Mathis said, "Adolph Hitler was a staunch Darwinist"
James Goetz
scientists and the Nazi ideology. Do you think that approach will draw
criticism?
Mathis: Should we shy away from the truth? People are uncomfortable
that a materialist philosophy can lead to a phenomenon like Nazism.
Just because it makes people uncomfortable doesn't mean we should
leave it out. All the more reason we should leave it in. It's not a
guaranteed outcome, and we're not saying that. But...we know that Adolph
Hitler was a staunch Darwinist, and those ideals consciously drove
him. It was a consequence. The unfortunate thing in this is that there
are far too many people have misappropriated Nazism to their own
agenda. It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome.
See the rest of the interview,
http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/03/28/mark-mathis-interview/
AC
Do you ever notice how everyone who makes these claims seems unwilling or
incapable of actually finding citations by Hitler demonstrating this. Quite
the opposite seems to be true. Hitler seems to have dismissed natural
selection, and the whole idea of racial purity has nothing to do with
evolutionary theory.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
James Goetz
> James Goetz wrote:
> > WoW: In the documentary, you draw a connection between Darwinist
> > scientists and the Nazi ideology. Do you think that approach will draw
> > criticism?
>
> > Mathis: Should we shy away from the truth? People are uncomfortable that
> > a materialist philosophy can lead to a phenomenon like Nazism. Just
> > because it makes people uncomfortable doesn't mean we should leave it
> > out. All the more reason we should leave it in. It's not a guaranteed
> > outcome, and we're not saying that. But...we know that Adolph Hitler was
> > a staunch Darwinist, and those ideals consciously drove him.
>
> tar and feathers?
>
> (BTW Hitler's first name was Adolf, not Adolph)
Well, well, Mathis couldn't even spell "Adolf" right.
> > It was a consequence. The unfortunate thing in this is that there are
> > far too many people have misappropriated Nazism to their own agenda.
> > It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome.
>
> > See the rest of the interview,
>
> >http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/03/28/mark-mathis-interview/
>
> No thanks. Just the bits that you cited made me sick already.
Iain
"Staunch Darwinist"?
He was also a "stuanch round-Earther".
~Iain
Vernon Balbert
produced this interesting bit of text:
> On Mar 28, 9:30 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Staunch Darwinist"?
>
> He was also a "stuanch round-Earther".
Not to mention that he was a firm believer of Newtonian physics what
with all those ballistic weapons he used.
--
I wish I had an answer to that because I'm tired of answering that
question. - Yogi Berra
James Goetz
Mein Kampf suggests that Hitler rejected Darwinism. Hitler said that a
fox will always be a fox and he wasn't talking about cladistics.
Robert J. Kolker
Hitler accepted the myth that Aryans did not descend from the same stock
as the rest of Mankind. Rather, he believed Aryans were the descendents
of divine beings, who through interbreeding had lowered themselves to a
lesser state. He wanted to restore Aryan Divinity through a breeding
program.
Darwin's basic assumption is that all life on earth descended with
modification from one or a few basic life forms long, long ago. Dogs and
Humans have a common anscestor for example.
Bob Kolker
James Goetz
> James Goetz wrote:
> > WoW: In the documentary, you draw a connection between Darwinist
> > scientists and the Nazi ideology. Do you think that approach will draw
> > criticism?
>
> > Mathis: Should we shy away from the truth? People are uncomfortable
> > that a materialist philosophy can lead to a phenomenon like Nazism.
> > Just because it makes people uncomfortable doesn't mean we should
> > leave it out. All the more reason we should leave it in. It's not a
> > guaranteed outcome, and we're not saying that. But...we know that Adolph
> > Hitler was a staunch Darwinist, and those ideals consciously drove
> > him. It was a consequence. The unfortunate thing in this is that there
> > are far too many people have misappropriated Nazism to their own
> > agenda. It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome.
>
> > See the rest of the interview,
>
> >http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/03/28/mark-mathis-interview/
>
> Hitler accepted the myth that Aryans did not descend from the same stock
> as the rest of Mankind. Rather, he believed Aryans were the descendents
> of divine beings, who through interbreeding had lowered themselves to a
> lesser state. He wanted to restore Aryan Divinity through a breeding
> program.
Do you have any references for this? This could be helpful.
> Darwin's basic assumption is that all life on earth descended with
> modification from one or a few basic life forms long, long ago. Dogs and
> Humans have a common anscestor for example.
>
> Bob Kolker- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
stew dean
> you down here once again.
>
> The evolutionists, like Holocaust deniers, are exactly the same. Both
> ignore massive evidence that hurts their causes. Denying the Atheist
> agenda of Nazi Germany and their empowerment via Darwinism is no
> different than those who deny the Holocaust. Both use the same denial
> tactics: lie to ones face. Since Darwinists are bold enough to flip
> God off to His face and assert apes morphed into men nobody should be
> surprised. This is the kind of people that evolutionists are.
>
> "The Third Reich In Power" (2005)
>
> Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.
>
> Page 250: "In July of 1935....a speaker told a meeting of the Nazi
> Students' League in Bernau: 'One is either a Nazi or a committed
> Christian.' Christianity he said, 'promotes the dissolution of racial
> ties and of the national racial community....We must repudiate the Old
> and the New Testaments, since for us the Nazi idea alone is decisive.
> For us there is only one example, Adolf Hitler and no one else.'"
<snip similair quotes>
> Ray Martinez writes:
>
> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's.
Your quotes do not mention Darwin or Evolution. More telling Mein
Campf doesnt either. I'e seen evidence that Darwin's work was on a
black list. On the other hand Mein Campf does mention God an awful lot
- and so does the text above.
Hilter was, to some degree, held as a messiah and much of Hitlers
ideas where based in part on the traditions of the Catholic church,
but at the same time separate form it.
>Since he
> proved that God doesn't exist and since he proved we are just modified
> apes they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
> extinction.
Darwin did not prove god doesnt exist. Darwin said very little about
god in terms of his theories. He himself lost his faith due to his
personal experiences but did come from a religious background. He also
ensured a local school admitted people of divergant faiths so ensuring
freedom of religion. He went out of his way to communicate with
religious people he felt could support his ideas and was very
conscious of the contraverousy of his ideas at the time.
The theory of evolution says nothing about the existance or non
existance of god. People can descide for themselves, and do, if there
is a god or not.
> Darwin was openly racist and held strong superiority
> beliefs. The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
> literally. Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
> deistic" ending of the "Origin".
Darwin could have been a cross dressing devil worshiper who beat old
ladies he saw in the street. Makes not one jot of difference to the
theory of evolution. Likewise Newton was a very nasty bit of work in
many ways but whose twisted genius lead to newtonian physics. Inversly
his genius failed him totally when it comes to his real passion for
alchemy!
> Let the denial and whitewashing begin.
Ray, how do your quotes support your statements?
What exactly are you trying to say? Evolution = atheism? Darwin =
evolution? Hilter = Darwin? Therefore Hitler = atheism?
Hitler started off as a Catholic and there's no sign he lost his faith
in god - in fact the opposite is true. Hilter was not a fan of Darwin
and didnt like the idea of natural selection and is oft quoted as
saying so much.
Frank J
> On Mar 28, 2:30 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> you down here once again.
>
> The evolutionists, like Holocaust deniers, are exactly the same. Both
> ignore massive evidence that hurts their causes. Denying the Atheist
> agenda of Nazi Germany and their empowerment via Darwinism is no
> different than those who deny the Holocaust. Both use the same denial
> tactics: lie to ones face. Since Darwinists are bold enough to flip
> God off to His face and assert apes morphed into men nobody should be
> surprised. This is the kind of people that evolutionists are.
>
> "The Third Reich In Power" (2005)
>
> Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.
>
> Page 250: "In July of 1935....a speaker told a meeting of the Nazi
> Students' League in Bernau: 'One is either a Nazi or a committed
> Christian.' Christianity he said, 'promotes the dissolution of racial
> ties and of the national racial community....We must repudiate the Old
> and the New Testaments, since for us the Nazi idea alone is decisive.
> For us there is only one example, Adolf Hitler and no one else.'"
>
> following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the
> Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally[:]
>
> [']We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian truth[.]
> For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our interceder....We follow not
> Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a Christian, nor a Catholic. I go
> with the SA through thin and thick[']
>
> Not the cross they sang, but 'the swastika is redemption on earth.'"
>
> Page 259: "Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was
> real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than
> substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as
> one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the
> Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi
> beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September
> 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action.
> Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of
> the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a
> world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between
> races and between individuals."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2d1380a92aa827be
>
> Ray Martinez writes:
>
> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's. Since he
> proved that God doesn't exist and since he proved we are just modified
> apes they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
> beliefs. The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
> literally. Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
> deistic" ending of the "Origin".
>
>
Will the "Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's" claim be in your
"scientific" paper?
James Goetz
> On Mar 28, 2:30 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
Hitler rejected the idea that he had common genetic ancestry with
other species of primates. And you agree with Hitler on this.
Rusty Sites
evolution. If you think this backs up your case that the Nazi's were
"staunch Darwinists", then you are truly delusional.
Martin Kaletsch
> On Mar 28, 2:30 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Well James since you have run away from your previous topic I will run
> you down here once again.
>
> The evolutionists, like Holocaust deniers, are exactly the same. Both
> ignore massive evidence that hurts their causes. Denying the Atheist
> agenda of Nazi Germany and their empowerment via Darwinism is no
> different than those who deny the Holocaust.
But wasn't Hitler a Satan worshipper? At least in the last thread on the
topic you claimed exactly that.
What were the Nazis, Atheists or Satanists?
--
Martin Kaletsch
"It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber
Ray Martinez
You snipped the quotes and the entire post. Professor Evans told us
that Hitler based everything on Darwinian science. Again, my point is
obvious: like Holocaust deniers, evolutionists will lie to your face.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ignoring the facts produced by scholarship, while making an
unsupported assertion.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
There is no difference bewteen the two groups except one group knows
who they are serving and the other doesn't care.
Ray
Martin Kaletsch
And out of curiosity:
> "The Third Reich In Power" (2005)
>
> Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.
>
> Page 250: "In July of 1935....a speaker told a meeting of the Nazi
> Students' League in Bernau: 'One is either a Nazi or a committed
> Christian.' Christianity he said, 'promotes the dissolution of racial
> ties and of the national racial community....We must repudiate the Old
> and the New Testaments, since for us the Nazi idea alone is decisive.
> For us there is only one example, Adolf Hitler and no one else.'"
>
> Page 250-51: "The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the
> following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the
> Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally[:]
>
> [']We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian truth[.]
> For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our interceder....We follow not
> Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a Christian, nor a Catholic. I go
> with the SA through thin and thick[']
Can you give me any references for this texts from the book you quote? I'd
like to find the original texts, as the translations seem to be of rather
doubtfull quality. I am not implying that the meaning is altered, it's just
that the NSDAP did not call themselves Nazis in their speeches and the
Hitler youth song is translated to rhyme, which usually cannot be done
without being rather creative.
Rusty Sites
That is a quote out of context, though. Hitler was saying that species
did not interbreed because hybrids are always inferior to the superior
parent. It was in a argument for racial purification. Here is a more
complete quote from "Mein Kampf".
Each animal mates only with one of its own species. The titmouse
cohabits only with the titmouse, the finch with the finch, the stork
with the stork, the field-mouse with the field-mouse, the house-mouse
with the house-mouse, the wolf with the she-wolf, etc.
Deviations from this law take place only in exceptional circumstances.
This happens especially under the compulsion of captivity, or when some
other obstacle makes procreative intercourse impossible between
individuals of the same species. But then Nature abhors such intercourse
with all her might; and her protest is most clearly demonstrated by the
fact that the hybrid is either sterile or the fecundity of its
descendants is limited. In most cases hybrids and their progeny are
denied the ordinary powers of resistance to disease or the natural means
of defence against outer attack.
Such a dispensation of Nature is quite logical. Every crossing between
two breeds which are not quite equal results in a product which holds an
intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. This means
that the offspring will indeed be superior to the parent which stands in
the biologically lower order of being, but not so
high as the higher parent. For this reason it must eventually succumb in
any struggle against the higher species. Such mating contradicts the
will of Nature towards the selective improvements of life in general.
The favourable preliminary to this improvement is not to mate
individuals of higher and lower orders of being but rather to allow the
complete triumph of the higher order. The stronger must dominate and not
mate with the weaker, which would signify the sacrifice of its own
higher nature. Only the born weakling can look upon this principle as
cruel, and if he does so it is merely because he is of a feebler nature
and narrower mind; for if such a law did not direct the process of
evolution then the higher development of organic life would not be
conceivable at all.
So Hitler is espousing some warped out theory of evolution, but it is
nothing like Darwin. The "law" he thinks is so important to evolution
is not a principle of evolution at all but a bastardization of
scientific principles to support his racial theories. He supported more
crackpot science directed toward this end after he was in power.
Glenn
Absolute hogshit. That passage mirrored almost to the detail Darwin's
scientific views. You don't get to proclaim any science you dissaprove
of or want to dissasociate from science, as being "crackpot" science.
Elf M. Sternberg
> Ray Martinez writes:
>
> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's.
"Instigated?" I do not think that word means what you think
it means.
Actually, I note with amusement that you did not quote any
primary sources in you work. Therefore, I will:
For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be
solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our
nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever
really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a
disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the
bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking
care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial
tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this
poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the
Jew, has been banished from our midst.
Speech delivered by Hitler in Salzburg, 7 or 8 August
1920. (NSDAP meeting)
It is one of the greatest revolutions there has ever been in the
world. The Jew will be identified! The same fight that Pasteur and
Koch had to fight must be led by us today. Innumerable sicknesses have
their origin in one bacillus: the Jew! Japan would also have got them
if it had remained open any longer to the Jew. We will get well when
we eliminate the Jew.
Comment by Hitler at a dinner conversation, recorded by his
secretary, Feb 22, 1942
It is quite obvious that it is not Darwinism which inspired
Hitler, but Pasteurization. Yet never once in a million years has it
ever occurred to Ray, or any of his ilk, to question Pasteur and
Koch.
Elf
--
Elf M. Sternberg, Immanentizing the Eschaton since 1988
http://www.pendorwright.com/
Elf's latest stories are available in paperback! Buy
the genderbending novel _Sterlings_, available
now from http://stores.lulu.com/elfsternberg
John Locke
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Well James since you have run away from your previous topic I will run
>you down here once again.
>
>The evolutionists, like Holocaust deniers, are exactly the same. Both
>ignore massive evidence that hurts their causes. Denying the Atheist
>agenda of Nazi Germany and their empowerment via Darwinism is no
>different than those who deny the Holocaust. Both use the same denial
>tactics: lie to ones face. Since Darwinists are bold enough to flip
>God off to His face and assert apes morphed into men nobody should be
>surprised. This is the kind of people that evolutionists are.
>
>"The Third Reich In Power" (2005)
>
>Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.
>
>Page 250: "In July of 1935....a speaker told a meeting of the Nazi
>Students' League in Bernau: 'One is either a Nazi or a committed
>Christian.' Christianity he said, 'promotes the dissolution of racial
>ties and of the national racial community....We must repudiate the Old
>and the New Testaments, since for us the Nazi idea alone is decisive.
>For us there is only one example, Adolf Hitler and no one else.'"
>
>Page 250-51: "The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the
>following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the
>Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally[:]
>
>[']We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian truth[.]
>For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our interceder....We follow not
>Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a Christian, nor a Catholic. I go
>with the SA through thin and thick[']
>
>Not the cross they sang, but 'the swastika is redemption on earth.'"
>
>Page 259: "Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was
>real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than
>substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as
>one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the
>Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi
>beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September
>1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action.
>Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of
>the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a
>world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between
>races and between individuals."
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2d1380a92aa827be
>
>Ray Martinez writes:
>
>Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's. Since he
>proved that God doesn't exist and since he proved we are just modified
>apes they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
>extinction. Darwin was openly racist and held strong superiority
>beliefs. The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
>literally. Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
>deistic" ending of the "Origin".
>
>Let the denial and whitewashing begin.
>
Hogwash. Hitler didn't need Darwinism to create an ideology that led
to the deaths of millions. He was psychopath. Darwin or not this jerk
and his legion of thugs would have killed people.
Anti-evolutionists often make the claim that Darwin was racist,
as if somehow a racist stance would invalidate his scientific
discoveries. These claims have repeatedly been shown to be incorrect
characterizations, generally involving selective quoting (and editing)
of Darwin’S writings out of context, a practice referred to as quote
mining.
You are trying to invalidate evolution by blaming evolution for
Hitler's crimes and by characterizing Darwin as a racist. Your twisted
thinking won't work.
The bottom line :
Evolution does work and is backed up by solid scientific evidence.
Creationists have no evidence other than a bunch of nonsensical
ancient scriptures.
"It is far better to grasp the Universe
as it really is than to persist in delusion,
however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
stew dean
> On Mar 29, 11:38 am, stew dean <stewd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 29 Mar, 18:00, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Your quotes do not mention Darwin or Evolution.
>
> Because you snipped them, how convenient. From the same link pasted
> above:
>
> Page 259: "Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was
> real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than
> substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as
> one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the
> Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi
> beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September
> 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action.
> Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of
> the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a
> world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between
> races and between individuals."
>
> The only point I am making is that like Holocaust deniers,
> evolutionists will lie to one's face. Stew saw and read the quote yet
> he lies to your face when he said: "Your quotes do not mention Darwin
> or evolution."
Nope, missed that bit. I scanned not read.
>
> > More telling Mein
> > Campf doesnt either.
>
> Book was written before Hilter converted to Darwinism. His speech in
> 1938 (see above quote) tells us this.
Did Hitler really say "the German race and its future in a world ruled
by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition"? I very much doubt
it. What he did say in his speech in 1938 was...
"Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for
that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is
the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so
far as they are known to us men."
I think this was what was paraphrased. Appears to mean something
different when you hear it directly.
He also said.
"The State should consecrate it as an institution which is called upon
to produce creatures made in the likeness of the Lord and not create
monsters that are a mixture of man and ape. "
This was from Mein Campf and you can find it yourself by doing online
searches. Looks like Hitler was a creationist.
In 1945 he said...
"God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we
are defending His work. ..."
So looks like he remained a creationist.
Oh he also said in 1941...
"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."
Check 'em. They're accurate. Looks like I've got you check mated.
> But we never expected Darwinists to admit that Nazism were practicing
> Atheists and Darwinists. The whole point here is to show denialism via
> straight out lying while ignoring the evidence.
Now who's been ignoring the evidence? Got a whole bunch of quotes,
direct quotes, that shows that Hitler was a Catholic and a
creationist.
Check. Mate.
Stew Dean
Rusty Sites
Absolute hogshit. Show where Darwin said anything like this. Time to
put up or shut up.
> You don't get to proclaim any science you dissaprove
> of or want to dissasociate from science, as being "crackpot" science.
>
I only call crackpots crackpots and you are a crackpot. Let's see those
Darwin quotes that show he said anything about "higher" species beating
out "lower" species. Let's see where Darwin stated anything like
Hitler's "law" of nature. You believe the strawman TOE put forward by
creationists is the actual TOE.
stew dean
Then the Prof is wrong or you have quoted him out of context (more
likely).
Got some more quotes..
"The Church's interests cannot fail to coincide with ours alike in our
fight against the symptoms of degeneracy in the world of to-day, in
our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic
movement, against criminality, and in our struggle for the
consciousness of a community in our national life, for the conquest of
hatred and disunion between the classes, for the conquest of civil war
and unrest, of strife and discord." August 1934
Looks like he was as anti atheists as you.
"We have suffered so much that it only steels us to fanatical resolve
to hate Our enemies a thousand times more and to regard them for what
they are destroyers of an eternal culture and annihilators of
humanity. Out of this bate a holy will is born to oppose these
destroyers of our existence with all the strength that God has given
us and to crush them in the end." Feb 1945
Like I said, got plenty more direct quotes.
You can apologise now if you want.
Stew Dean
stew dean
Hitler was staunchly anti atheists.
"...our fight against the Bolshevist culture, against an atheistic
movement,..." Hitler 1934
Stew Dean
J. J. Lodder
So he ordered a desert fox to commit suicide
for fear he might evolve into a Fuehrer,
Jan
Glenn
or not you think I am a crackpot or not has no bearing on whether you
can get away with proclaiming certain claims made in the name of
science as being crackpot science. You might divorce Darwin from
current evolutionary theory but you can not separate Darwin from his
explanations. You're clearly a denialist. He did speak of higher
species beating out lower species, and used many words such as "laws",
"Nature", "struggle", and other concepts which mirror in quite similar
context and manner to those found above. This is so basic, there is no
need to repeat or repost some of the claptrap Darwin wrote, only to
have you continue practicing denial of what is quite well
established.
Ye Old One
The reality, Dishonest Ray, is that Hitler and the main movers in the
Nazi party were Christians.
Hitler did not like catholics, that is true, but he hated atheist even
more.
He would have loved you Dishonest Ray, his christian beliefs were
almost as divorced from reality as yours.
--
Bob.
RAM
He is referring to this: "Let's see those Darwin quotes that show he
said anything about "higher" species beating out "lower" species.
Let's see where Darwin stated anything like Hitler's "law" of nature."
You didn't do anything other than reassert your original claim.
I'd like to see you document this Hitler-Darwin evolutionist mirror.
Was all the posturing in this post to avoid backing up your claim.
> idiot.
> Whether
> or not you think I am a crackpot or not has no bearing on whether you
> can get away with proclaiming certain claims made in the name of
> science as being crackpot science. You might divorce Darwin from
> current evolutionary theory but you can not separate Darwin from his
> explanations. You're clearly a denialist. He did speak of higher
> species beating out lower species, and used many words such as "laws",
> "Nature", "struggle", and other concepts which mirror in quite similar
> context and manner to those found above. This is so basic, there is no
> need to repeat or repost some of the claptrap Darwin wrote, only to
> have you continue practicing denial of what is quite well
> established.
I'd love to see "some of the claptrap Darwin wrote," reflected in the
Hitler mirror.
If it is so basic you should have not trouble documenting it.
Denial sounds "as if thou doth protest to much."
RAM
Anthropus
>> Page 250-51: "The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the
>> following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the
>> Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally[:]
>>
>> [']We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian truth[.]
>> For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our interceder....We follow not
>> Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a Christian, nor a Catholic. I go
>> with the SA through thin and thick[']
>>
>> Not the cross they sang, but 'the swastika is redemption on earth.'"
You do know, don't you, that none of those rhymes would actually work in
German...? In other words, the original text has to be *very different* from
the one you posted...
Care to let us see what it *actually* said, cupcake...?
Don't tell me: you actually think that the Hitlerjugend, like the Psalmists,
composed poems in English...?
M.
hersheyh
That isn't what you need, Ray. Someone else claiming that Hitler was
a Darwinist (rather than a Mendelistic racist who believed in
intelligently designed evolution rather than natural selection) is NOT
a *direct quote* from the Nazi bastard himself. If we were to accept
someone else's word for it, any lying SOB of a loud-mouthed
televangelist could claim that Ray Martinez was a non-Christian.
Ray Martinez
You missed the point, Howard.
What evos like yourself say and what scholars publish are always in
conflict. You too have ignored the evidence. We never expect
Darwinists to admit that the Nazi's were Darwin's greatest converts.
We are showing that Darwinists lie just like Holocaust deniers.
Ray
Rusty Sites
Here is what Evans had to say in "The Coming of the Third Reich".
Borrowing eclectically from Nietzsche, Langbehn, Darwin, Treitschke and
other writers, and frequently vulgarizing their ideas in the process,
wrenching them out of context, or simplifying them to the point of
unrecognizability, the Pan-Germans and their nationalist allies founded
their ideology on a world-view that had struggle, conflict, 'Aryan'
ethnic superiority, antisemitism and the will to power as its core beliefs.
Doesn't sound like he is saying that the ideology adopted by Hitler was
based entirely on "Darwinian science". I doubt Dr. Evans would agree
with your premise. In case you have not figured it out, social
Darwinism was not scientific. It was an attempt to apply some of the
tenants of Darwin's theory where they did not apply.
Rusty Sites
That much is obvious. You have no idea what Darwin's theory was about
nor the Nazi's racial theories either.
> Whether
> or not you think I am a crackpot or not has no bearing on whether you
> can get away with proclaiming certain claims made in the name of
> science as being crackpot science.
If one knows what the science actually is, one can determine when
somebody has twisted it beyond recognition. Of course, you wouldn't
know about that. Interesting to find you defending Hitler's and the
other Nazis' racial "science".
> You might divorce Darwin from
> current evolutionary theory but you can not separate Darwin from his
> explanations.
I am not doing any such thing. I just happen to know what Darwin's
explanations actually were.
> You're clearly a denialist. He did speak of higher
> species beating out lower species,
Hogshit. He said no such thing. Now put up or shut up.
> and used many words such as "laws",
> "Nature", "struggle", and other concepts which mirror in quite similar
> context and manner to those found above.
I call bullshit.
> This is so basic, there is no
> need to repeat or repost some of the claptrap Darwin wrote, only to
> have you continue practicing denial of what is quite well
> established.
You won't put up any such quotes because there aren't any. You are
simply a liar.
>
>
Glenn
any evidence or historical perspective from anyone, no matter who,
that will endanger his denialism. Evans is a well known historian, who
you quoted (added below) and is clearly implicating Darwin's
"competition between races and between individuals":
> > "The real core of Nazi
> > beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September
> > 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action.
> > Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of
> > the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a
> > world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between
> > races and between individuals."
It is quite peculiar that Howard demands no less than what he thinks
would be absolute evidence, a "direct quote", similar to Hitler
claiming "I am a Christian". Would he, were one provided (it has),
accept that as he apparently accepts direct quotes, I wonder.
Greg Guarino
>There is no difference bewteen the two groups except one group knows
>who they are serving and the other doesn't care.
"In July of 1935....a speaker told a meeting of the Nazi
Students' League in Bernau: 'One is either a Nazi or a committed
Christian.'
These two statements reflect an eerily similar mindset, to wit: "There
are only two kinds of people in the world, *my* kind, and everyone
else. Any differences among the "everyone else" are superficial.
In my experience, people come in a dizzying variety of combinations.
To deny that betrays a sort of mental cowardice, outward bravado
notwithstanding.
Greg Guarino
Lee Jay
What difference does it make?
Whether a raging lunatic like Hitler or yourself believes Evolution or
Atheism are evil is completely irrelevant to reality.
The fact is, Evolution is an observed phenomena, that Humans have been
using to their advantage since before the time of Moses. We have
entire industries that are based on the principals that underly the
theory of Evolution, and those industries have operated successfully
for centuries.
If some future lunatic comes along and kills millions because he
believes Kepler's laws are evil, I guarantee the orbits of the planets
will not change.
As long as you continue to deny the observed fact of Evolution - that
populations can change over time, sometimes drastically - you'll
continue to be nothing but a laughing stock, just like the flat-
Earthers, and you'll be fully deserving of that fate because you're
denying the existence of reality.
Lee Jay
AC
Evasion noted. You're going downhill fast, Glenn. You can't even seem to
quote mine anymore.
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
fnor
hersheyh
I did not miss the point. You did. You claim to have evidence that
Hitler explicitly said he was a "Darwinist". I have no doubt that,
like all the racist Mendelists of his time (I correctly call eugenics
"intelligently designed animal breeding") cohort, Hitler believed in a
*perversion* of evolution, *just* like he believed in the perversion
of Christianity that considered Jews to be merely conversion-fodder or
pogrom-fodder if they didn't convert. Specifically, he believed that
intentional intervention by the appropriate intelligent designers
(namely Aryans who thought like he did) was necessary to prevent the
pollution of what these intelligent designers called "lower
races" [note: the very idea of "lower races" is a fall-back to the
false idea of a "ladder of progress"]. His *choice* of scapegoat
race, of course, was entirely based on which groups were most likely
to assist his attempt to gain power.
But, and I repeat, eugenics is "intelligently designed animal
breeding". It has nothing to do with *natural* selection. It has
nothing to do with *speciation*. It has to do with a small group of
individuals that thought that they were "intelligent designers" that
could breed better humans than nature could. In fact, they claimed
that unless they helped nature along, the human species would not
become better adapted to local conditions as natural selection would
naturally produce, but would degrade into degenerate hybrids. That
idea is pseudo-Darwinism, just as Hitler's evocation of Gott is pseudo-
Christianity. Just as many a Southern Baptist preacher's
glorification of segregation and the inferior status of blacks (Bob
Jones University, for example) was neither real Darwin nor real
Chistianity.
I certainly do not doubt that Hitler *claimed* that science (and, in
particular, a primitive form of racial genetics that was 'common
knowledge' among American Southern Baptists and Christian Klu Klux
Klanners) as as well as Gott was on his side. Hitler was wrong. The
eugenicists of America and Britain and Japan and many other countries
*also* swallowed this racial genetics and the non-evolutionary idea of
"higher" and "lower" races. They also were wrong. But racism had
existed well before Hitler and permeated the Christian community and
every other aspect of society.
All I would claim is NOT that Hitler did not justify his ideas by
invoking both Christianity and science (he did). It is that he was
wrong about both. His ideas were and are both anti-science (including
evolution and genetics) and anti-Christian when both are properly
understood. There is no question that he exploited both religious
bigotry (and other forms of bigotry) and also put a pseudoscientific
and pseudoreligious veneer on his ideas.
hersheyh
If he did, I would demand that there be as much evidence that he
understood the principles of evolution (as they were understood at the
time and as they are understood today) rather than, like his use of
religion, merely parroting things that sounded good to acheive his
ends.
It certainly is possible that he thought that "intelligently designed
[I am using the term ironically] animal breeding" was what evolution
is. He may even have ascribed his ideas about "intelligently designed
animal breeding" to Darwin. That doesn't, of course, make it so.
Intelligently designed animal breeding was well known before Darwin.
Darwin's insight was that there was non-intelligently designed (aka,
natural) animal breeding. It makes more sense to blame simplistic
genetic ideas, that ascribed all sorts of cultural traits (laziness,
criminality) to simple single genes.
DJT
> On Mar 28, 2:30 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@yahoo.com> wrote:
snip
> Well James since you have run away from your previous topic I will run
> you down here once again.
Ray, you have fled the topics you have started, and are presently
running away from the evidence of evolution.
>
> The evolutionists, like Holocaust deniers, are exactly the same. Both
> ignore massive evidence that hurts their causes.
What "massive evidence", Ray? Will you run away from providing
that, like you've run away from providing evidence for your other
claims?
> Denying the Atheist
> agenda of Nazi Germany and their empowerment via Darwinism is no
> different than those who deny the Holocaust.
Ray, the Nazis didn't have an "atheist agenda". Most of them thought
they were doing God's will.
> Both use the same denial
> tactics: lie to ones face.
Then why is that you are the one lying?
> Since Darwinists are bold enough to flip
> God off to His face and assert apes morphed into men nobody should be
> surprised. This is the kind of people that evolutionists are.
Humans are apes, and how does acknowledging that fact "flip off"
God?
>
> "The Third Reich In Power" (2005)
>
> Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J. Evans.
>
> Page 250: "In July of 1935....a speaker told a meeting of the Nazi
> Students' League in Bernau: 'One is either a Nazi or a committed
> Christian.' Christianity he said, 'promotes the dissolution of racial
> ties and of the national racial community....We must repudiate the Old
> and the New Testaments, since for us the Nazi idea alone is decisive.
> For us there is only one example, Adolf Hitler and no one else.'"
Who was that speaker? Was that actually Nazi policy, or just his
own opinion?
>
> Page 250-51: "The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the
> following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the
> Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally[:]
>
> [']We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian truth[.]
> For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our interceder....We follow not
> Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a Christian, nor a Catholic. I go
> with the SA through thin and thick[']
>
> Not the cross they sang, but 'the swastika is redemption on earth.'"
>
> Page 259: "Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was
> real enough, but it was for the most part more a matter of style than
> substance. 'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as
> one historian has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the
> Christian tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi
> beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September
> 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action.
> Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of
> the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a
> world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between
> races and between individuals."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/2d1380a92aa827be
>
> Ray Martinez writes:
>
> Sorry James, but Darwin instigated and empowered the Nazi's.
No, Ray, he didn't. What instigated the Nazis was the economic and
social hardships following the first world war. What "empowered" them
was the failure of the Weimar republic.
>Since he
> proved that God doesn't exist and since he proved we are just modified
> apes they behaved accordingly and selected their enemies for
> extinction.
Darwin did not "prove" that God did not exist. The Nazis killed
their victims for political, social, and religious reasons. It had
nothing to do with the theory of evolution.
> Darwin was openly racist and held strong superiority
> beliefs.
Darwin was no more racist than others of his time, and whatever his
beliefs were, they are irrelevant to the science of evolution.
>The Nazi's accepted Darwin's findings and carried them out
> literally.
If they had carried them out literally, they would have promoted
variation in the genome, not attempted genocide.
> Apparently they were not fooled or swayed by the "pro-
> deistic" ending of the "Origin".
Darwin was not attempting to "fool" anyone with his ending. He was
expressing his religious beliefs.
>
> Let the denial and whitewashing begin.
Ray, your own denial of the truth is already well known
DJT
DJT
Why should anyone "admit" something that's not true. The Nazis
weren't "converts" to "Darwin". They had a very perverted idea, based
more on eugenics than Darwin.
> We are showing that Darwinists lie just like Holocaust deniers.
You (singlular) have not shown that "Darwinists" lie. You have shown
that you lie.
DJT
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> The evolutionists, like Holocaust deniers, are exactly the same. Both
> ignore massive evidence that hurts their causes. Denying the Atheist
> agenda of Nazi Germany and their empowerment via Darwinism is no
> different than those who deny the Holocaust.
Strange how all that "massive evidence" against science, very unlike that
supporting the holocaust, evaporates faster than a snowball in a blast
furnace once it suffers a thorough scientific examination.
Also strange why that regime with an "atheist agenda" had "gawd with us"
inscribed on the belt buckles of its soldiers, did literally nothing
against the churches in the country, even set up its own version of the
jebus cult to support the moustached monster and its reign of terror, et
cetera, ad nauseam.
Ooops. Now I brought you into contact with reality. Quick, run to your
brainwashing institute (read: church) and get another fix!
And we all know that you will not even try to reply to this posting (and
others like it). You have lost already. We know it. YOU know it.
Doesn't it suck to never be able to win, hmmmmm?
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
Glenn
Glenn
How the hell is it obvious that I have no knowledge of what you might
be referring to as the "creationist strawman TOE"??
But as to "no" idea what Darwin's theory was about, you are grasping
at straws. Big time.
>
> > Whether
> > or not you think I am a crackpot or not has no bearing on whether you
> > can get away with proclaiming certain claims made in the name of
> > science as being crackpot science.
>
> If one knows what the science actually is, one can determine when
> somebody has twisted it beyond recognition. Of course, you wouldn't
> know about that. Interesting to find you defending Hitler's and the
> other Nazis' racial "science".
Holy crap! Thanks for that one, you should try to incorporate this
type of bullshit in each post you make. It may catch my attention and
rather than dismiss your raving lunatic whining, I may respond once in
a while. So I defend Nazi's racial science, but as you said above,
"have no idea about Nazi's racial ideas". What a hoot. But this just
gets better. According to you, I am defending the Nazi's science
because I claimed that what Hitler said mirrors what Darwin said.
>
> > You might divorce Darwin from
> > current evolutionary theory but you can not separate Darwin from his
> > explanations.
>
> I am not doing any such thing. I just happen to know what Darwin's
> explanations actually were.
You don't even appear to understand what Hitler was talking about.
>
> > You're clearly a denialist. He did speak of higher
> > species beating out lower species,
>
> Hogshit. He said no such thing. Now put up or shut up.
I already have, not that I give a shit about your schoolyard tactics.
>
> > and used many words such as "laws",
> > "Nature", "struggle", and other concepts which mirror in quite similar
> > context and manner to those found above.
>
> I call bullshit.
You are full of bullshit.
>
> > This is so basic, there is no
> > need to repeat or repost some of the claptrap Darwin wrote, only to
> > have you continue practicing denial of what is quite well
> > established.
>
> You won't put up any such quotes because there aren't any. You are
> simply a liar.
>
Coming from you that is a compliment. You've participated in other
threads that discuss the same issues, and you should know, even if I
had not already told you, that they (some actually) have already been
posted and explained. And I've already explained to you that you
wouldn't accept any evidence, no matter how obvious. You're a
denialist. You've been put up and shut up already, buttwipe.
Martin Kaletsch
> On Mar 29, 12:17 pm, Martin Kaletsch <mano...@gmx.de> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > The evolutionists, like Holocaust deniers, are exactly the same. Both
>> > ignore massive evidence that hurts their causes. Denying the Atheist
>> > agenda of Nazi Germany and their empowerment via Darwinism is no
>> > different than those who deny the Holocaust.
>>
>> But wasn't Hitler a Satan worshipper? At least in the last thread on the
>> topic you claimed exactly that.
>> What were the Nazis, Atheists or Satanists?
>>
>
> There is no difference bewteen the two groups except one group knows
> who they are serving and the other doesn't care.
That would be a big difference, I think. Even if you were right and Atheists
were deceived by some demonic agency, while believing themselves free from
any supernatural influence, they still would differ greatly from satanists
who knowingly and willingly worship evil.
So, do you think the NSDAP-elite were consciously worshipping Satan or were
they unknowingly doing his work?
stew dean
Hey Ray,
Want some more quotes that shows that Hitler was a Creationist? I'll
even give you the original German.
From Hitler's Tischgespraeche for the night of the 25th to 26th 1942
'Woher nehmen wir das Recht zu glauben, der Mensch sei nicht von
Uranfaengen das gewesen , was er heute ist? Der Blick in die Natur
zeigt uns, dass im Bereich der Pflanzen und Tiere Veraenderungen und
Weiterbildungen vorkommen. Aber nirgends zeigt sich innherhalb einer
Gattung eine Entwicklung von der Weite des Sprungs, den der Mensch
gemacht haben muesste, sollte er sich aus einem affenartigen Zustand
zu dem, was er ist, fortgebildet haben.'
Translation...
From where do we get the right to believe that man was not from the
very beginning what he is today? A glance in Nature shows us, that
changes and developments happen in the realm of plants and animals.
But nowhere do we see inside a kind, a development of the size of the
leap that Man must have made, if he supposedly has advanced from an
ape-like condition to what he is'
Direct quote. Hitler was a creationist at least when it comes to
Humans.
Stew Dean
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mar 29, 5:37 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 3:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 29, 12:15 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > You have posted absolutely nothing about the Nazi's view on Darwin or
>> > > evolution. If you think this backs up your case that the Nazi's were
>> > > "staunch Darwinists", then you are truly delusional.
>>
>> > You snipped the quotes and the entire post. Professor Evans told us
>> > that Hitler based everything on Darwinian science. Again, my point is
>> > obvious: like Holocaust deniers, evolutionists will lie to your face.
>>
>> > Ray
>>
>> That isn't what you need, Ray. Someone else claiming that Hitler was
>> a Darwinist (rather than a Mendelistic racist who believed in
>> intelligently designed evolution rather than natural selection) is NOT
>> a *direct quote* from the Nazi bastard himself. If we were to accept
>> someone else's word for it, any lying SOB of a loud-mouthed
>> televangelist could claim that Ray Martinez was a non-Christian.
>
>You missed the point, Howard.
>
>What evos like yourself say and what scholars publish are always in
>conflict.
That is a very stupid statement, even by your usual standards
Dishonest Ray.
>You too have ignored the evidence. We never expect
>Darwinists to admit that the Nazi's were Darwin's greatest converts.
Because it just isn't true. Sure, by the 1930s there were very few
intelligent people who did not accept Darwin's ToE, and Germany was
certainly not bereft of intelligent people. But the Nazis (notice
correct spelling moron, it is plural not possessive) were christians
and so, in general, were below the average intelligence level at the
time.
>We are showing that Darwinists lie just like Holocaust deniers.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.
AC
Further evasions noted.
AC
Evasion noted.
Glenn
Glenn
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:55:41 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
>
>
RAM
Further diversionary tactic noted
RAM
RAM
> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:55:41 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
>
> fnor
Diversionary tactic noted.
RAM
RAM
Sorry AC I hit the wrong reply button. This was intended for Glenn.
RAM
KlausH
> On Mar 30, 9:05 am, AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 23:09:06 -0700 (PDT),
>>>> If one knows what the science actually is, one can determine when
AC evaded nothing. He stated the obvious, that you lied and can not
produce any actual quotes from Hitler or Darwin to support your
assertion. Hitler NEVER praised Darwin or announced policies directly
based on Darwin's Theory of Evolution. In fact, several of Darwin's
books were banned. Also, Hitler, as well as most of the NAZI leaders,
professed to be a Christian and often claimed to be doing God's will. He
frequently praised God in speeches, as well as Mein Kampf. He hated
atheists. One of the main NAZI slogans was "God is with us!" (Gott mit Uns).
Charles Darwin, on the other hand, NEVER advocated genocide, and when he
mentioned "races", the context usually made it quite clear he was
talking about species.
Klaus
Glenn
Glenn
Glenn
Cj
news:db534cae-3351-48fe...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 29, 5:37 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 3:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 29, 12:15 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > You have posted absolutely nothing about the Nazi's view on Darwin or
>> > > evolution. If you think this backs up your case that the Nazi's were
>> > > "staunch Darwinists", then you are truly delusional.
>>
>> > You snipped the quotes and the entire post. Professor Evans told us
>> > that Hitler based everything on Darwinian science. Again, my point is
>> > obvious: like Holocaust deniers, evolutionists will lie to your face.
>>
>> > Ray
>>
>> That isn't what you need, Ray. Someone else claiming that Hitler was
>> a Darwinist (rather than a Mendelistic racist who believed in
>> intelligently designed evolution rather than natural selection) is NOT
>> a *direct quote* from the Nazi bastard himself. If we were to accept
>> someone else's word for it, any lying SOB of a loud-mouthed
>> televangelist could claim that Ray Martinez was a non-Christian.
>
> You missed the point, Howard.
>
> What evos like yourself say and what scholars publish are always in
> Darwinists to admit that the Nazi's were Darwin's greatest converts.
>
> Ray
>
Still tweaking the intelligent are you?
Dana Tweedy
> On Mar 29, 6:34 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
snip
>> I doubt he missed the point, Ray. His intention clearly is to minimize
>> any evidence or historical perspective from anyone, no matter who,
>> that will endanger his denialism.
>
> Yes, that is the point - here. We do not expect Darwinists to admit
> that Darwin's theory empowered Nazism because they have denied and
> because they must deny.
They "deny" because it's not true. The Nazis didn't need any "empowerment"
to be racist and engage in genocide. Those already existed before Darwin,
and without a theory of evolution, they would have done the same.
> The point is that we are showing how denialism
> works. No matter how clear the evidence and logic Darwinists will deny
> via the same tactics used by Holocaust deniers.
The difference being that there is plenty of evidence to support evolution,
and none to support holocaust denial.
>
> A larger point is that if Darwinists would lie in face of massive
> undisupted evidence then just think what they do with complicated
> scientific evidence?
It's not the "Darwinists" who are lying here. You haven't presented any
"massive undisputed evidence", just some opinions, and assertions.
>
> I had pointed out and suggested early on that Darwinists should admit
> the influence THEN argue that their theory has gone on to flourish
> positively thus negating the poison of the Nazi's.
The theory of evolution has "flourished" because it's the best explanation
for the evidence. The Nazis would have committed their atrocities
whether or not there was a theory of evolution. The 'poison' of the Nazis
is just as applicable to creationism as it is to evolution.
> I said this in the
> context of reminding that Martin Luther was a vile anti-semite (for
> theological reasons, nor racial)
Actually, Luther was antisemetic for both reasons.
> and his reputation is not perceived
> negatively but just the opposite. He is the Father of the Reformation
> and civil rights pioneer Martin Luther King Jr. is proud of his entire
> name having unleashed positive change equal to Luther.
Which is irrelevant to the point. Luther's type of antisemitism had much
more to do with the Nazis than Darwin's scientific theory.
>
> But the Darwinists have chosen the path of intelligence insulting
> denialism, which, of course, puts them on par with Holocaust denial.
Speaking of "denialism", Ray, are you still denying that KNM WT 15000 is a
transitional fossil?
> Why would anyone trust these same persons with communicating
> scientific truth?
Because those "same persons" have the evidence on their side. You have
yourself demonstrated a callous attitude toward truth that doesn't match
your beliefs. Why should anyone believe what you claim?
>
>> Evans is a well known historian, who
>> you quoted (added below) and is clearly implicating Darwin's
>> "competition between races and between individuals":
>
> "The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in
> his speech of September 1938 in science - a Nazi view of science - as
> the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the
> interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German
> race and its future in a
> world ruled by the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between
> races and between individuals."
However that's a misstatement of Darwin's ideas about competition. Whether
it was the Nazis, or Evans who is making that misunderstanding, it still
doesn't negate the facts of evolutionary theory. Evolution does not
propose a competition between "races" in the modern sense. Competition
between individuals does not mean that any group of individuals is "better",
or more worthy of life than another. It does not mean that murder is
excusable, or that the economic, social, and political motivations of the
Nazis is excused by how nature operates
>
> Yes, and Evans is undoubtedly an evolutionist.
>
> Professor at Cambridge? Come on!
Professor Evans, whatever his views of science, is either misunderstanding
how evolution works, or more likely is reporting the misunderstanding of
science that the Nazis had.
>
>>
>> **************************************
>> It is quite peculiar that Howard demands no less than what he thinks
>> would be absolute evidence, a "direct quote", similar to Hitler
>> claiming "I am a Christian". Would he, were one provided (it has),
>> accept that as he apparently accepts direct quotes, I wonder.- Hide
>> quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Howard is being silly (= denialism).
No, Howard is not the one being silly.
> As if scholars are incapable of
> discerning what is being said. Howard undoubtedly accepts how the U.S.
> Constitution is interpreted concerning evolution and creationism, yet
> he rejects what Evans says about Hitler.
The US Constitution is 'interpreted" the way it was written. Creationism
is a religious belief, and religious beliefs are not science. Treating a
religious belief as science is a violation of the Constitution. Evolution
is not mentioned at all in relation to the Constitution.
>
> Total hypocrisy to accept one but not the other.
Perhaps Howard disagrees with Evans because, Evans may be a. wrong, or b.
being misquoted.
DJT
Glenn
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bcea7f07-3cc0-435e...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...> On Mar 29, 6:34 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >> I doubt he missed the point, Ray. His intention clearly is to minimize
> >> any evidence or historical perspective from anyone, no matter who,
> >> that will endanger his denialism.
>
> > Yes, that is the point - here. We do not expect Darwinists to admit
> > that Darwin's theory empowered Nazism because they have denied and
> > because they must deny.
>
> They "deny" because it's not true. The Nazis didn't need any "empowerment"
> to be racist and engage in genocide. Those already existed before Darwin,
> and without a theory of evolution, they would have done the same.
>
argument.
Dana Tweedy
"Glenn" <GlennS...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ccbb1c6d-4a1d-41e8...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
snip
> You're a silly twit to make that claim any kind of support for any
> argument.
Quiet Sheldon, adults are talking.
DJT
>
Glenn
> "Glenn" <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote in message
> snip
restored
> >> >I doubt he missed the point, Ray. His intention clearly is to minimize
> >> >any evidence or historical perspective from anyone, no matter who,
> >> >that will endanger his denialism.
>
> > >Yes, that is the point - here. We do not expect Darwinists to admit
> > >that Darwin's theory empowered Nazism because they have denied and
> > >because they must deny.
>
> >They "deny" because it's not true. The Nazis didn't need any "empowerment"
> >to be racist and engage in genocide. Those already existed before Darwin,
> >and without a theory of evolution, they would have done the same.
>
> > argument.
>
> Quiet Sheldon, adults are talking.
>
hersheyh
Why? The Klu Klux Klan considered itself to be a Christian
organization (more properly, a white Protestant organization, since
they were agin' Katholics). They believed that negros were like
monkeys *without* believing in evolution. They, like Hitler, thought
that hybridization was degrading the superior race and that only
strict laws preventing miscegenation and the appropriate use of
lynchings, boilings, and terror would keep the wrong people at bay.
Did you think that the burning cross was showing their 'atheism'?
Hitler was a megalomaniacal racist. Racists claim their
justifications from whatever sources, consistent or not, that they can
since they have no *real* justifications. Hitler exploited Christian
history *and* also pseudoscience. The Klu Klux Klan exploited the
Bible and Christianity and also pseudoscience (with particular
emphasis on the former; wrt science they were interested in *genetics*
but not *evolution* as a pseudoscientific justification because it
conflicted with Biblical literalism). Both were *only* interested in
justifying their racism.
AC
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Hitler NEVER praised Darwin or announced policies directly
>> based on Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
>
> corruptive denialism tactics.
>
>> In fact, several of Darwin's
>> books were banned.
>
>
>> Also, Hitler, as well as most of the NAZI leaders,
>> professed to be a Christian and often claimed to be doing God's will.
>
> and using Christianity to deceive a Christian nation. Most scholars
> have plainly said this in their history books redundantly. The Nazi
> Party was as anti-Christianity as Communism. I have posted this type
> of evidence which Klaus has, of course, ignored. The Nazi Party
> murdered countless Christians.
>
> At any rate: comment writer says he believes Hitler and the Nazi
> Party.
>
> I can think of no one who lacks credibility more than Adolf Hitler
> (not counting Marxists).
>
> Why don't you post a scholar or two saying they believe Hitler and the
> Nazi Party, that they were real Christians?
>
> Even Ken Miller thinks he is a Christian while arguing tooth and nail
> against ID with Atheists.
>
> Are pedophile priests and mafia bosses real Christians or are they
> wolves in sheeps clothing?
>
> How is it that you can discern the meaning of complicated scientific
> evidence but cannot discern lying Nazi's?
>
>> SNIP.....He hated
>> atheists.
>
> False.
>
> He hated Communism and played a McCarthyism card.
>
>> One of the main NAZI slogans was "God is with us!" (Gott mit Uns).
>
> Utterly disingenuous.
>
> The Nazi's used these phrases to operate under and deceive a Christian
> nation. It is the mark of Satan.
> Either you too are fooled or acting like they had genuine intent in
> order to slander Christianity. When we remember that you are an
> Atheist-evolutionist all is explained.
>
> But again: Klaus believes Nazi's while ignoring their infamous
> atrocities.
>
>> Charles Darwin, on the other hand, NEVER advocated genocide, and when he
>> mentioned "races", the context usually made it quite clear he was
>> talking about species.
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Englishman. But his was worst than most because of his "scientific"
> success which gave birth to eugenic doctrines that he fully endorsed.
> Again this evidence has been posted and ignored or whitewashed.
>
> Darwin was also, of course, a closet Atheist.
>
> His theory was built to explain extermination. This quote by scholars
> (who are Darwinists) has been posted. Again, you have ignored all of
> the evidence.
Oh shut up, you stupid Jew hating retard.
AC
You are silly child, Glenn. I openly challenge right now to provide any
quotes from Hitler or Darwin that back up what you say. Anything else is
tacit admission on your part that you lied.
Tell me, what does Jesus think of unrepetant liars again?
Augray
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<19dac403-ecb7-4a14...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com> :
>On Mar 29, 12:15 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>> You have posted absolutely nothing about the Nazi's view on Darwin or
>> evolution. If you think this backs up your case that the Nazi's were
>> "staunch Darwinists", then you are truly delusional.
>
>You snipped the quotes and the entire post. Professor Evans told us
>that Hitler based everything on Darwinian science. Again, my point is
>obvious: like Holocaust deniers, evolutionists will lie to your face.
On the other hand, Ray has no problem with creationists lying. Why the
double standard?
Steven J.
> On Mar 30, 1:23 pm, KlausH <badgerbadgerbad...@badger.net> wrote:
>
I haven't addressed yet, but since, on the one hand, you posted it
unfinished and said you'd try to get back to it, and, on the other
hand, it's pretty much the same sort of evasions and terse,
unsupported assertions you display here, I thought I might as well
address this post first.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > AC evaded nothing. He stated the obvious, that you lied and can not
> > produce any actual quotes from Hitler or Darwin to support your
> > assertion.
>
>
Wouldn't it be more convincing, if you're right, to produce an actual
quote from Hitler or Darwin supporting your position?
>
> > Hitler NEVER praised Darwin or announced policies directly
> > based on Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
>
> corruptive denialism tactics.
>
Hitler's policies. That is not the same thing as saying that Hitler
actually sought to base Nazi policies on his understanding of
"Darwinism," or that Darwin actually supported such policies, or that
evolutionary theory actually implies that such policies ought to be
followed. People for the last seventy or eighty years have been using
"Darwinian" for any sort of dog-eat-dog competition, but this does not
automatically imply that those responsible think of themselves as
following a "Darwinian" policy.
>
> > In fact, several of Darwin's
> > books were banned.
>
>
<http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/
documents.htm#wider>?
Please scroll down to the page labeled "Guidelines from _Die Bucherei_
2:6 (1935), p. 279, and note that "Writings of a philosophical and
social nature whose content deals with the false scientific
enlightenment of primitive Darwinism [primitiven Darwinismus} and
Monism (Häckel)" are listed among Marxist, pacifist, and otherwise
anti-_Volkisch_ literature.
Now, I realize this wasn't revealed to the author either through
visions (like the writings of Ravenscroft) or through the preaching of
Gene Scott, but how is it deficient as evidence?
>
> > Also, Hitler, as well as most of the NAZI leaders,
> > professed to be a Christian and often claimed to be doing God's will.
>
> This comment acts like the writer does not know that Hitler was lying
> and using Christianity to deceive a Christian nation. Most scholars
> have plainly said this in their history books redundantly. The Nazi
> Party was as anti-Christianity as Communism. I have posted this type
> of evidence which Klaus has, of course, ignored. The Nazi Party
> murdered countless Christians.
>
The Nazi party murdered countless Nazis (along with assorted Jews,
Communists, homosexuals, Gypsies, and random pacifists and generals).
Frankly, they seem to have been overfond of homicide as a problem-
solving technique.
Ray, have you ever considered the implications of your own arguments?
You assert (necessarily: otherwise your thesis that the Nazis only
pretended to include Christians makes no sense) that Germany was a
Christian nation, yet most Germans backed that Nazis and obeyed their
orders, sometimes enthusiastically. You are saying, whether you
realize it or not, that *Christians* thought that it was just peachy
to strip Jews of their rights, property, and eventually lives, to
conquer and loot their neighbors, and to herd dissidents into labor
camps, as long as Christians were ordering them to do it. When you
assert that Hitler had to hide his true "Darwinist" motives and feign
Christianity to get the Germans to obey him, you implicitly assert
that his followers carried out these policies for non-Darwinist
reasons. I think you may wish to reconsider this position.
>
-- [snip]
>
> > Charles Darwin, on the other hand, NEVER advocated genocide, and when he
> > mentioned "races", the context usually made it quite clear he was
> > talking about species.
> > Klaus
>
> Darwin was a vile racist with superiority beliefs like most Victorian
> Englishman. But his was worst than most because of his "scientific"
> success which gave birth to eugenic doctrines that he fully endorsed.
>
Now, I have always read that Darwin opposed eugenics. He was not
entirely unsympathetic to the idea of encouraging smarter, healthier
people to have children and sickly, weak people to remain childless,
but he opposed coercive eugenics. Either you have access to some
writings of Darwin others have missed, or you're using some novel
definition of "fully supported."
Note that eugenics is simply the application to human beings of the
principles of animal breeding. It depends in no respect on the
assumption that humans share ancestry with other species. It does not
even necessarily rely on the idea that selection and adaption can
occur without an intelligent agent. It can be based on the idea
(implied by evolution) that we are a contingent work in progress
rather than a finished, perfect product straight from the hand of
God), but it can also be supported by the idea that God created
natural selection to keep the species from degenerating (in that case,
eugenics is literally doing the will of God, whereas it cannot very
well be doing the will of natural selection, which after all has no
will).
Artificial selection is not natural selection. Eugenics is not
Darwinism. Arguably, eugenics is the view that Darwinism is
insufficient, that it will not accomplish what the eugenicist wants
accomplished.
Oh, and Darwin was, after all, a staunch opponent of slavery. That
doesn't mean he wasn't a racist. But it seems rather odd to suppose
that he would oppose enslaving people but would have no qualms about
recommending their extermination.
>
> Again this evidence has been posted and ignored or whitewashed.
>
It's not our fault that you don't understand the things you post.
>
> Darwin was also, of course, a closet Atheist.
>
> His theory was built to explain extermination. This quote by scholars
> (who are Darwinists) has been posted. Again, you have ignored all of
> the evidence.
>
The meaning of that passage has been explained to you; your hysterical
denials and evasions do you little credit.
>
> Ray
-- Steven J.
Glenn
No, anything else would not be an admission of anything, you idiot.
>
> Tell me, what does Jesus think of unrepetant liars again?
>
Care to show me where I ever gave an opinion on that? Funny how just
one word from you can establish you as a liar, as well as provide a
reason for not answering your "challenges" every time you demand a
repeat.
Rupert Morrish
[snip]
> Page 250-51: "The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the
> following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the
> Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally[:]
>
> [']We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian truth[.]
> For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our interceder....We follow not
> Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a Christian, nor a Catholic. I go
> with the SA through thin and thick[']
Is anyone else just a teeny bit suspicious that this rhymes in English?
[snip]
-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------
Rupert Morrish
>>
>>> On Mar 29, 12:15 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>>>> You have posted absolutely nothing about the Nazi's view on Darwin or
>>>> evolution. If you think this backs up your case that the Nazi's were
>>>> "staunch Darwinists", then you are truly delusional.
>>> You snipped the quotes and the entire post. Professor Evans told us
>>> that Hitler based everything on Darwinian science. Again, my point is
>>> obvious: like Holocaust deniers, evolutionists will lie to your face.
>> That isn't what you need, Ray. Someone else claiming that Hitler was
>> a Darwinist (rather than a Mendelistic racist who believed in
>> intelligently designed evolution rather than natural selection) is NOT
>> a *direct quote* from the Nazi bastard himself. If we were to accept
>> someone else's word for it, any lying SOB of a loud-mouthed
>> televangelist could claim that Ray Martinez was a non-Christian.
>
> You missed the point, Howard.
>
> What evos like yourself say and what scholars publish are always in
> conflict. You too have ignored the evidence. We never expect
> Darwinists to admit that the Nazi's were Darwin's greatest converts.
> We are showing that Darwinists lie just like Holocaust deniers.
Whereas Hitler always told the truth? Honestly, Ray, your whole case
here relies on assuming Hitler always told the truth about his
understanding of evolution and always lied about his religion.
I, for one, do not believe that the truth or otherwise of the theory of
evolution depends on whether or not homicidal maniacs believed it to be
true in the 1930s and 1940s.
Glenn
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Darwin was a vile racist with superiority beliefs like most Victorian
> > Englishman. But his was worst than most because of his "scientific"
> > success which gave birth to eugenic doctrines that he fully endorsed.
> > Again this evidence has been posted and ignored or whitewashed.
>
> > Darwin was also, of course, a closet Atheist.
>
> > His theory was built to explain extermination. This quote by scholars
> > (who are Darwinists) has been posted. Again, you have ignored all of
> > the evidence.
>
> Oh shut up, you stupid Jew hating retard.
>
and retard. Well, at least according to Tweedy, you are conversing as
an adult.
Isn't it profoundly amazing how these idiots are willing to behave to
defend Darwin?
Rupert Morrish
>>>> WoW: In the documentary, you draw a connection between Darwinist
>>>> scientists and the Nazi ideology. Do you think that approach will draw
>>>> criticism?
>>>> Mathis: Should we shy away from the truth? People are uncomfortable
>>>> that a materialist philosophy can lead to a phenomenon like Nazism.
>>>> Just because it makes people uncomfortable doesn't mean we should
>>>> leave it out. All the more reason we should leave it in. It's not a
>>>> guaranteed outcome, and we're not saying that. But...we know that Adolph
>>>> Hitler was a staunch Darwinist, and those ideals consciously drove
>>>> him. It was a consequence. The unfortunate thing in this is that there
>>>> are far too many people have misappropriated Nazism to their own
>>>> agenda. It's "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" syndrome.
>>>> See the rest of the interview,
>>>> http://www.worldontheweb.com/2008/03/28/mark-mathis-interview/
>>> Well James since you have run away from your previous topic I will run
>>> you down here once again.
>>> The evolutionists, like Holocaust deniers, are exactly the same. Both
>>> ignore massive evidence that hurts their causes. Denying the Atheist
>>> agenda of Nazi Germany and their empowerment via Darwinism is no
>>> different than those who deny the Holocaust.
>> But wasn't Hitler a Satan worshipper? At least in the last thread on the
>> topic you claimed exactly that.
>> What were the Nazis, Atheists or Satanists?
>>
>> --
>> Martin Kaletsch
>> "It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
>> their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> who they are serving and the other doesn't care.
Who knew? I thought I spent the weekend at the beach with my children,
but apparently I was sacrificing them on an altar under an inverted
crucifix. I'm glad Ray is around to explain these things to me.
>
> Ray
Rupert Morrish
So it's salvation through faith alone, damnation through works alone?
Rupert Morrish
> Morontheist Ray Martinez:
>
>> The evolutionists, like Holocaust deniers, are exactly the same. Both
>> ignore massive evidence that hurts their causes. Denying the Atheist
>> agenda of Nazi Germany and their empowerment via Darwinism is no
>> different than those who deny the Holocaust.
>
> supporting the holocaust, evaporates faster than a snowball in a blast
> furnace once it suffers a thorough scientific examination.
>
> Also strange why that regime with an "atheist agenda" had "gawd with us"
> inscribed on the belt buckles of its soldiers, did literally nothing
> against the churches in the country, even set up its own version of the
> jebus cult to support the moustached monster and its reign of terror, et
> cetera, ad nauseam.
>
> Ooops. Now I brought you into contact with reality. Quick, run to your
> brainwashing institute (read: church) and get another fix!
Ray doesn't go to church. His spiritual community is made up of the late
Gene Scott and his widow.
>
> And we all know that you will not even try to reply to this posting (and
> others like it). You have lost already. We know it. YOU know it.
>
> Doesn't it suck to never be able to win, hmmmmm?
AC
So now you're Ray's best buddy? But before you get to pally-wally with a
fellow hater of knowledge and truth, you might want to check this out:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ca2dc1256047ce11?dmode=source
or
http://tinyurl.com/yu9dyr
Glenn
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:10:55 -0700 (PDT),
>
>
>
>
>
> Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
> > AC <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Darwin was a vile racist with superiority beliefs like most Victorian
> >> > Englishman. But his was worst than most because of his "scientific"
> >> > success which gave birth to eugenic doctrines that he fully endorsed.
> >> > Again this evidence has been posted and ignored or whitewashed.
>
> >> > Darwin was also, of course, a closet Atheist.
>
> >> > His theory was built to explain extermination. This quote by scholars
> >> > (who are Darwinists) has been posted. Again, you have ignored all of
> >> > the evidence.
>
> >> Oh shut up, you stupid Jew hating retard.
>
> > Oh look, Ray, you're now upgraded from a creationist to a Jew hater
> > and retard. Well, at least according to Tweedy, you are conversing as
> > an adult.
> > Isn't it profoundly amazing how these idiots are willing to behave to
> > defend Darwin?
>
> So now you're Ray's best buddy? But before you get to pally-wally with a
> fellow hater of knowledge and truth, you might want to check this out:
>
ba sounds.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
>> Ooops. Now I brought you into contact with reality. Quick, run to your
>> brainwashing institute (read: church) and get another fix!
> Ray doesn't go to church. His spiritual community is made up of the late
> Gene Scott and his widow.
Oh I'm sure that'll do for it too :)
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
RAM
So it's alright that Ray is an anti-semite and AC show treat him like
a reasonable adult.
You are the immature and childish one.
Your Christianity is never in evidence. Why do you bother to
pretend. If there is a God he knows you are a bastard.
RAM
Martin Kaletsch
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> [snip]
>
>> Page 250-51: "The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the
>> following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the
>> Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally[:]
>>
>> [']We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian truth[.]
>> For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our interceder....We follow not
>> Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a Christian, nor a Catholic. I go
>> with the SA through thin and thick[']
>
> Is anyone else just a teeny bit suspicious that this rhymes in English?
I already commented on this and noted the use of "Nazi" in the speech cited,
which also points to a translation of doubtfull quality. I asked Ray for a
reference to the source so I could try to find the original text and
compare.
So far, I didn't get an answer, so I suppose Ray has no access to the book
in question and just copied his quotes from some creationist website.
Somehow this makes me consider them to be rather doubtfull arguments!
AC
I know it hurts when you find out nasty things about a new friend. I'll
always be here when you need a shoulder to cry on.
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b36ca982-3aa0-4990...@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> AC evaded nothing. He stated the obvious, that you lied and can not
>> produce any actual quotes from Hitler or Darwin to support your
>> assertion.
>
> Denialism.
So, where are the quotes from Hitler, or Darwin that support your claims?
>
>> Hitler NEVER praised Darwin or announced policies directly
>> based on Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
>
> Scholars said he did.
Ray, "scholars" can be wrong, or misquoted. There's no evidence that
Hitler was familiar with the theory of evolution as Darwin wrote it. He
did seem to have some idea of "might makes right" which was justified by a
twisted version of "survival of the fittest". That does not mean that
Hitler understood, or applied the acutal theory of evolution to justify his
crimes.
> You have ignored the evidence via ordinary
> corruptive denialism tactics.
Speaking of "denialism tactics" are you still in denial over the physical
evidence for evolution? Do you still deny that the fossil KNM WT 15000 is
a transitional form? Are you still denying you claimed that human females
were raped by non human apes?
>
>> In fact, several of Darwin's
>> books were banned.
>
> This claim was never supported properly.
Ray, when have YOU ever properly supported any of your own claims? Here's
some books the Nazis banned:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm#twelve
6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt
die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus
und Monismus ist (Häckel).
Translation:
6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with
the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism
(Häckel).
>
>> Also, Hitler, as well as most of the NAZI leaders,
>> professed to be a Christian and often claimed to be doing God's will.
>
> This comment acts like the writer does not know that Hitler was lying
> and using Christianity to deceive a Christian nation.
While Hitler did indeed lie frequently, there's no evidence that Hitler's
comments were intended to "deceive" Germans who were Christians. Without
the support, and willing compliance of the largely Christian Germans, Hitler
would have been unable to carry out his plans.
> Most scholars
> have plainly said this in their history books redundantly. The Nazi
> Party was as anti-Christianity as Communism.
The Nazi party did not appear to be "anti-Christian", in that they did not
persecute Christian churches, and they did in fact make deals with the
Vatican.
> I have posted this type
> of evidence which Klaus has, of course, ignored.
While you have provided some questionable quotes that suggest that the Nazis
wanted part support, and nationalism to be more importatnt than religion,
you really haven't shown that the Nazis were actively opposed to Christians.
> The Nazi Party
> murdered countless Christians.
The Nazis murdered anyone who got in their way, but they don't appear to
have targeted Christians, as they did the Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, etc.
Most of the staunchest followers of the Nazis were ordinary German citizens,
which were largely Christians.
>
> At any rate: comment writer says he believes Hitler and the Nazi
> Party.
Ray seems to "beleive" Hitler and the Nazis when they claimed to believe in
"survivial of the fittest".
>
> I can think of no one who lacks credibility more than Adolf Hitler
> (not counting Marxists).
Well, Ray, you, yourself have little, or no credibility. Mr. Scott, your
hero had little or no credibility when it came to science.... Why should
anyone believe your claims either?
>
> Why don't you post a scholar or two saying they believe Hitler and the
> Nazi Party, that they were real Christians?
Have you read this book, Ray?
http://www.randomhouse.com/vintage/read/executioners/
It's not likely that Hitler and the rest of the Nazi party were "real
Christians" in the sense that they followed the teachings of Christ.
Hitler's own religious beliefs were rather difficult to pin down. He was
brought up as a Catholic, and gave lip service to Protestant beliefs. He
appeared to have been attracted to the Teutonic myths, which supported a
unified German state. The Nazis appear to have tried to replace religious
beliefs with this kind of nationalism and cult of personality. The SS
encouraged it's members to leave the Church, but didn't punish those who did
not.
Some of the Nazi party leaders did express some Christian beliefs.
Whether they were sincere or not, is unknown: See:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/henchmen.htm
>
> Even Ken Miller thinks he is a Christian while arguing tooth and nail
> against ID with Atheists.
Dr. Miller is a Christian. He argues against ID because it's not science,
and promoting it as science is dishonest. One does not have to be an
atheist to be opposed to dishonesty. Moreover, Ray himself sides with
Atheists on the belief that if evolution is true, then God doesn't exist.
Why then is Miller assumed to be atheist, and Ray assumes himself to be not.
>
> Are pedophile priests and mafia bosses real Christians or are they
> wolves in sheeps clothing?
Neither, really. Both are sinful humans, just like Ray's own hero, Mr.
Scott.
>
> How is it that you can discern the meaning of complicated scientific
> evidence but cannot discern lying Nazi's?
Because the Nazis didn't lie about everything. Complicated scientific
evidence can be studied, and either confirmed, or rejected. It's not
possible to determine who is lying about personal beliefs.
>
>> SNIP.....He hated
>> atheists.
>
> False.
Care to provide any evidence of this, Ray?
>
> He hated Communism and played a McCarthyism card.
Just like you, Ray.
>
>> One of the main NAZI slogans was "God is with us!" (Gott mit Uns).
>
> We all know Atheists who use phrases like "God bless" and "Thank God".
> Utterly disingenuous.
However "God with us" is hardly the same as saying "god bless you" after
someone sneezes.
>
> The Nazi's used these phrases to operate under and deceive a Christian
> nation.
Can you show any evidence that this was the Nazis' intention?
> It is the mark of Satan.
Care to show any evidence for this assertion, too?
> Either you too are fooled or acting like they had genuine intent in
> order to slander Christianity. When we remember that you are an
> Atheist-evolutionist all is explained.
Ray, how does it "slander" Christanity to point out that a person who claims
to be Christian can do evil things? Also, you are basing your whole
claims about Evolution's role in the Nazis' crimes on exactly the same
argument. If it's "slander" to say that Christians have done evil things,
why isn't is "slander" to blame Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis?
>
> But again: Klaus believes Nazi's while ignoring their infamous
> atrocities.
How does he do either?
>
>> Charles Darwin, on the other hand, NEVER advocated genocide, and when he
>> mentioned "races", the context usually made it quite clear he was
>> talking about species.
>> Klaus- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Darwin was a vile racist with superiority beliefs like most Victorian
> Englishman.
Darwin was racist, and racism was vile, however to describe Darwin as a
"vile racist" is not accurate. Darwin was much less racist than many of
his time, and his racism did not affect his scientific work. It should be
remembered that the creationists that Ray claims "conrolled" science were
also racists.
> But his was worst than most because of his "scientific"
> success which gave birth to eugenic doctrines that he fully endorsed.
> Again this evidence has been posted and ignored or whitewashed.
The eugenics movement was based on a badly distorted version of Darwin's
science. The misuse of science does not mean that the science itself is
bad.
>
> Darwin was also, of course, a closet Atheist.
No, Darwin was not an atheist, closet, or otherwise.
>
> His theory was built to explain extermination.
The theory was built to explain the evidence that organisms have changed
over time. "Extermination" was not Darwin's policy, or his prescription
for how humans ought to act.
> This quote by scholars
> (who are Darwinists) has been posted. Again, you have ignored all of
> the evidence.
The "quote" is taken out of context, and does not reflect Darwin's actual
intent. The lies of creationists, while not ignored, can be dismissed.
DJT
RAM
It is nice that you are defend Christians but don't follow the tenets.
RAM
Greg G.
> On Mar 30, 6:28 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Mar 30, 1:23 pm, KlausH <badgerbadgerbad...@badger.net> wrote:
>
If Ray is right about Hitler misleading Christians by pretending to be
one, then other non-Christians could also mislead well-intentioned
Christians. If a high school dropout with shattered dreams of being an
artist could mislead so many Christians, what might somebody with a
PhD from Stanford do?
--
Greg G.
If you think you are too small to make a difference, try sleeping in a
closed room with a mosquito.
--African Proverb
Tiny Bulcher
> Rupert Morrish wrote:
>
>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Page 250-51: "The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the
>>> following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the
>>> Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally[:]
>>>
>>> [']We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian
>>> truth[.] For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our
>>> interceder....We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a
>>> Christian, nor a Catholic. I go with the SA through thin and
>>> thick[']
>>
>> Is anyone else just a teeny bit suspicious that this rhymes in
>> English?
>
> I already commented on this and noted the use of "Nazi" in the speech
> cited, which also points to a translation of doubtfull quality. I
> asked Ray for a reference to the source so I could try to find the
> original text and compare.
>
> So far, I didn't get an answer, so I suppose Ray has no access to the
> book in question and just copied his quotes from some creationist
> website. Somehow this makes me consider them to be rather doubtfull
> arguments!
Googling the phrase "we are the jolly Hitler Youth" reveals only this
thread. Try googling for a similar phrase in German, and see if
anything comes up.
TomS
<b9SdnXAxSNp...@bt.com>, Tiny Bulcher stated..."
It must be a very free translation, for it doesn't seem
to work in German - "Hitler Youth" is "Hitlerjugend",
and "Christian truth" is "Christliche Wahrheit" - not
even close in either rhyme or meter.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Martin Kaletsch
> Thus cwaeth Martin Kaletsch :
>> Rupert Morrish wrote:
>>
>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> Page 250-51: "The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the
>>>> following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the
>>>> Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally[:]
>>>>
>>>> [']We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian
>>>> truth[.] For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our
>>>> interceder....We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a
>>>> Christian, nor a Catholic. I go with the SA through thin and
>>>> thick[']
>>>
>>> Is anyone else just a teeny bit suspicious that this rhymes in
>>> English?
>>
>> I already commented on this and noted the use of "Nazi" in the speech
>> cited, which also points to a translation of doubtfull quality. I
>> asked Ray for a reference to the source so I could try to find the
>> original text and compare.
>>
> Googling the phrase "we are the jolly Hitler Youth" reveals only this
> thread. Try googling for a similar phrase in German, and see if
> anything comes up.
I found the German text. The quoted lines are true to the original meaning.
The second line, for example would be literally "we need no Christian
virtue", which does not change the overall intention.
I found only a dozen pages citing the song, mostly saying it was, like
stated above, sung at the "Reichsparteitag" in Nuremberg. One page called
it a "contemporary poem". Nobody gave an author. All the pages were made by
people who wanted to stress that the christian churches were a victim of
the NS-regime.
I personally don't doubt that the song is genuine, there were forces in the
NSDAP who were opposed to the christian religion, but as far as I know
there never was a consensus among the party elite, who seemed to have a
variety of views on the topic.
Martin Kaletsch
> "On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:52:03 +0100, in article
> <b9SdnXAxSNp...@bt.com>, Tiny Bulcher stated..."
>>
>>Thus cwaeth Martin Kaletsch :
>>> Rupert Morrish wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ray Martinez wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> Page 250-51: "The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the
>>>>> following text in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the
>>>>> Hitler Youth at the 1934 Nuremberg Party Rally[:]
>>>>>
>>>>> [']We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian
>>>>> truth[.] For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our
>>>>> interceder....We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a
>>>>> Christian, nor a Catholic. I go with the SA through thin and
>>>>> thick[']
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone else just a teeny bit suspicious that this rhymes in
>>>> English?
>>>
>>> I already commented on this and noted the use of "Nazi" in the speech
>>> cited, which also points to a translation of doubtfull quality. I
>>> asked Ray for a reference to the source so I could try to find the
>>> original text and compare.
>>Googling the phrase "we are the jolly Hitler Youth" reveals only this
>>thread. Try googling for a similar phrase in German, and see if
>>anything comes up.
>>
>>
>
> It must be a very free translation, for it doesn't seem
> to work in German - "Hitler Youth" is "Hitlerjugend",
> and "Christian truth" is "Christliche Wahrheit" - not
> even close in either rhyme or meter.
The original was "Wir sind die fröhliche Hitlerjugen, wir brauchen keine
Christentugend."
As already written, the meaning is broadly the same, but I still wonder why
a rhyming translation was used as source in a history book? I would use a
translation that was as literal as possible in a case like that.
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mar 29, 6:34 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 29, 5:56 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 29, 5:37 pm, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 29, 3:41 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Mar 29, 12:15 pm, Rusty Sites <SpameYou...@spamex.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > You have posted absolutely nothing about the Nazi's view on Darwin or
>> > > > > evolution. If you think this backs up your case that the Nazi's were
>> > > > > "staunch Darwinists", then you are truly delusional.
>>
>> > > > You snipped the quotes and the entire post. Professor Evans told us
>> > > > that Hitler based everything on Darwinian science. Again, my point is
>> > > > obvious: like Holocaust deniers, evolutionists will lie to your face.
>>
>> > > > Ray
>>
>> > > That isn't what you need, Ray. Someone else claiming that Hitler was
>> > > a Darwinist (rather than a Mendelistic racist who believed in
>> > > intelligently designed evolution rather than natural selection) is NOT
>> > > a *direct quote* from the Nazi bastard himself. If we were to accept
>> > > someone else's word for it, any lying SOB of a loud-mouthed
>> > > televangelist could claim that Ray Martinez was a non-Christian.
>>
>> > You missed the point, Howard.
>>
>> > What evos like yourself say and what scholars publish are always in
>> > conflict. You too have ignored the evidence. We never expect
>> > Darwinists to admit that the Nazi's were Darwin's greatest converts.
>> > We are showing that Darwinists lie just like Holocaust deniers.
>>
>> I doubt he missed the point, Ray. His intention clearly is to minimize
>> any evidence or historical perspective from anyone, no matter who,
>> that will endanger his denialism.
>
>Yes, that is the point - here. We do not expect Darwinists to admit
>that Darwin's theory empowered Nazism because they have denied and
>because they must deny. The point is that we are showing how denialism
>works. No matter how clear the evidence and logic Darwinists will deny
>via the same tactics used by Holocaust deniers.
Yes, that is the point - here. We do not expect creationists to admit
that Darwin's theory had nothing to do with Nazism because they have
denied and because they must deny. The point is that we are showing
how denialism works. No matter how clear the evidence and logic
creationists will deny via the same tactics used by Holocaust deniers.
>
>A larger point is that if Darwinists would lie in face of massive
>undisupted evidence then just think what they do with complicated
>scientific evidence?
A larger point is that if creationists would lie in face of massive
undisputed evidence then just think what they do with complicated
scientific evidence?
[snip more of Dishonest Ray's usual brand of lies.]
--
Bob.
Glenn
> TomS wrote:
> > "On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:52:03 +0100, in article
concerned with Evan's apparent use of what appears to be something
Hermann Rauschning claimed Hitler had said along the lines that "One
is either a German or a Christian". But Evan's quote, if accurate, may
indicate an independent source:
>Page 250: "In July of 1935....a speaker told a meeting of the Nazi
>Students' League in Bernau: 'One is either a Nazi or a committed
>Christian.' Christianity he said, 'promotes the dissolution of racial
>ties and of the national racial community....We must repudiate the Old
>and the New Testaments, since for us the Nazi idea alone is decisive.
>For us there is only one example, Adolf Hitler and no one else.'"
Andre Lieven
>
> But this is what howlers do to defend their turf (= Victorian racist/
> Atheist and his Nazi converts): sling shit on anyone who recognizes
> the ugly truth. I will not stop making this point: if the
> evolutionists refuse to admit the obvious about the Nazi's and
> Darwinism, in view of the massive and plain evidence, then we
> certainly know what they do with complicated scientific evidence.
Lunacy. No Nazi invented evolution ( " Darwinism " is a nonsense
term, no one worships a dead British scientist. ) so this "obvious"
is clearly unsupported nonsense.
> If they cannot be trusted to *admit* truth to their own hurt; then they
> certainly cannot be trusted to *tell or communicate* truth to their
> own hurt.
<Massive IDiot Loon Projection>
> Funny how there is no evidence in existence in the world
> that contradicts Darwinism - everything supports; and the guy who
> founded the theory had no impact on the most educated nation in the
> world (at that time: Nazi Germany).
Also, there was no Nazi Germany in Darwin's life, moron.
As for it being " funny " that facts support factual conclusions,
well,
that just means that your meds have stopped working...
> After Haeckel and German biology
> embraced Darwin immediately and zealously the same support just
> vanished when the Nazi's came to power then suddenly re-appeared after
> they were defeated?
Word salad. Get professional mental health care now.
Andre
Iain
> On Mar 30, 7:10 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
> But this is what howlers do to defend their turf (= Victorian racist/
> Atheist and his Nazi converts): sling shit on anyone who recognizes
> the ugly truth. I will not stop making this point: if the
> evolutionists refuse to admit the obvious about the Nazi's and
The obvious ---
+ Hitler implemented *Artificial* Selection (science as old as the
farmyard) -- badly(as in misinformedly and pseudoscientifically).
+ Darwin wrote about *Natural* Selection and why Artificial Selection
is needless.
> Darwinism
Darwinism? That's abolitionism, right? Because AFAIK Darwin had no
other noteworthy political opinions.
~Iain
Ye Old One
<pyram...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>On Mar 30, 7:10 pm, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>> defend Darwin?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>It is.
>
>But this is what howlers do to defend their turf (= Victorian racist/
>Atheist and his Nazi converts): sling shit on anyone who recognizes
>the ugly truth.
Or, in this case, at someone who dishonestly tries to peddle very old
lies.
>I will not stop making this point: if the
>evolutionists refuse to admit the obvious about the Nazi's and
>Darwinism,
We do admit the obvious Dishonest Ray, that Darwin had little (if any)
influence on the Nazis (please note the correct spelling) as they
were, by and large, a christian organization that believed Germans
were almost a chosen people.
> in view of the massive and plain evidence,
All of which goes against you.
> then we
>certainly know what they do with complicated scientific evidence. If
>they cannot be trusted to *admit* truth to their own hurt; then they
>certainly cannot be trusted to *tell or communicate* truth to their
>own hurt. Funny how there is no evidence in existence in the world
>that contradicts Darwinism - everything supports;
Nothing funny about it at all.
> and the guy who
>founded the theory had no impact on the most educated nation in the
>world (at that time: Nazi Germany). After Haeckel and German biology
>embraced Darwin immediately and zealously the same support just
>vanished when the Nazi's came to power then suddenly re-appeared after
>they were defeated?
I bet you would have us believe that the USA is the "most educated
nation in the world" today, and yet it is second only to Turkey in the
number of mindless creationists like you.
>
>Ray
--
Bob.