunity to actually delve into the thought processes of God!
...while the IDers will be busy peering into the mind of the Designer."
Confusing God and Designer again.
An interesting thing to check out some time, and for each person to
draw their own conclusion... I am not saying that it is even a factual
truth. There was a movie released years ago, with Susan Sarandon and
Nick Nolte. "Lorenzo's Oil", now it's a known fact the movie was based
on actual events, though in the closing credits it acknowledges that
some of the events (probably to make it more dramatic and interesting)
stray from the exact details. They don't tell exactly which details
though.
Okay, Adone (Nick Nolte) learns his son has ALD (AdrenoLeukoDystrophy)
... at the time this genetic disease was incurable. They did not
understand anything about the biological pathway. The Adones wanted to
save their son, of course. The movie follows them through a few years
of research, trials and error and Adone is, in the end, awarded with an
honorary medical degree, and likely thousands of boys lives have been
saved because of the work he did. He's currently researching how to
repair damaged/loss of myelin in ALD sufferers, is last thing I heard
about his story.
In the movie, I viewed it several times... because I'm like most
people, searching some kind of evidence for God's existence. Something
real. Susan Sarandon plays Mrs. Adone and at beginning of the movie is
showed at Catholic mass, and so sad, and looks "toward heaven" with a
desperate look in her eyes, hopeless, like she's turning to God, the
real God, for an answer to save her son's life.
As a Deist... I believe if you can really, truly get God to acknowledge
you... you're lucky.
When people are about to lose their only child.. and willing to invest
the time, energy and effort -- maybe this God would give them some of
his time. Parents of a sick child are not going to care so much about
creeds and doctrines -- they'll accept whatever God has to offer, even
if they don't like it, despite the characteristics religion has
projected on what God is suppose to be.
So... Mr. Adone makes up his mind (upon seeing the medical community
operates slowly and at its own pace) to begin research of his own,
despite them. He goes to a large medical library and begins study of
the books which relate to his son's illness...
Lorenzo is put on a diet, a trial, to better understand the biochemical
pathway of ALD. And Adone asks questions, and studies and they lead him
to understand what biosynthesis is, one fat speeds up... another one
slows down.
Mrs. Adone visits a library and combing through microfische, and
"something" focuses her eye on a Polish study done on rats and fatty
acids. Okay.. maybe God helped her along on that one. She tells her
husband she could have just as easily overlooked that study -- so they
arrange for a symposium on ALD... bringing the worlds' leading doctors
and specialists on ALD, together. Much is learned of course, and
because of it, an oil is developed and tested on Lorenzo. The blood
tests show then, the bad fat is cut in half, but only half.
So, Adone continues to search for the answer, and does not give up.
They've mortgaged their home, invested years of study of already... and
having to sit with their sick son around the clock.
After one particular argument, between Mrs. Adone's sister and Mrs.
Adone, the sister claims Mrs. Adone has gone crazy and "lost it", and
comments, she doesn't even attend mass anymore. The sister is thrown
out of the home of course.
This sister, turns up toward the end of the movie, while Adone is
sitting in a medical library and considering the last problem with ALD
- - he has two lines of paper clips, and asks her how they interact,
what the relationship between them are (I think it was fatty acid C22
and C24, or something like that). When the one slowed down, the other
was produced more... and of course, (this imbalance of fatty acids was
what was stripping the myelin off the insulation around the nerves.)
Adone is at his wits' end, to explain how ALD works. He could not
answer the riddle.
He's shown laying down his head and asleep in the library on a pile of
books. The table begins shaking, and everything around him shaking, and
the chains of paperclips he's holding are now very large and they're
being pulled on -- and he looks under the table to what is pulling
them, he sees his son Lorenzo, and he's whispering something strange...
it's eerie and even frightening. Adone wakes up, he was dreaming -- and
runs to his wife, and wakes her up, now understanding how the
biological pathway for ALD works. He tells her, its the same enzyme
controlling both.
Because of that, he was able to get a chemist in England to produce the
oil, and of course it balanced out the fatty acids to normal when
tested on boys with ALD.
I watched that scene several times, the strange dream he had that
answered his question -- I believe it could be possible (if in fact the
movie portrayed things as they factually happened to the Adones) it may
have possibly been God himself, speaking to Adone. In a dream, a weird
vision...
However, I do not believe God normally intereferes with man, and
doesn't want to. There's an old saying by the ancients how "the gods
will not do for man, what man can do for himself". If it was God who
lead the Adones to a therapy, they were forced to do the work themself
-- so to peer in the mind of God -- it is a God that practices tough
love -- and does not want "worshippers". And, I do not believe God
chose to communicate with the Adones because they were Christian,
believing in Jesus or because they were Catholic, -- and dreams have
been reported from every religion and spiritual belief.
All I have to say is that people can watch the movie for themself and
draw their own conclusion. I believe that's what God may be like, when
God would choose to actually communicate.
Designer? I am willing to settle for "a witness" to how it all happened.
John Wilkins
...
> > Atheists (I don't know where Sharon stands on religion right now
>
> Sharon is still a Deist.
Was that revealed to you?
...
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
sharon1...@yahoo.com
> - "The opportunity to actually delve into the thought processes of God!
Wow! The Adones may be one of the only people on earth, that have
genuine [and reasonable] documentation to support their story ... to
what would seem a true encounter with the "miraculous". An encounter
with God himself.
On the opening of the movie, Nick Nolte and Susan Sarandon remark it is
a "miraculous" story.
... their son was suffering a brutal, genetic illness that's 100% fatal
after 2 years of diagnosis.
... they had three mortgages on their home.
... three years of sweating over medical books and research.
... came near divorce.
... came near insanity.
They did all the work by themselves, and God wouldn't even give Adone
the benefit of telling in plain English "it's the same enzyme" three
years earlier, instead all Adone was given was a frightfully scrambled
vision of symbols to figure out on his own with help of the knowledge
he had accumulated.
Even Adone is shown as remarking to his wife about Lorenzo, after he's
spared, with no hope to repair the damaged myelin without further
research, "Maybe this was all for somebody else's son."
What a cruel consolation prize. But nonetheless, their son lived.
I would really rather not get that close peering into the mind of this
God.
sharon1...@yahoo.com
John Wilkins wrote:
> <sharon1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> > > Atheists (I don't know where Sharon stands on religion right now
> >
> > Sharon is still a Deist.
>
> Was that revealed to you?
>
Speaking in third party, it was revealed to you
sharon1...@yahoo.com
John Wilkins wrote:
> Was that revealed to you?
In regard to the thread abt female intuition and ability to perceive
other's attitudes -- I'm not quite sure what you meant by that.
Are you offended by my expression of a belief in the existence of a
"WHAT DO YOU CALL IT" .. it would not be a "he" or a "she" ... but some
things happen in this world are difficult to explain.. leaving me to
believe "something" may be out there. People from all spiritual
beliefs, have expressed belief, including good, intelligent people.
I'm not alone. There's others who have a belief in a God's existence,
even if it is a belief in an Unorthodox God, but some fine minds do. I
particularly liked the way Kenneth Miller explained his belief in God,
on the Evolution series.
Evolution: science and belief; Science and Religion
Interview with ...Kenneth T. Miller, Ph.D., a Christian and
evolutionist, is professor of biology ... Miller: When religion places
itself in conflict with science, that is, ...
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/miller.html
Amazon.com: Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common
...Can a Darwinian be a Christian?: The Relationship between Science
and Religion by ... Kenneth Miller is a professor of biology at Brown
University and a ...
http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497
sharon1...@yahoo.com
DJT wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Don't be naieve Bob, that is exactly what he is saying.
>
> No, Ray, you are misinterpeting him, just as you tend to misinterpet
> much of what you read.
>
> > To even put the
> > two in the same breath is making the hate assertion at the expense of 6
> > million murdered Jews. Since Sharon
I will leave it on this note for Martinez -- David Greig did not say or
imply it, but I will. I am quite familiar with Nazis, Ku Klux Klan,
Aryan Nations and the white supremacists / separatists and the like,
and there is one thing I am most certain of. Most do have either
Christianized form of Creationist belief, and a strong creationist
belief or at least, theistic type of Creationism. Many of the beliefs
are outright crackpot.. some have went so far as to even theorize that
"superior beings" created white people and blacks meanwhile only
evolved from monkeys while jews are the spawn of evil, or a devil.
Their views are diverse, but most are creationist and really believe
they are doing the will of God and good for their race.
There are only a tiny fragment I ever learned of who might would have
an atheistic attitude, and even in their publications they would give
abundant room to racist-creationist views that put white people in the
light of being "superior" to other races. The racists really don't care
so much about religion, as much as they do their hate message against
non-whites... nonetheless, Creationism is usually the overall *favored
explanation* as to "why" they see whites as superior to others.
sharon1...@yahoo.com
> light of being "superior" to other races. The racists really don't care
> so much about religion, as much as they do their hate message against
> non-whites... nonetheless, Creationism is usually the overall *favored
> explanation* as to "why" they see whites as superior to others.
Creationists may not be nazis, but the majority of Nazis and Racists
are Creationists.
contact the atheistic ADL in New York if you want more info.
They track and research all the absurdity and nonsense of racist
beliefs, including the ones who believe the gods who specially created
aryan peoples and sometimes take the peoples like Adolf Hitler away in
UFO's.
David Iain Greig
>
> Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On 16 Oct 2006 11:12:09 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >
>> >David Iain Greig wrote:
>> >> LC <LCi...@this.com> wrote:
>> >> > Was there Really a Holocaust?
>> >>
>> >> Yes.
>> >>
>> >> The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
>> >>
>> >> That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
>> >> and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
>> >> the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
>> >>
>> >> --D.
>> >
>> >We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
>> >Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this and how
>> >come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
>> >done the same ?
>>
>> He didn't say Creationists had done the same. Perhaps a
>> remedial reading class would help you?
>>
>
> Don't be naieve Bob, that is exactly what he is saying.
No, it is not what I am saying. In fact I will deny any
linkage between Creationism and Holocaust Denial. Nevertheless,
both groups exhibit common tactics and mindsets when it comes
to ignoring and denying evidence.
> To even put the
> two in the same breath is making the hate assertion at the expense of 6
> million murdered Jews. Since Sharon the Troublemaker and DL Greig are
> atheists and Darwinists all is explained.
Please, spare me your faux outrage. As an student of history, and as
a student of science, I am not the only person to have noted a linkage
in methods between many different groups of crackpots like Creationists
and Deniers.
> Could we expect atheists to do anything else ?
> The point is that the Nazi's believed the taxonomy (we are apes) and
> decided to select their enemies for extinction. Darwin (who was an
> atheist of course) caused the Holocaust.
Thank you for proving my point about the basic insanity of Creationsts,
who, like Holocaust Deniers, will make up the most insane claims to
try to somehow overturn the actual facts.
> I suggest you remove the blinders and somehow obtain the ability to see
> hate "slightly disguised".
You're poster boy for 'hatred-filled' as it is on this group. However,
while you are clearly a Creationist (and a nutball), I'm not accusing
you of being a Holocaust Denier. Likewise, Giwer is a Holocaust Denier
(and a nutter) but not a Creationist. You're like wierd mirror-images
of each other - you could probably give each other tips in 'how to make
up bogus arguments'.
As stated before - the subjects are different (and unrelated) but the
mindset of 'denial' is common. Hence I can't very well be tarring
Creationists as Holocaust Deniers, since they aren't. But they are
'deniers of fact', as a simple review of their writings and tactics
reveal.
In any event, again, spare us your 'outrage'.
--D.
Stile4aly
Ray Martinez wrote:
> you were and are connecting Creationism with Holocaust denial. When we
> remember that you are an atheist-Darwinist the attempt is explained
> instantly.
Ray, I'm starting to think that you have serious problems with basic
reading comprehension. DIG's 2nd sentence is saying that there is no
correlation between people that espouse creationism and holocaust
deniers (in other words, being a holocaust denier doesn't make you a
creationist, and vice versa). His 3rd sentence says that even though
there is no ideological linkage, both groups (as well as all stripes of
pseudoscientists) make a practice of twisting evidence and ignoring
inconvenient truths. This is a statement about methodology, not
ideology.
>
> You are also a flaming hypocrite, David. The third sentence condemns
> explicitly the ignoring and denying of evidence....as in the fossil
> record showing no signs of that which a evolutionary theory
> necessitates (transitionality). This fact places you in your own nasty
> thesis (Holocaust denial) by any objective standard.
Just because you don't believe evolution occurred doesn't mean that the
evidence isn't there.
>
>
> > > To even put the
> > > two in the same breath is making the hate assertion at the expense of 6
> > > million murdered Jews. Since Sharon the Troublemaker and DL Greig are
> > > atheists and Darwinists all is explained.
> >
> > Please, spare me your faux outrage. As an student of history, and as
> > a student of science, I am not the only person to have noted a linkage
> > in methods between many different groups of crackpots like Creationists
> > and Deniers.
> >
>
> Yes, we know other atheists and Darwinists have done the same; grinding
> their axe all the while forgetting that the Nazi's were Darwinists who
> acted like apes and selected their enemies for extinction. How many
> proto-Nazi's and Nazi's won a Nobel ?
A google search suggests that few if any actual Nazis have ever won a
Nobel prize. Nobels are a reward for an acheivement of a lifetime.
The Nazi party in Germany was only around for about 20 years and was
not the chosen ideology of the German elite. In fact, there was a mass
exodus of scientists from Germany and central Europe throughout the
30s. The only reference I can find to a Nazi winning a Nobel prize is
Guenter Grass, a novelist who won the Nobel Prize in literature in 1999
who had served in the SS in 1945 but dedicated his life afterwards to
peace. Even Wernher Von Braun, arguably the most famous and
influential Nazi German scientist never won a Nobel. Can you provide a
list of Nazi Nobel Prize winning scientists?
>
> Dr. Scott: "Nazi-Germany was THE most educated nation in
> history....they knew the difference between right and wrong....the most
> educated did the worst atrocities...."
Interesting that you often stress the importance of Scott's education.
>
> Dumb uneducated KKK types ("Christians") denying that which the most
> educated Darwinists (Nazi's) committed (Holocaust) - which is worst ?
> At least the KKK has an excuse.
The only difference between the KKK and the Nazi party is the scale of
murder. Both organizations are examples of the worst of humanity, and
I would say that the Nazi party is no more representative of Darwinism
than the KKK is representative of Christianity.
<snip the rest>
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> > No, it is not what I am saying. In fact I will deny any
> > linkage between Creationism and Holocaust Denial. Nevertheless,
> > both groups exhibit common tactics and mindsets when it comes
> > to ignoring and denying evidence.
> >
>
> you were and are connecting Creationism with Holocaust denial. When we
No he was not.
Do you know the difference between connecting two things, and comparing
them?
CONNECT
con·nect (k-nkt) Pronunciation Key
v. con·nect·ed, con·nect·ing, con·nects
v. tr.
To join or fasten together.
To associate or consider as related: no reason to connect the two
events. See Synonyms at join.
To join to or by means of a communications circuit: Please connect me
to the number in San Diego. Her computer is connected to the Internet.
To plug in (an electrical cord or device) to an outlet.
COMPARE
com‧pare /kəmˈpɛər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[kuhm-pair] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
verb, -pared, -par‧ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to examine (two or more objects, ideas,
people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences: to compare
two pieces of cloth; to compare the governments of two nations.
2. to consider or describe as similar; liken: Shall I compare thee to a
summer's day?
3. Grammar. to form or display the degrees of comparison of (an
adjective or adverb).
–verb (used without object) 4. to be worthy of comparison; be held
equal: Dekker's plays cannot compare with Shakespeare's.
5. to appear in a similar standing: His recital certainly compares with
the one he gave last year.
6. to differ in quality or accomplishment as specified: Their
development compares poorly with that of neighbor nations.
7. to vie; rival.
8. to make a comparison: The only way we can say which product is
better is to compare.
–noun 9. comparison: Her beauty is beyond compare.
—Idiom10. compare notes. note (def. 32).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1375–1425; late ME comparen < L comparāre to place
together, match, v. deriv. of compar alike, matching (see com-, par);
r. ME comperen < OF comperer < L]
—Related forms
com‧par‧er, noun
—Usage note The traditional rule about which preposition to use after
compare states that compare should be followed by to when it points out
likenesses or similarities between two apparently dissimilar persons or
things: She compared his handwriting to knotted string. Compare should
be followed by with, the rule says, when it points out similarities or
differences between two entities of the same general class: The critic
compared the paintings in the exhibit with magazine photographs. This
rule is by no means always observed, however, even in formal speech and
writing. The usual practice is to employ to for likenesses between
members of different classes: A language may be compared to a living
organism. But when the comparison is between members of the same
category, both to and with are used: The article compares the Chicago
of today with (or to) the Chicago of the 1890s. Following the past
participle compared, either to or with is used regardless of whether
differences or similarities are stressed or whether the things compared
belong to the same or different classes: Compared with (or to) the
streets of 18th-century London, New York's streets are models of
cleanliness and order.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc.
2006.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/badgering
Snipping the rest.
> More double-speak: after negates before
>
>
> Ray
>
>
> SNIP....
Dana Tweedy
snip
>> No, it is not what I am saying. In fact I will deny any
>> linkage between Creationism and Holocaust Denial. Nevertheless,
>> both groups exhibit common tactics and mindsets when it comes
>> to ignoring and denying evidence.
>>
>
> Double-speak: third sentence negates second sentence. My point stands:
> you were and are connecting Creationism with Holocaust denial. When we
> remember that you are an atheist-Darwinist the attempt is explained
> instantly.
It's amazing, Ray, that you can tell what other people "mean" when they say
the opposite, yet we are supposed to be able to infer what you "meant" when
you make an obvious error. How did you come across this unique ability?
>
> You are also a flaming hypocrite, David. The third sentence condemns
> explicitly the ignoring and denying of evidence..
Which is exactly what both creationists, and holocaust deniers do.
>..as in the fossil
> record showing no signs of that which a evolutionary theory
> necessitates (transitionality).
The fossil record does show "signs" of transition. One such fossil is KNM
WT 15000, the very fossil you are unable to view honestly, and which you
openly deny. You demonstrate quite clearly that David is correct. You
deny reality when it conflicts with your beliefs.
> This fact places you in your own nasty
> thesis (Holocaust denial) by any objective standard.
That does not make any sense, Ray. David is not denying the holocaust.
>
>
>> > To even put the
>> > two in the same breath is making the hate assertion at the expense of 6
>> > million murdered Jews. Since Sharon the Troublemaker and DL Greig are
>> > atheists and Darwinists all is explained.
>>
>> Please, spare me your faux outrage. As an student of history, and as
>> a student of science, I am not the only person to have noted a linkage
>> in methods between many different groups of crackpots like Creationists
>> and Deniers.
>>
>
> Yes, we know other atheists and Darwinists have done the same; grinding
> their axe all the while forgetting that the Nazi's were Darwinists who
> acted like apes and selected their enemies for extinction.
Why do you assume the Nazis were "Darwinists"? The Nazis never claimed to
support Darwin, or his theory. Also, no other ape than humans "selects"
their own species "for extinction". One population deliberately
eliminating another population of the same species for extinction goes
against evolutionary theory.
> How many
> proto-Nazi's and Nazi's won a Nobel ?
None, as far as I know. Do you have any examples of such?
>
> Dr. Scott: "Nazi-Germany was THE most educated nation in
> history..
Which is wrong. Mr. Scott once again was speaking falsely.
>..they knew the difference between right and wrong....the most
> educated did the worst atrocities...."
The Nazis and their collaborators did what they did for political, and
personal reasons, not because of any scientific theory. Your
anti-intellectual stance is noted.
>
> Dumb uneducated KKK types ("Christians") denying that which the most
> educated Darwinists (Nazi's) committed (Holocaust) - which is worst ?
The Nazis weren't "Darwinists", Ray, and many of the KKK members were
educated, at least to the extent the average Nazi was.
> At least the KKK has an excuse.
Neither group has an excuse, Ray. Both are racist, and both were wrong.
The Nazis didn't base their racism on evolution any more than the KKK did.
>
> We see European Professors provide the justification for Muslim suicide
> bombings today.
No, we don't "see" that.
> Imagine that, ultra-educated western elites
> rationalizing the murder of Jews ?
Many, if not most of the victims of suicide bombers have been Muslim
themselves.
> Whats the difference bewteen these
> elites and the skin-head ?
The skin heads are acting out of hate and fear, much like you are. The
"elites" you are referring to are trying to see both sides of the issue, and
are not acting out of hatred of anyone.
>
> One has an education and wears a suit.
Many of the "skinheads" have an education, and wear suits as well.
Education does not mean one cannot be racist. There are plenty of people
who justify their racist beliefs based on their religious opinions. Few,
if any base racism on evolutionary theory, as evolution does not support the
basic assumption of racism, ie, that one population is objectively better
than another. The evidence shows that all modern human populations are
equally "evolved". There is no basis for a claim that one or more "races"
are superior, or inferior to any other "race".
>
> Dr. Scott is right. The most educated, that is, the one who knows the
> difference between right and wrong still committs the worst evil.
Evil is often committed for "good" causes, and is very often the result of
hatred and fear. The very hatred and fear you are constantly promoting.
snip
>> Thank you for proving my point about the basic insanity of Creationsts,
>> who, like Holocaust Deniers, will make up the most insane claims to
>> try to somehow overturn the actual facts.
>>
>
> No David. All you did was exploit the murder of 6 million Jews in order
> to insult your scientific rivals.
David did no such thing. He pointed out that creationists (who are not
"scientific rivals") and holocaust deniers share a capacity to deny reality.
>
> Thats all this is about: A Darwinist insulting Creationism using the
> Holocaust. You are educated and know better.
Telling the truth may hurt, but it's not an insult.
>
>> > I suggest you remove the blinders and somehow obtain the ability to see
>> > hate "slightly disguised".
>>
>> You're poster boy for 'hatred-filled' as it is on this group. However,
>> while you are clearly a Creationist (and a nutball), I'm not accusing
>> you of being a Holocaust Denier. Likewise, Giwer is a Holocaust Denier
>> (and a nutter) but not a Creationist. You're like wierd mirror-images
>> of each other - you could probably give each other tips in 'how to make
>> up bogus arguments'.
>>
>
> More double-speak: after negates before.
Ray, again, your ability to see what others "really" mean, despite their
words to the contrary is amazing. It's too bad you don't have the ability
to write what you "really" mean, so that you chastise others for reading
your words as written.
DJT
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> > No, it is not what I am saying. In fact I will deny any
> > linkage between Creationism and Holocaust Denial. Nevertheless,
> > both groups exhibit common tactics and mindsets when it comes
> > to ignoring and denying evidence.
> >
>
> you were and are connecting Creationism with Holocaust denial. When we
> remember that you are an atheist-Darwinist the attempt is explained
> instantly.
I can't locate the term on the internet, but I see through the game
you're playing with people "Ray". It's some type of remote argument
fallacy -- maybe Red Herring ?? -- where the guy pretends he's dumb and
throws a lot of diversions into the mix, to confuse the issue.
You know as well as myself and everyone else, he didn't make a
"connection" between nazis and creationists, ... he simply made a
comparison.
Now, it has occurred to me, the worst possible scenrio... Schizophrenia
is a mental condition where incoming signals to the brain are
misinterpreted, and instead of hearing, seeing or reading what's
actually there, the brain would process something different. I'm not
saying that to be spiteful, I'm saying it because I really don't
believe you're that stupid, and already I don't think your motives are
pure. I think you're just being an asshole. I've been reading most of
your posts, and you habitually take things people say out of context
and send them on a wild goose chase, to put them back into context. All
along proving absolutely nothing for a case against evolution.
> More double-speak: after negates before.
>
>
> Ray
>
>
> SNIP....
Kermit
Ray Martinez wrote:
> David Iain Greig wrote:
> you were and are connecting Creationism with Holocaust denial. When we
> remember that you are an atheist-Darwinist the attempt is explained
> instantly.
Actually this response (once again) clearly demonstrates your
pathological inability to read for comprehension, or admit what you
comprehend. What's truly appalling is your inability to assess
yourself, and to understand how obvious it is to everyone else.
>
> You are also a flaming hypocrite, David. The third sentence condemns
> explicitly the ignoring and denying of evidence....
Yes. Two examples are holocaust deniers, and creationists. Another
would be moon-hoax conspiracists, and another would be those who
believe in astrology. These are roughly in order of descending degrees
of evil.
> as in the fossil
> record showing no signs of that which a evolutionary theory
> necessitates (transitionality).
As you well know, the fossil record made it pretty clear by the
mid-nineteenth century that the Earth was ancient and that life evolved
over a long period of time. What Darwin provided was a usable and
testable model for the *mechanism which explains evolution.
> This fact places you in your own nasty
> thesis (Holocaust denial) by any objective standard.
Nope. This claim, however, shreds your own credibility as thoroughly as
most of your posts do.
>
>
> > > To even put the
> > > two in the same breath is making the hate assertion at the expense of 6
> > > million murdered Jews. Since Sharon the Troublemaker and DL Greig are
> > > atheists and Darwinists all is explained.
> >
> > Please, spare me your faux outrage. As an student of history, and as
> > a student of science, I am not the only person to have noted a linkage
> > in methods between many different groups of crackpots like Creationists
> > and Deniers.
> >
>
> Yes, we know other atheists and Darwinists have done the same; grinding
> their axe all the while forgetting that the Nazi's were Darwinists
Most were not. If by "Darwinist" you mean folks who accept and
more-or-less understand evolutionary science, then there were a fair
number. These people would also have been Newtonians and Galtonians and
Harveyists.
> who
> acted like apes
Alas! If only they had acted like bonobo apes, instead of human apes.
> and selected their enemies for extinction. How many
> proto-Nazi's and Nazi's won a Nobel ?
Don't know. Is that a consideration for the prize?
>
> Dr. Scott: "Nazi-Germany was THE most educated nation in
> history....they knew the difference between right and wrong....the most
> educated did the worst atrocities...."
Dr. Scott was a liar and a scam artist. While he may have been a bright
student, he was pathetic as a scholar. He was *terrific as a scam
artist, however.
>
> Dumb uneducated KKK types ("Christians") denying that which the most
> educated Darwinists (Nazi's) committed (Holocaust) - which is worst ?
> At least the KKK has an excuse.
I don't think anyone here much cares what the KKK thinks. Like you,
however, they are dishonest, ignore evidence, and are creationists.
Unlike you, they claim to be Christians, although they are actually
Paulists of a sort. You, who claim to be a Paulist, are actually a
Scottist.
>
> We see European Professors provide the justification for Muslim suicide
> bombings today.
In the millions, I suppose. Do you have a cite for one or two?
> Imagine that, ultra-educated western elites
> rationalizing the murder of Jews ? Whats the difference bewteen these
> elites and the skin-head ?
Do you have any evidence that this is characteristic of European
professors?
Any at all?
Are you channeling Scott, now?
>
> One has an education and wears a suit.
>
> Dr. Scott is right. The most educated, that is, the one who knows the
> difference between right and wrong still committs the worst evil.
If his followers had gotten educated, they might have stopped giving
him money. Of *course he discouraged it.
>
>
> > > Could we expect atheists to do anything else ?
> >
> >
> >
> > > The point is that the Nazi's believed the taxonomy (we are apes) and
> > > decided to select their enemies for extinction. Darwin (who was an
> > > atheist of course) caused the Holocaust.
> >
> > Thank you for proving my point about the basic insanity of Creationsts,
> > who, like Holocaust Deniers, will make up the most insane claims to
> > try to somehow overturn the actual facts.
> >
>
> No David. All you did was exploit the murder of 6 million Jews in order
> to insult your scientific rivals.
David did not insult the victims of the Holocaust. Elsewhere on the
web, he actively struggles against the Denial of the Holocaust.
And creationists and loons like you are not scientific rivals of
anybody. You are political enemies of civil society, knowledge, and
honorable behavior.
>
> Thats all this is about: A Darwinist insulting Creationism using the
> Holocaust. You are educated and know better.
He did not, Ray, and you are dishonest and mean-spirited for saying so.
Also an idiot for thinking anyone can fall for this misrepresentation.
Your mischaracterizing people is clearly not random. It is either
conscious and therefore lying, or it is so habitual and tied up with
thought stoppage and denial that it is pathological.
>
>
> > > I suggest you remove the blinders and somehow obtain the ability to see
> > > hate "slightly disguised".
> >
> > You're poster boy for 'hatred-filled' as it is on this group. However,
> > while you are clearly a Creationist (and a nutball), I'm not accusing
> > you of being a Holocaust Denier. Likewise, Giwer is a Holocaust Denier
> > (and a nutter) but not a Creationist. You're like wierd mirror-images
> > of each other - you could probably give each other tips in 'how to make
> > up bogus arguments'.
> >
>
> More double-speak: after negates before.
?
>
>
> Ray
>
>
> SNIP....
Kermit
Bill Hudson
> David Iain Greig wrote:
No it does not.
Your so-called 'logic' is thus:
My car is red.
My pencil is red.
Therefore my car and pencil are linked.
Just because two groups use similar tactics or actions or even have
similar results does not necessarily 'link' them. You might as well
claim that Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were 'linked' because they
both oppressed Jews.
>... My point stands:
> you were and are connecting Creationism with Holocaust denial.
No, he did not.
>... When we
> remember that you are an atheist-Darwinist the attempt is explained
> instantly.
Nothing like poisoning the well, eh Ray?
>
> You are also a flaming hypocrite, David. The third sentence condemns
> explicitly the ignoring and denying of evidence....as in the fossil
> record showing no signs of that which a evolutionary theory
> necessitates (transitionality). This fact places you in your own nasty
> thesis (Holocaust denial) by any objective standard.
The fact that you deny evolution is already established, Ray.
>
>>> To even put the
>>> two in the same breath is making the hate assertion at the expense of 6
>>> million murdered Jews. Since Sharon the Troublemaker and DL Greig are
>>> atheists and Darwinists all is explained.
>> Please, spare me your faux outrage. As an student of history, and as
>> a student of science, I am not the only person to have noted a linkage
>> in methods between many different groups of crackpots like Creationists
>> and Deniers.
>>
>
> Yes, we know other atheists and Darwinists have done the same; grinding
> their axe all the while forgetting that the Nazi's were Darwinists who
> acted like apes and selected their enemies for extinction. How many
> proto-Nazi's and Nazi's won a Nobel ?
>
> Dr. Scott: "Nazi-Germany was THE most educated nation in
> history....they knew the difference between right and wrong....the most
> educated did the worst atrocities...."
>
> Dumb uneducated KKK types ("Christians") denying that which the most
> educated Darwinists (Nazi's) committed (Holocaust) - which is worst ?
> At least the KKK has an excuse.
>
> We see European Professors provide the justification for Muslim suicide
> bombings today. Imagine that, ultra-educated western elites
> rationalizing the murder of Jews ? Whats the difference bewteen these
> elites and the skin-head ?
>
> One has an education and wears a suit.
>
> Dr. Scott is right. The most educated, that is, the one who knows the
> difference between right and wrong still committs the worst evil.
Nice example of doing exactly what you falsely accuse DIG of, there.
>
>
>>> Could we expect atheists to do anything else ?
>>
>>
>>> The point is that the Nazi's believed the taxonomy (we are apes) and
>>> decided to select their enemies for extinction. Darwin (who was an
>>> atheist of course) caused the Holocaust.
>> Thank you for proving my point about the basic insanity of Creationsts,
>> who, like Holocaust Deniers, will make up the most insane claims to
>> try to somehow overturn the actual facts.
>>
>
> No David. All you did was exploit the murder of 6 million Jews in order
> to insult your scientific rivals.
Creationism is not scientific, therefore creationists are not
'scientific rivals'.
>
> Thats all this is about: A Darwinist insulting Creationism using the
> Holocaust. You are educated and know better.
>
He did not. You're wrong, and you've been informed multiple times now.
So, I guess you're simply lying again.
>
>>> I suggest you remove the blinders and somehow obtain the ability to see
>>> hate "slightly disguised".
>> You're poster boy for 'hatred-filled' as it is on this group. However,
>> while you are clearly a Creationist (and a nutball), I'm not accusing
>> you of being a Holocaust Denier. Likewise, Giwer is a Holocaust Denier
>> (and a nutter) but not a Creationist. You're like wierd mirror-images
>> of each other - you could probably give each other tips in 'how to make
>> up bogus arguments'.
>>
>
> More double-speak: after negates before.
>
It's also obvious you don't know what 'double-speak' is, or how to parse
a cogent argument.
>
> Ray
>
>
> SNIP....
>
--
Bill Hudson
Ray Martinez
sharon1...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > No, it is not what I am saying. In fact I will deny any
> > > linkage between Creationism and Holocaust Denial. Nevertheless,
> > > both groups exhibit common tactics and mindsets when it comes
> > > to ignoring and denying evidence.
> > >
> >
> > Double-speak: third sentence negates second sentence. My point stands:
> > you were and are connecting Creationism with Holocaust denial. When we
> > remember that you are an atheist-Darwinist the attempt is explained
> > instantly.
>
> I can't locate the term on the internet, but I see through the game
> you're playing with people "Ray". It's some type of remote argument
> fallacy -- maybe Red Herring ?? -- where the guy pretends he's dumb and
> throws a lot of diversions into the mix, to confuse the issue.
>
> You know as well as myself and everyone else, he didn't make a
> "connection" between nazis and creationists, ... he simply made a
> comparison.
>
Suppose I had authored the topic and substituted Darwinism for
Creationism retaining everything else; except, adding in the lack of
macro seen in the fossil record ***compared*** to denying the Holocaust
?
The point is that if I had done the above all of you would be making
the same argument that I have made.
Ray
SNIP....
Bill Hudson
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> No, it is not what I am saying. In fact I will deny any
>>> linkage between Creationism and Holocaust Denial. Nevertheless,
>>> both groups exhibit common tactics and mindsets when it comes
>>> to ignoring and denying evidence.
>>>
>> Double-speak: third sentence negates second sentence. My point stands:
>> you were and are connecting Creationism with Holocaust denial. When we
>> remember that you are an atheist-Darwinist the attempt is explained
>> instantly.
>
> I can't locate the term on the internet, but I see through the game
> you're playing with people "Ray". It's some type of remote argument
> fallacy -- maybe Red Herring ?? -- where the guy pretends he's dumb and
> throws a lot of diversions into the mix, to confuse the issue.
A 'red herring' argument is a diversion. What Ray is doing above is
more properly classed as 'poisoning the well'. It is a type of 'ad
hominem' argument, where an attempt is made to discredit an opponent by
the use of an 'ad hominem' in a preemptive strike. In Ray's mind, he
can now safely ignore any further argument DIG cares to make because DIG
has been labeled as an 'atheist-Darwinist'. Unfortunately for Ray that
particular 'poison' has little effect here.
cf: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/poiswell.html
[snipped]
--
Bill Hudson
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Suppose I had
But you didn't so that's completely irrelevant.
Oh wait, that's another Red Herring, isn't it?
Greig was right, wasn't he Ray?
1. Creationists deny reality.
2. Holocaust deniers deny reality.
Despite a thread filled w Red Herrings, everyone understood David
Greig's point from the start, yours however...
and stop *pretending* you're illiterate.
David Iain Greig
>
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> Suppose I had
>
> But you didn't so that's completely irrelevant.
>
> Oh wait, that's another Red Herring, isn't it?
>
> Greig was right, wasn't he Ray?
> 1. Creationists deny reality.
> 2. Holocaust deniers deny reality.
I really wasn't expecting to have a Creationist provide such
clear evidence supporting my hypothesis so quickly and completely,
but there you go.
Anyhow, you all can just ignore him, the only utility of replying
to him was to confirm his adherence to type. That done, he's just
ranting now, so ignore him please.
Ray's just playing 'useful idiot' and his use is over.
--D.
Dana Tweedy
snip
>>
>
> Suppose I had authored the topic and substituted Darwinism for
> Creationism retaining everything else; except, adding in the lack of
> macro seen in the fossil record ***compared*** to denying the Holocaust
> ?
If you had done that, you'd be wrong, as there is plenty of evidence of
macroevolution in the fossil record. People would point out there is no
such association.
>
> The point is that if I had done the above all of you would be making
> the same argument that I have made.
No, Ray, other people are not as logically challenged as you are.
DJT
Bob Casanova
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On 16 Oct 2006 11:12:09 -0700, the following appeared in
>> talk.origins, posted by "Ray Martinez"
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com>:
>> >David Iain Greig wrote:
>> >> LC <LCi...@this.com> wrote:
>> >> > Was there Really a Holocaust?
>> >> Yes.
>> >>
>> >> The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
>> >>
>> >> That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
>> >> and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
>> >> the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
>> >We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
>> >Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this and how
>> >come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
>> >done the same ?
>> He didn't say Creationists had done the same. Perhaps a
>> remedial reading class would help you?
>Don't be naieve Bob, that is exactly what he is saying.
Don't be stupid, Ray, what he posted is right there for all
to see. Pretending that what everyone can read doesn't exist
isn't the brightest thing you could do. Normal for you, I
guess, based on your posts I've read, but still not very
bright.
And no, that's *not* ad hominem; I'm not arguing that your
claim is wrong on the basis of who you are, I'm saying that
your claim is wrong for the reason I gave, and noting in
passing that you're an idiot to be making such a claim.
<CrapSnip>
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Bob Casanova
>David Iain Greig wrote:
<snip>
>> No, it is not what I am saying. In fact I will deny any
>> linkage between Creationism and Holocaust Denial. Nevertheless,
>> both groups exhibit common tactics and mindsets when it comes
>> to ignoring and denying evidence.
>Double-speak: third sentence negates second sentence.
No, it doesn't. Or do the statements "Grass is green" and
"Traffic lights are green" show that traffic lights should
be mowed regularly? You are an idiot.
> My point stands:
>you were and are connecting Creationism with Holocaust denial.
No, he isn't. Ibid.
> When we
>remember that you are an atheist-Darwinist the attempt is explained
>instantly.
There was no such attempt. Ibid.
Ray Martinez
I agree. What David wrote is available for everyone to read. Since he
is a Darwinist like yourself, and since only Darwinists agree, you have
said nothing that David didn't already say.
You and the others are arguing in a circle. Its not a matter of
opinion: a Darwinist connected and compared Creationism with Holocaust
denial. My point is axiomatic: Could we expect Darwinists to say
anything else ?
Of course, if David could secure just one Creationist to agree with him
then the exegesis of his intellectuality seen in the OP would suddenly
appear and the self-evident rant would disappear.
Ray
Walter Bushell
Lee Oswald Ving <leeo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wassamatter Ray - got some Atlantean eels in your shorts?
>
> "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1161022329.686797.60960
> @f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > David Iain Greig wrote:
> >> LC <LCi...@this.com> wrote:
> >> > Was there Really a Holocaust?
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >>
> >> The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
> >>
> >> That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
> >> and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
> >> the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
> >>
> >> --D.
> >
> > We know Darwinist Matt Giwer
>
> Neo-Nazi Giwer.
>
> Claims to be an atheist, too. Considering Hitler outlawed atheist groups,
> it's pretty easy to guess he's a fetid bag of neuroses.
>
> > shows up here and argues against the
> > Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this
>
> Greig knows little loon very well.
>
> > and how
> > come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
> > done the same ?
>
> Well, since David didn't make that claims, I think you're even more
> confused that usual.
>
> > You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
>
> Ahhh...hate to break it to you, but the original Nazis were pretty much
> universally religionists, the majority being Chritians of one sort or
> another. They were pretty well known for making up their own version of
> history.
And science.
--
Divided we stand!
Walter Bushell
sharon1...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
> > Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this and how
> > come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
> > done the same ?
> >
>
> Of course too, you may have been implying *one* Darwinist who denies
> the autrocities committed by the Third Reich, and using that as an
> exception to the rule... therefore, the line of reasoning is, "All
> Evolution and Darwinists ... is the mental state behind being able to
> ignore reality." That is to say, "Creationism is reality". I'm not sure
> if that's what you meant but he was clearly implying both the Holocaust
> denier and Creationist share one thing in common, a denial of
> reality...
> One man's opinion on World War II though, has no bearing on "...the
> fossil record, comparative morphology, comparative embryology,
> comparative biochemistry, molecular biology..."
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/4f412ec1bb003587
> /a21e78040f7a7e97#a21e78040f7a7e97
>
> > You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
> >
> > Ray
>
> It is serious, yes, but innuendo is wrong.
>
> "Innuendo" is used in lawsuits for defamation (libel or slander),
> usually to show that the party suing was the person about whom the
> nasty statements were made or why the comments were defamatory.
> http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=970&bold=%7C%7C%7C%7C
>
> Because what he said is actually true.
Did you know that innuendo is not Italian for suppository?
--
Divided we stand!
DJT
Ray Martinez wrote:
snip
> > Don't be stupid, Ray, what he posted is right there for all
> > to see. Pretending that what everyone can read doesn't exist
> > isn't the brightest thing you could do. Normal for you, I
> > guess, based on your posts I've read, but still not very
> > bright.
> >
>
> I agree. What David wrote is available for everyone to read.
It's too bad then you can't go back and see that you were wrong.
> Since he
> is a Darwinist like yourself, and since only Darwinists agree,
It's not a matter of who "agrees", Ray. Any clear understanding of
English shows that David was not equating holocaust denial with
creationism.
> you have
> said nothing that David didn't already say.
And Ray has said nothing that David did say, but claims that David did.
>
> You and the others are arguing in a circle. Its not a matter of
> opinion:
Hint, whenever Ray says "it's not a matter of opinion", he means it's
his opinion only.
> a Darwinist connected and compared Creationism with Holocaust
> denial.
What David did was to point out that both involve denial of objective
reality.
> My point is axiomatic: Could we expect Darwinists to say
> anything else ?
Yes, one could expect "Darwinists" to say something else, but in this
case, what David said is correct.
>
> Of course, if David could secure just one Creationist to agree with him
> then the exegesis of his intellectuality seen in the OP would suddenly
> appear and the self-evident rant would disappear.
Ray, if you choose to use big words in your posts, it would be in your
best interest to learn what they mean, and how to use them in a
sentence. The above paragraph is gibberish.
DJT
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> I agree. What David wrote is available for everyone to read.
Fact.
[There's one thing I do not like -- a person who sticks out like a sore
thumb, using argument fallacies, and telling blatant lies.] Not only is
everyone clear on what the man said and actually meant, but pausing for
a moment to ask you -- are you clear that everyone knows you're a liar
and can see right through your dishonesty and lies?
> Since he
> is a Darwinist like yourself, and since only Darwinists agree, you have
> said nothing that David didn't already say.
Implying he is a victim of "groupthink" no doubt.
>
> You and the others are arguing in a circle.
Projection.
> Its not a matter of
> opinion: a Darwinist connected
Bald Faced Lie.
> and compared Creationism with Holocaust
> denial.
Only compared the two, and you know that. why do you want people to
think theists are jerks? I do know however, you are one individual, and
you don't represent the majority of Christians (even Creationists).
Most Creationists I know are just as ignorant as you, but they're not
as bullheaded as you. typically don't go on newsgroups, seeking
trouble, picking fights. It's obvious to me you're not here to learn
anything.
My point is axiomatic: Could we expect Darwinists to say
> anything else ?
Your point is pointless and that's all, and everyone knows that
already. Even you.
> Ray
Walter Bushell
sharon1...@yahoo.com wrote:
> You wrote: "I doubt the identification of Mr. Hitler as Christian is
> for Hitler to decide. None of the historic Christian churches would
> claim him. "
The Roman Church did not excommunicate him, and they automatically
excommunicate any (Roman Catholic) woman who gets an abortion or any
Roman Catholic who helps her get an abortion. Apparently excommunication
is no big whoop, and they did not apply it to Hitler.
--
Divided we stand!
sharon1...@yahoo.com
DJT wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> snip
>
> > > Don't be stupid, Ray, what he posted is right there for all
> > > to see. Pretending that what everyone can read doesn't exist
> > > isn't the brightest thing you could do. Normal for you, I
> > > guess, based on your posts I've read, but still not very
> > > bright.
> > >
> >
> > I agree. What David wrote is available for everyone to read.
>
> It's too bad then you can't go back and see that you were wrong.
>
He never misread it to begin with. He's deliberately pretending he's
dyslexic to get everyone off the issue Greig raised (that's why I said
Red Herring) using a distraction to confuse the issue, gets a flame war
going, while he sits back and enjoys watching the Darwinists squirm.
He was never confused. He intended to be wrong, and he was right on
about that. This guy is getting off on these trivial little games he
creates by taking people's words out of context (and pretends he's
actually confused or misread, or didn't understand). Hogwash.
He doesn't need a thing explained to him. He's not here to learn about
science, he's here to mock it.
Save your breath, he already knows everything you're trying to help him
see.
Augray
wrote in <1161109269....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> :
[snip]
>You are also a flaming hypocrite, David. The third sentence condemns
>explicitly the ignoring and denying of evidence....as in the fossil
>record showing no signs of that which a evolutionary theory
>necessitates (transitionality).
In fact, it does, and I'll cite Archaeopteryx and all his buddies as
evidence for that.
[snip]
Matt Silberstein
<pr...@panix.com> in <proto-84D600....@reader2.panix.com>
wrote:
I don't think there is such a thing as automatic excommunication. Do
you know that they actually excommunicate women who get abortions?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
CreateThis
wrote:
>... a Darwinist connected and compared Creationism with Holocaust
>denial.
Answer the question, Ray. What's the shared mental state that allows
both creationists and holocaust deniers to deny manifest reality?
CT
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Lack of conscience. Lack of morality. Lack of empathy. Lack of remorse.
Lack of scruples. Lack of integrity ................. the worst kind of
hypocrisy.
Walter Bushell
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPref...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006 22:24:08 -0400, in talk.origins , Walter Bushell
> <pr...@panix.com> in <proto-84D600....@reader2.panix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <1161041294.9...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > sharon1...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >> You wrote: "I doubt the identification of Mr. Hitler as Christian is
> >> for Hitler to decide. None of the historic Christian churches would
> >> claim him. "
> >
> >The Roman Church did not excommunicate him, and they automatically
> >excommunicate any (Roman Catholic) woman who gets an abortion or any
> >Roman Catholic who helps her get an abortion. Apparently excommunication
> >is no big whoop, and they did not apply it to Hitler.
>
> I don't think there is such a thing as automatic excommunication. Do
> you know that they actually excommunicate women who get abortions?
I read it was automatic by proclamation several years ago.
--
Divided we stand!
Baron Bodissey
I gotta agree. Nobody can be as butt-stupid as Ray appears to be and
still be able to operate a computer well enough to participate in t.o.
I've long wondered why the regulars indulge him and the other idiots,
but then who'd we argue with?
Baron Bodissey
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
nothing but sea.
- Francis Bacon
sharon1...@yahoo.com
May I pretend I am a prophet for a moment?
I prophecy Ray is going to pretend there are no transitional fossils
and that he cannot see the same thing you see.
I have a clue that if you see it, he *can* see it too. And, he does.
There's some people who really prefer a lie over a truth, when even the
truth is better.
He should be addressed, as if he already knows, because he does.
They did an interesting experiment on groupthink once, I read about in
Psychology class once. Half of the participants were unaware they were
under observation. They placed sticks of same length together, and the
group who were in on the experiment were told to lie and say one of the
sticks was longer than the other, though actually they were all the
same length. When the participants who were not aware they were being
observed were brought into the room, and the half attested one of the
sticks were longer -- though their own eyes and reasoning powers were
telling them otherwise, but they repeated exactly what the others said.
Most creationists would do what Ray is doing, they would rather deny
the evidence. They would see what you see, but either for lack of
ability to question or education, would toss the evidence into their
mental file 13... it would not compute and they would avoid a newsgroup
like this. They would feel a little uncomfortable with the info, and
try to put it out of mind, or try to somehow reason away the evidence
into the plan of creation... and come up with some misinformed theory
how it fits in with the bible... or simply as most do, REFUSE to
discuss, and remain blissfully ignorant and discuss what they're having
for dinner, or going fishing, and seeking out company of like-minded
creationists. Normal creationists that is, but Ray is not normal.
Normal creationists would not stay and argue about it. So why does Ray?
Normal creationists might go into a state of denial and reason the
transitionals do not prove evolution (God creating each of them as
separate species), and to avoid any further shaking of their faith
would not stick around to argue it. Issues like these are not pertinent
to salvation they reason. They'd show up at church Sunday morning
un-phazed and less interested than ever to discuss fossils. At least,
the Creationists I know are like that.
Ray meanwhile, knows better than they do. He is not in denial like they
are, he is simply denying what he can see, as well as you do.
In the example of the experiment with the sticks... the group under
observation heard others affirm "The stick appears longer", therefore
they reasoned those guys must actually be seeing something other than
what they were seeing.
Ray sees exactly what you see. Please address all his lies as so. He's
not as dumb as he wants everyone to believe he is.
(I have heard said, that some of the most successful televangelists,
are actually Atheists in disguise, and without a scrap of conscience.
They're in it for the money and absolutely no remorse or fear of the
God they're using the name of to get filthy rich.)
There's some really sick people in this world.
sharon1...@yahoo.com
> are actually Atheists in disguise, and without a scrap of conscience.
> They're in it for the money and absolutely no remorse or fear of the
> God they're using the name of to get filthy rich.)
>
let me re-phrase "actually" to "likely" because I can't prove it -- if
I walked up to Jimmy Swaggart and confronted him face to face about his
faith, he would raise his hands in the air, PRAISE THE LORD! PRAISE THE
LORD! GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN. And everyone sucker enough to fall for
that act. Men of who truly believe in God, and have fear of him don't
commit adultery on their wives...
Jim Bakker
Jimmy Swaggart
Kent Hovind (Tax Evasion charges just today in the news)
Sounds too hard to believe.
Farrell Till...
Dan Barker...
Charles Templeton...
they began to question the bible, their faith, even God.
Out of all the preachers and televangelists.. this tiny fragment ever
questioned?
Or, is it that only a tiny fragment had the conscience to leave the
ministry since they could no longer preach something they no longer
believed in.
> There's some really sick people in this world.
As for Ray, he sees the transitions, just as good as I or anyone else
can. He's a bald-faced liar if he says he doesn't.
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Baron Bodissey wrote:
> > Save your breath, he already knows everything you're trying to help him
> > see.
>
> I gotta agree. Nobody can be as butt-stupid as Ray appears to be and
> still be able to operate a computer well enough to participate in t.o.
> I've long wondered why the regulars indulge him and the other idiots,
> but then who'd we argue with?
Maybe clear the way for some serious questions, by sincere enquirers.
People like Ray, Pastor Dave and JP Holding cloud the issue, and
sometimes I have to remind myself, they really don't represent most
Christians or Creationists.
I'm trying to make sense of his senselessness and ask myself, what he
possibly gets out of lying. There are some people who are compulsive
liars but I don't think that's Ray's case. Big name preachers like
Kennedy and Falwell are in it for money, but Ray isn't getting rich. I
figure he's doing the same thing religious zealots who cut people's
heads off for God's greater glory are, and his heart is in the right
place because he's lying for Jesus.
"Would the partisans of Christ have set out deliberately to lie? Were
they such barefaced charlatans that they concocted falsehoods and
deceits merely to advance themselves and their designs? By their own
admission, YES they were. They may well have been believers, in that
they held to a certain faith. On this was built the fanaticism either
to die, or to kill others, for that faith. But faith absolves the
believer from any fidelity to objective truth."
"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of
the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a
useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would
accept them."
- Martin Luther
(Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel
Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)
'There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common
crowd or an uneducated congregation.'
- St. Jerome (Epistle. lii, 8; p. 93.)
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lying.htm
Walter Bushell
sharon1...@yahoo.com wrote:
We have to know that some people are addicted to the rush produced by
the negative emotions, such as anger, hatred and fear. These work
quickly, unlike benevolence, love and serenity. One can be completely
consumed by the dark side.
--
Divided we stand!
David Iain Greig
>
> Lack of conscience. Lack of morality. Lack of empathy. Lack of remorse.
> Lack of scruples. Lack of integrity ................. the worst kind of
> hypocrisy.
No, I don't think so. I'm newer here than some (t.o since 1992 or so)
but if see something long enough I notice it.
In the Beginning, there was Ted Holden. Ted wasn't a Creationist, but
he did argue that mainstream science was b.s.; his personal views
were Velikovskian/Catastrophist, and thus he denied the 'Standard
Timeline' of geology, as it conflicted with the work of Velikovsky.
This required him to debunk radiodating, planetary orbital dynamics,
etc. Ted was one of the original 'anti-' posters on t.o, and he had
amazing staying power (years and years).
Now, some people used to accuse Ted of being 'a lying fundie' etc. but
over time it became apparent to me that he really, really couldn't be
lying about his beliefs - he wasn't a troll, he was clearly clever (one
of the wittier posters on the group at times), and so there was a
point where I began commenting that I didn't think Ted could be called
a liar, and shouldn't be called a liar - I even asked Tim Thompson,
who more or less was Ted's 'official opponent' if he thought Ted was
'lying' and (IIRC) he said 'no, I think he's just nuts'.
I can't do justice to the effort people took in arguing with Ted -
he's one of the major reasons we even have a FAQ collection, and
his legacy remains in things like 'howler monkey' as a descriptive.
Ted even showed up to a Howlerfest and proved to be, I gather,
quite a nice guy. We never really had any problems with Ted on
the group, he wasn't out of control like so many of the odder posters
we have today.
So, that was a long intro to point out that I do not question the
sincerity of anti-evolutionists. Generally, I think they sincerely
believe their arguments are correct.
There are, of course, people on both sides of the argument who make
invalid or factually wrong arguments - when corrected on facts one
would hope that they would acknowledge the error and move on.
Once a given poster has been corrected on an error of fact (like,
say, a blatant misquote) yet persists in repeating the claim, however,
one may be safe in making an accusation, either of carelessness or
wilful untruthfulness, I think. Certainly after repeated corrections.
But please don't ascribe malice where simple ignorance suffices.
My $0.02.
--D.
macaddicted
Which is true. But there are limitations. First, you have to know before
you receive the abortion that you face excommunication to be
excommunicated. Second, you even if you do know you cannot be
excommunicated if you are forced to receive the abortion. Third, the
fact that you have been excommunicated does not mean you are excluded
from the Church. Usually the excommunication can be canceled in the
confessional by a priest, meaning that there is no need for recourse to
the local Bishop.
--
macaddicted
fides quaerens intellectum
sharon1...@yahoo.com
David Iain Greig wrote:
> sharon1...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > Lack of conscience. Lack of morality. Lack of empathy. Lack of remorse.
> > Lack of scruples. Lack of integrity ................. the worst kind of
> > hypocrisy.
>
> No, I don't think so. I'm newer here than some (t.o since 1992 or so)
> but if see something long enough I notice it.
> quite a nice guy.
I agree with you, there are nice creationists. I'm surrounded with
Creationist neighbors and get along with most of them, having found
other points of shared interest.
You're right about Ted, I'm sure. And my apologies to any Creationists,
including Ted, who may have taken my comment personal.
CreateThis wrote: "What's the shared mental state that allows both
creationists and holocaust deniers to deny manifest reality?"
I did not intend to ascribe malice on "all" creationists (least of
all), even on the first response in the thread, about Holocaust deniers
I stated they (the followers) are brainwashed into deeper and deeper
lines of absurdity (it depends on how far the individual is willing to
be lead) -- I had Ray Martinez on the brain, and some of the holocaust
denial spindoctors like Zundel. Very clever people for which I ascribed
malice.
> But please don't ascribe malice where simple ignorance suffices.
I agree with you. Each person must be judged as an individual.
>
> My $0.02.
>
> --D.
sharon1...@yahoo.com
> CreateThis wrote: "What's the shared mental state that allows both
> creationists and holocaust deniers to deny manifest reality?"
>
> I did not intend to ascribe malice on "all" creationists (least of
> all), even on the first response in the thread, about Holocaust deniers
> I stated they (the followers) are brainwashed into deeper and deeper
> lines of absurdity (it depends on how far the individual is willing to
> be lead) -- I had Ray Martinez on the brain, and some of the holocaust
> denial spindoctors like Zundel. Very clever people for which I ascribed
> malice.
Speaking of Anne Frank earlier in thread, had a belief that basically
most people were good. I share that belief.
The extreme right wingers too, some are badly mislead, good people and
an issue such as the one Zundel and fellow right-wing-extremists (the
leaders and spindoctors) are using, is easy to confuse and turn into a
conspiracy theory. Creationism works in the same fashion, using a
complicated subject, and confusing facts and details.
I still have very little understanding of Globalization, and empathise
with the confusion. People like the ADL could do more to help people
understand what Globalization is, instead of avoiding the discussion or
concentrating on hate issues only. I wasn't born with the mind of an
economist to understand this kind of stuff...
..to which I always say people should see it for themself and try to
draw their own conclusions instead of allowing radicals to think for
them. For years it would have seemed like a conspiracy, because it was
never discussed, then in 2000, PBS released Commanding Heights,
mini-series, with world leaders such as Margaret Thatcher and Bill
Clinton explaining what these internationals reforms are, the history
of them and what they're suppose to be, and how they will impact the
world. It's not exactly a "conspiracy" since people are discussing it,
but Socialism and Globalization are real. The nazis were not completely
delusional, and some of the paranoia was justifiable.
There are perceived problems with the Holocaust; for instance ignorance
by reporters who unwittingly print "Anne died in a gas chamber". It's
perceived as a lie by the followers (who know the cause) as "organized
media", rather than simple ignorance on behalf of an individual
journalist who failed to do some background. Some get involved with the
extreme right, and soon are believing everything and everyone are part
of a great conspiracy.
It's not right to hate even these people, because the extreme right
really does operate like a cult, and uses aggressive brainwashing
tactics to keep people, once they're lured in.
There's also plenty of kooks, and none of the old-timers in that
movement would dispute it, i.e., nazis calling the klan, "ku klux
klowns" and vis versa. Religious view seems one of the more potent
elements that divides them into different ideologues. (Some have nordic
nature religion (Odinism[mostly nazis]) and vast numbers of them have
departed from Christianity because it is seen as a *Jewish* religion,
while some have created theory that Jesus was not a Jew, but an Aryan,
and it was forgeries by Jews (another conspiracy against the Bible --
for instance referring to a forged document [which is claimed to be
archived in the Library of Congress] from early Christianity is one of
the "evidences" they have for Jesus being of Aryan descent.
The document was a forgery.
Henry C. Sheldon, History of the Christian Church
"2 Hist. Eccl. i. 13. A fictitious letter also claimed credence in
later times, purporting to be a communication from Publius Lentulus, a
pseudo-predecessor of Pilate, to the Roman senate. The letter
represents Christ as "a man of lofty stature, of serious and imposing
countenance, inspiring love as well as fear in those who behold Him.
His hair is the color of wine, straight and without lustre as low as
the ears, but thence glossy and curly, flowing upon the shoulders, and
divided down the centre of the head. The forehead is smooth and serene,
the face without blemish, of a pleasant slightly ruddy color; the
expression noble and engaging; nose and mouth of perfect form; the
beard abundant and of the same color as the hair; the eyes blue and
brilliant." 3"
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/sheldon/painting.html
... others [mainly KKK] cling to the Bible and fundamentalist
Christianity for the basis of their racial hatred. There are even some
others, who have some diverse new-age religions they've created to work
around their racism, but creationism of some sort or another, is
prevalent with the majority.
Commanding Heights - The Battle for the World Economy (2002)
"The history and impact of the new global economy are made clear--and
compelling--in Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy.
This three-part, six-hour documentary does an astonishingly thorough
job of dissecting and explaining macroeconomics and their current
political and social importance without ever causing a loss of
consciousness for the viewer. Part 1, The Battle of Ideas, chronicles
the history of economic thought from the start of the 20th century and
its SOCIALIST REFORMS right through the deregulation of the 1980s. Part
2, The Agony of Reform, explores the upheavals that such deregulation
caused, focusing primarily on economic growth and gains and touching
briefly on the wrenching consequences for the poor. Part 3, The New
Rules of the Game, explores the consequences of globalization,
including terrorism and the contagion of market collapse."
http://www.amazon.com/Commanding-Heights-Battle-World-Economy/dp/B00006HAZF/sr=8-1/qid=1161201884/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-5736250-1187916?ie=UTF8
PBS - Commanding Heights
http://www.pbs.org/commandingheights
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> >
> > May I pretend I am a prophet for a moment?
> >
> > I prophecy Ray is going to pretend there are no transitional fossils
> > and that he cannot see the same thing you see.
> >
>
> Darwin admitted and Gould offered an excuse.
I didn't say I was a prophet. I took the liberty of "pretending" to be
a prophet. You of all people should know the difference.
Abt. the macro stuff, I'll leave that up to better educated people than
myself to address.
> Greig and Sharon have likened Creationism to Holocaust denial. Their
> "point" is that both deny the facts of reality.
It's not the Creationism or the Holocaust stuff Ray, it is INDIVIDUAL
MEN who wilfully choose to twist facts and knowingly lie that give both
their reputations to mislead and deceive trusting people... [for power,
influence, money, there's lots of motives that cause men to lie, in
politics, religion, big business]....
But I have already covered that in my last post.
> Everyone agrees that
> persons who deny that the Holocaust happened are brazen liars.
Not necessarily Ray. I covered that in my last post. Some are mistaken
as "Holocaust deniers" for simply saying "Anne Frank died of Typhus" --
to state a truth may warrant a barrage of paranoid insults by those
who do not know anything real about the life of Anne Frank...
it is an extremely touchy, sometimes bizarre, confusing issue. Dr.
Michael Shermer has faced criticism from both extremes because he
published a book which locates the middleground between the Holocaust
Deniers and those who are totally uneducated about the Holocaust (and
haven't an inkling what Holocaust Deniers are talking about (that
includes you Ray).
In fact, to even discuss the issue in depth, is a little un-nerving
because people don't discuss it (sort of like Sex and Fundies) ...
there's extremists on both sides which get extremely defensive, one way
or the other, and quick to hurl personal insults. In all honesty, there
are in fact many, who speak of the Holocaust in a pious way -- hoping
to score brownie points to prove their tolerance to everyone. Like you
are doing. You are disgusted at Revisionists who purposely lie about
historical facts, to stir hatred against Jews, but you are not equally
disgusted when Creationists twist scientific facts to stir hatred
against Darwinists, in that, you are a hypocrite.
Yeah Ray, guess what. The nazis and holocaust deniers DO IN FACT, have
some scraps of truth and that's exactly what makes them influential and
dangerous. They (the leaders) are not complete liars, nor are their
followers "brazen liars". Just like the Creationist, the followers do
truly believe what their leaders have brainwashed them to believe.
For instance, you want a clear comparison between Creationism and
Holocaust Denial lies?
Here's a lie Creationists circulated to convince people the Biblical
nonsense is authentic truth:
Urban Legends Reference Pages: Religion (The Lost Day)
Did NASA scientists discover a 'missing day' in time? ... Twenty-three
hours and 20 minutes in Joshua, plus 40 minutes in Second Kings make
the missing day ...
http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.htm
Do you deny this?
Here's a letter from a fellow for you to read, with emphasis on this:
"You will always have to deal with people who react kneejerk to your
arguments, though; such is life." That's why some have accused Michael
Shermer as having an "agenda". They're not educated enough about the
Holocaust, to provide any kind of adequate defense of it, when they
learn of his book, in fact, they insult the very people who are
actually attempting to address the real issues that are creating the
problem of Holocaust denial (like Shermer). Like the old cliche, road
to hell built on good intentions.
From: Kenneth
To: Sharon
Cc: Edward
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005
Sharon, good work. I skimmed the page, followed some of the links.
It was succinct, pithy and readable.
Holocaust revisionism is not my issue because it comes off as fanatical
and tediously complex. I always thought of it as a black hole -- I
could fall into it, spend my life peeling back the layers, and never
make much headway. But it obviously has an impact on some folk. And
occasionally a revisionist may have uncomfortable questions, wrapped
around an atom of truth.
I thought you faced those questions while making it clear you were not
denying the holocaust itself, the wrong of it, or the horror of it. Nor
were you in any way being pro-Nazi.
You also made clear the real danger of anti-revisionist hysteria.
Treating the "six million" as a holy or magic number, never to be
questioned, <u>actually plays into the hands of the deniers. They need
only cast any doubt on that number to make Holocaust history look like
fraud</u>. But the true moral lesson is not in the six million, of
course, but the simple fact of the death camps, and the idea of racism
and genocide. (You will always have to deal with people who react
kneejerk to your arguments, though; such is life.)
Ed is familiar with a speech by writer Orson Scott Card who made a
similar point about biblical literalists and YE creationists. <u>By
insisting on the precise/literal truth of parts of the Bible, they play
into the hands of atheists</u>. Children grow up enough to perceive the
lie of literalism, often become disillusioned, and throw out the Babe
with the bathwater.
Ironic that everyone "knows" about the six million, while far fewer are
aware of the twenty million killed by Stalin, or the (est.) forty
million by Mao.
- kn
(end of email)
> But this is not the point.
> scientific rivals. Greig and Sharon could have made their point/opinion
> without
> - a biased and predictable dig since
> they are Darwinists.
And you could have just as easily had ignored Greig's so-called
"offensive" post and moved on to another newsgroup. That's how
democracy works.
>
> ....anyway I will let it go.
>
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist, life-long student of
> Dr. Gene Scott
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> Please read the above commentary. It is disheveled and scattered in its
> thoughts. Sharon is clearly angry. This is fine because there is no
> mention of the Holocaust. It is standard Darwinian rant against a
> Creationist.
Ray, everyone on the newsgroup who read the post, apparently had no
problem with the comments I made, including myself. It was written in a
jovial, light-hearted way.
Another one of those ad homs, used as a Red Herring to distract people
off the issues. Your lies tell me, you're getting desperate and
un-nerved.
However light-hearted of normal mainstream creationists, like my
cousin, I overheard her speaking on longevity and without a single
doubt in her credulous mind, loudly tells everyone "the bible says
people lived several hundred years back in the days of Adam" -- I
heard, and I smiled, and I said nothing -- I didn't care to get into an
argument with her. She really does not know any better and I have the
sense to differentiate.
You, however and those who knowingly lie, like Kent Hovind (so-called
PhD, he even lies about his credentials, and where he got them was a
little known homegrown church institution) -- Jonathan Sarfati,
credentials in Chemistry and yet he's all up into Biology, and I know
from personal experience -- GETS VERY RUDE if anyone questions him
--condemning Darwinists in fields he has no authority in, and
criticises anyone who dares question Creationism (their website
contains a statement of belief that's the epitomy of brazen arrogance.)
and people like you -- who like them, lie, wilfully, deliberately. Not
about the issues, but people, you weren't even addressing Creationism
or Evolution --- you knowingly twisted David Greig's words out of
context -- your motive was clear -- to accuse him of something he never
said. Everyone knows this.
Personal insults are sign of a weak argument, and you have no remorse
for your lies.
sharon1...@yahoo.com
Ray Martinez wrote:
> We Creationists hate Darwinism but we do not go
> around desecrating the murder of six-million Jews in order to smear our
> opponents.
Quit trying to play off people's sympathies for the Jews to bring
undeserved validation for your lies and personal insults, and
misconstruing what was said in post #1.
You're doing the same thing, you're accusing Greig of doing. I'm seeing
this.
You're *using* the Jews, you know this? That's unethical. You've
repeated "Jews", so many times until it's clear its not remorse about
Jews, its' just usery of a tragedy to gain sympathy for your lies.
That's what's disgusting -- it's like pouring perfume on a pig.
Anyhow, by now, nobody is believing anything you're saying, Ray...
It's a distasteful subject, so many probably put the thread on kill.
But you are reading and that's what matter, and I'll impart a little
history between you and I. The reason I know so much about nazis,
holocaust denial, and radical racialists -- is because I was raised in
a fundamentalist YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST church (the worldwide church
of god, a cult) who taught specifically, since we worshipped on the
Jewish Sabbath and kept Jewish Holy Days (Passover, Atonement,
Unleavened Bread, Feast of Tabernacles and OT laws) -- Satan was going
to empower the nazis to rise again, unite with the Catholic church, and
persecute the Jews and us -- I grew up in fear "the nazis are coming!
the nazis are coming for you! -- any day its coming, just watch for the
Berlin wall to fall." I was shown pictures of what the nazis did to
jews. I was told horror stories of what was going to happen to us. I
had nightmares of being executed. When I reached early adulthood, I
began researching these people, and unfortunately, having been bred in
the cult (a mentality where you are deprived of ever having freedom to
think for yourself and use critical reasoning skills) all my life -
fell into their traps. Young and nieve, out of fear of what a religious
leader told me, is what drove me to those people in the first place. I
wondered, "WHY" do they hate? "WHY" are they so evil? I wanted to know
if people were really THAT EVIL, as Armstrong was saying.
I've been judged, condemned and cursed for making this mistake. But I
came away better for it.
WWCG was young earth creationist... Herbert W. Armstrong (now deceased
since 1980's) was obsessed with Nazism. I heard it was because he made
a false prophecy back during WWII and when it failed to fulfil, he kept
adding on and revising his "prophetic interpretation" to make it fit
the times, and maintain the faith (and hefty 10% tithes) of blindly
trusting tens and possibly hundreds thousands. Many children were
psychologically abused from his interpretations on prophecy... others
account sitting in school, unable to focus on their work because
they're wondering "is today the day I go home and God has taken my
family away to the place of safety, and I am left alone... where will I
live, what will I wear, what will I eat... will the nazis find out I am
like Jews and keeping the sabbath... and even more questions, than were
psychologically healthy for any young child to be asking.
I was afraid of phantoms put in my mind by a Young Earth Creationist
and self-declared Apostle and FALSE prophet.
I see more connections and correlations between the two than you would
like to know.
Now, I will go in silence and pray to my nameless Deity for you and
your lying soul.
CreateThis
<dgr...@ediacara.org> wrote:
[snip]
>Once a given poster has been corrected on an error of fact (like,
>say, a blatant misquote) yet persists in repeating the claim, however,
>one may be safe in making an accusation, either of carelessness or
>wilful untruthfulness, I think. Certainly after repeated corrections.
>
>But please don't ascribe malice where simple ignorance suffices.
The majority of "creationist" posters on t.o (these days anyway) fit
the above description. But even more importantly, they're not really
creationists as much as they're antievolutionists, so their malice is
a given.
The real creationists are the vast majority of believers who aren't
compelled to attack reality on the internet. These guys are wannabe
social warriors on search and destroy missions in Darwinland.
CT
>
>My $0.02.
>
>--D.
Earle Jones
sharon1...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Ray Martinez wrote:
>
[...]
>
> Personal insults are sign of a weak argument, and you have no remorse
> for your lies.
>
> >
> > ....anyway I will let it go.
> >
> > Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist, life-long student of
> > the Christer huckster, the foul-mouthed womanizer, Dr. Gene Scott.
> > for more, see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6Fqms_Iw8M
Earle Jones
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> Sharon: you have lost your composure. Inability to refute is usually
> the cause of these types of temper tantrums. Basic psychology teaches
> us that we overtly condemn that which we are covertly guilty of the
> most. Since your short spans of commentary are hung up on identifying
> liars via unsupported assertions....
>
> ....anyway I will let it go.
>
> Ray Martinez, Protestant Evangelical Paulinist, life-long student of
> the idiotic womanizing foul-mouthed huckster, Dr. Gene Scott.
Augray
wrote in <1161207647....@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> :
>sharon1...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Augray wrote:
>> > On 17 Oct 2006 11:21:09 -0700, "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com>
>> > wrote in <1161109269....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> :
>> >
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > >You are also a flaming hypocrite, David. The third sentence condemns
>> > >explicitly the ignoring and denying of evidence....as in the fossil
>> > >record showing no signs of that which a evolutionary theory
>> > >necessitates (transitionality).
>> >
>> > In fact, it does, and I'll cite Archaeopteryx and all his buddies as
>> > evidence for that.
>> >
>> > [snip]
>>
>> May I pretend I am a prophet for a moment?
>>
>> I prophecy Ray is going to pretend there are no transitional fossils
>> and that he cannot see the same thing you see.
>>
>
>We know the crust of the Earth shows no signs of macroevolution -
>Darwin admitted and Gould offered an excuse.
In fact, the fossil record does indeed show evidence of macroevolution
(Archaeopteryx for one) and Gould offered and explanation, not an
excuse.
>Charles Darwin:
>"But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on
>an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which
>have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every
>geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
>Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic
>chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection
>which can be urged against the theory."
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote75
>Stephen Jay Gould:
>"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious
>little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major
>groups are characteristically abrupt."
See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-3.html#quote41
>Organisms appear, change slightly over time, then disappear = no
>macroevolution is seen. Geological strata is basically time-lapse
>photography.
No, not really.
>We can see what happened in the mega-past and that did not
>include Darwinian gradualism leading to macroevolution. Why ? Because
>genetic homeostasis is a fact: the "natural barrier that prevents
>mophological change beyond a certain point" (Milton 1997).
Based on my previous experience with Milton, I feel confident that he
doesn't know what he's talking about.
>Stasis is
>confirmed by the fact that no artificial breeding experiment has ever
>breached the barrier, but Darwinists claim that it happens behind our
>backs in the wild nontheless.
And it's been *observed* to happen in the wild.
>Greig and Sharon have likened Creationism to Holocaust denial. Their
>"point" is that both deny the facts of reality. Everyone agrees that
>persons who deny that the Holocaust happened are brazen liars.
Or simply misguided.
>Greig and Sharon assert Creationists are the same in that they deny the
>facts of evolutionary "reality" - what reality since the crust of the
>Earth shows no signs of transitionality ?
The evidence is copious.
>But this is not the point. The point is that we have two Darwinists
>shamelessly using the murder of six-million Jews to attack their
>scientific rivals. Greig and Sharon could have made their point/opinion
>without descerating the memory of victims of genocide in order to get a
>generic dig in about Creationism - a biased and predictable dig since
>they are Darwinists.
>
>Since their point about denying reality fits their treatment of the
>fossil record, which also causes them to deny, I refuse to liken their
>detachment from reality to be on the level of Holocaust denial.
>Reasonable persons can call one another liars without invoking the
>Holocaust and the evil persons who deny.
No need to invoke the Holocaust. But making that observation that
ignoring reality is common to both camps is hardly "using the murder
of six-million Jews to attack their scientific rivals".
>What do I get for offering this view ?
>
>> I have a clue that if you see it, he *can* see it too. And, he does.
>>
>> There's some people who really prefer a lie over a truth, when even the
>> truth is better.
>>
>> He should be addressed, as if he already knows, because he does.
>>
>> They did an interesting experiment on groupthink once, I read about in
>> Psychology class once. Half of the participants were unaware they were
>> under observation. They placed sticks of same length together, and the
>> group who were in on the experiment were told to lie and say one of the
>> sticks was longer than the other, though actually they were all the
>> same length. When the participants who were not aware they were being
>> observed were brought into the room, and the half attested one of the
>> sticks were longer -- though their own eyes and reasoning powers were
>> telling them otherwise, but they repeated exactly what the others said.
>>
>>
>
>> Most creationists would do what Ray is doing, they would rather deny
>> the evidence.
>
>Darwinian-Creationist evidence disagreement is not the issue. The issue
>is that certain Darwinists have exploited the Holocaust to serve their
>hatred of Creationism. We Creationists hate Darwinism but we do not go
>around desecrating the murder of six-million Jews in order to smear our
>opponents.
You mean like this?:
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/9520837ba4f1b148
http://groups.google.ca/group/talk.origins/msg/d3aaab301e7aefa7
>In fact, the attempt does not smear Darwinism as we will not broad
>stroke all Darwinists based on the actions of two misguided Darwinists
>(Greig and Sharon).
[snip]
er...@swva.net
> David Iain Greig wrote:
> > LC <LCi...@this.com> wrote:
> > > Was there Really a Holocaust?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > The really interesting question is 'why do some people deny it?'
> >
> > That sort of behaviour is common to both Creationists
> > and Holocaust deniers - some day I'd like to research it -
> > the mental state behind being able to ignore reality.
> >
> > --D.
>
> We know Darwinist Matt Giwer shows up here and argues against the
> Holocaust. The only mystery is how come you did not know this and how
> come you didn't list the names of the alleged Creationists who have
> done the same ?
Maybe because the topic wasn't Creationists who Deny the Holocaust, but
People who Deny Science are Like People Who Deny the Holocaust?
>
> You make a serious charge by innuendo (= tabloid media).
>
> Ray
A little ability to read can be a dangerous thing.
Eric Roto
XaurreauX
truly wished that they could have joined me there."
It would have been a wasted experience. Anti-Semites and Holocaust
deniers are not interested in facts or history; they are interested in
hate.
SeppoP
Why do I find a marked similarity with fundamentalist religionists?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
XaurreauX
"connection" between nazis and creationists, ... he simply made a
comparison."
It has been my experience on other boards that Creationists tend to be
shameless liars.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by "XaurreauX"
<dennis....@gmail.com>:
Stick around; you'll find nothing here to change that
opinion.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless