the Dark Face of Darwinism

Getting back to the OP of this thread...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

the discussion being the Misuse of Darwin, his name, his image, and his Theory

I think I now have positive proof of the above to further an agenda, and it's evidence that anyone here can read for themselves. I've managed to find an easy index for it as well. All anyone has to do to see the worst misuse, misunderstanding, and lies regarding Darwin, his name, his image, and the theory of evolution is read Herr Artifakt's posts on the subject.

Herr Artifakt, through fourteen pages of this thread, you've managed to avoid answering the simplest refutation of your OP, namely the misuse of something to do harm is not an indictment of the thing, it's an indictment of the user. Or, another way, that the means used to commit an act is not equivalent to the one committing the act. The closest you've come to a relevant reply is invoking the names of Hitler and Stalin and calling them both atheists, as if atheists are the only people to be proponents of the theory of evolution. It's also been shown to you that Hitler was a Christian and Stalin, while an atheist, rejected evolution (and science in general) in favor of Lysenko's ideology-based pseudoscience.

I've also seen you claim that this thread is evidence of your assertions regarding misuse of the theory of evolution because you're being attacked by proponents of the theory. This is faulty logic - no one has attacked you using the theory of evolution. If a proponent of gun owner's rights punches someone in the face, they haven't committed a gun crime.

reply to post by Vicky32


I can fully understand why a Christian would want to reject the fact that Hitler was a Christian. It's no different than the majority of Muslims who want to reject the handful of radicals who cast a shadow on their faith. But it is a fact that Hitler was a Christian, not a pagan. From earlier in this thread:

Hitler was inspired by Martin Luther, the great reformer and creator of Protestantism. Luther believed that if you removed all of the religious trimmings the catholic church had added on to Christianity and presented the pure gospel, the Jews would accept the Christian faith and recognize Jesus as their Messiah. Because they didn't, Luther became increasingly frustrated and enraged with the Jews, ultimately writing anti semitic works. This is the side of Martin Luther's faith that Hitler was attracted to.

And some quotes from the man himself, also to be found earlier in this thread:

May God Almighty give our work His blessing, strengthen our purpose, and endow us with wisdom and the trust of our people, for we are fighting not for ourselves but for Germany.
speech delivered at Berlin, February 1, 1933

And now Staatspräsident Bolz says that Christianity and the Catholic faith are threatened by us. And to that charge I can answer: In the first place it is Christians and not international atheists who now stand at the head of Germany. I do not merely talk of Christianity, no, I also profess that I will never ally myself with the parties which destroy Christianity. If many wish today to take threatened Christianity under their protection, where, I would ask, was Christianity for them in these fourteen years when they went arm in arm with atheism? No, never and at no time was greater internal damage done to Christianity than in these 14 years when a party, theoretically Christian, sat with those who denied God in one and the same Government.
speech delivered at Stuttgart, February 15, 1933

The Government of the Reich, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation, attaches the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See, and is endeavouring to develop them.
speech to the Reichstag, 23 March 1933

We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.
speech in Berlin, 24 October 1933

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. These are not anti-Christian, these are Christian principles.
speech at Koblenz, 26 August 1934

Originally posted by Schrödinger
Learn to read really it have been pointed out several times now, but yet you refuse to accept simple facts.

When Darwin is talking about races he aren't talking about Negroids, Caucasians, Arabs, Asians, he is talking about; mammals, reptiles and birds!

He acknowledged that the human race - homo sapiens sapiens, is ONE race.

yes we are animals too... I fail to see the logic in your statement since you admit homosapiens as ONE race.

circular reasoning.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

...he means genetic variations. He does't mean 'races' of humans, he means any sort of genetic variation.

orly now ? see above post

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
the videos are on page 1 if anyone needs a reference...

line two

The subject of this entire thread is beyond ridiculous. You can't use a scientific theory as the reason for wars, an no one has so far. You conveniently keep on ignoring this fact...

The video's are so full of lies, you might just as well ask people to ask Spongebob

did you want to address Darwin's subtitling Preservation of the Favored Races ?

or would you like to still call my question stupid.. I have seen no one address it yet.

the fact is Darwin was a Racist and viewed his race as superior, try reading the ascent of Man

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Vicky32

 

I can fully understand why a Christian would want to reject the fact that Hitler was a Christian. It's no different than the majority of Muslims who want to reject the handful of radicals who cast a shadow on their faith. But it is a fact that Hitler was a Christian, not a pagan. From earlier in this thread:

yet again the topic is not about Christianity, how would you then account for the Islamic view of Darwins Theory ?

please stay on topic and away from bashing the Theistic group of ones choice.

Darwin was a Racist and his doctrine can be read in the ascent of man, just as the title states.

and he begets racism and dictators... also experienced in this topic.

Originally posted by iterationzero
Getting back to the OP of this thread...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

the discussion being the Misuse of Darwin, his name, his image, and his Theory

I think I now have positive proof of the above to further an agenda, and it's evidence that anyone here can read for themselves. I've managed to find an easy index for it as well. All anyone has to do to see the worst misuse, misunderstanding, and lies regarding Darwin, his name, his image, and the theory of evolution is read Herr Artifakt's posts on the subject.

Herr Artifakt, through fourteen pages of this thread, you've managed to avoid answering the simplest refutation of your OP

yes flies are attracted to...

would you attempt to address my one simple question on the last page ? referring to...

here let me try to change the course, yet once again without discussing Creation and Christians

According to the (subtitle) in Darwin's Origin of Species,

"Preservation of favored Races"

I would love to address, as also I would not like to have this strict doctrine of racism imprinted on any more of the worlds youth via the classroom at too early an age.

I believe when you corrupt a young a mind with this sort of doctrine and without proper guidance that it could lead to many problems later in life (as pointed out via sociobiology) I guess this is a word not many scientist are familiar with ?

I believe some get the wrong idea of its educational value mainly because of our differences "racially" at this point in the development of humanity (in other words we are not in Star Trek time period yet) so humanity has the potential to walk away with darwin's theory and cause major injustice... as has been proven by history (see videos/page 1 and Mein Komfh) and also in sociobiology.

I admire your avoidance...

you are more than welcome to bust it down line for line in a string of one-liner responses !

screw it... I am going to ask a Buddhist (a real one) if they think we evolved from Ape, I already know most all of the theistic views and their answer/response to that question in particular.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
screw it... I am going to ask a Buddhist (a real one) if they think we evolved from Ape, I already know most all of the theistic views and their answer/response to that question in particular.

Again you prove without a doubt, that you do not have even a middle-school understanding of the theory of evolution.
We did not evolve from the ape! The theory of evolution never stated that, modern apes evolved from a common ancestor several MILLION years ago.

Also the term survival of the fittest, isn't even from Darwin himself.

Darwin never even said that we man shared a common ancestor with modern apes, show me 1 place where he said that.

It is not possible to have a discussion with you about this, because the premise for a coherent debate, is impossible with your level of ignorance.

Darwin was not a racist, because he acknowledged that homo-sapiens sapiens was one RACE. He is talking about species of animals, not species of human.

Every single statement you have made in this thread, have been debunked 1000 times!

Only conclusion I can come to, is that you are a creationist troll, with absolutely no intention of denying ignorance.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
yet again the topic is not about Christianity, how would you then account for the Islamic view of Darwins Theory ?

I wouldn't - my reply to Vicky's post mentioned neither Darwin or Islam. Are you suggesting that the entire Muslim world has a singular view of the theory of evolution? If you are, then that's pretty far from the truth. If you aren't, then please clarify as to which view of the theory of evolution you're referring to.

please stay on topic and away from bashing the Theistic group of ones choice.

I wasn't bashing any theistic group. I was just pointing out that Hitler was a Christian. Unlike you, I don't try and denigrate entire groups of people based on the actions of a sole member of that group. Please, try to find a single example of me bashing theists in this thread.

Darwin was a Racist and his doctrine can be read in the ascent of man, just as the title states.

Epic fail. This statement is rooted bad logic based on what is either a lie on your part or you being completely and utterly ignorant of the facts. Charles Darwin never wrote a book called "The Ascent of Man", Alfred Machin did. Charles Darwin wrote a book called "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex". Now, if you can't be bothered to get the title of the book correct (and you've gotten it wrong in multiple posts at this point), then I know we can't expect you to actually understand what's in it. And that's assuming you've read it, but given your lack of accuracy in the title of the book, it's a safe assumption that you haven't.

One of the key debates in this area of science in Darwin's time was whether or not the different human races were different species or not. Darwin opposed the racist doctrine of polygenism and believed that all human beings are the same species. He questioned whether race was really even a useful classification. Keep in mind that he was in the minority in these beliefs during his time. So if you're looking to accuse someone of being a racist, maybe you shouldn't point to the guy that believed that race in terms of differentiating humans from one another was even a valid concept. Maybe you should point to other anthropologists and biologists of mid to late 1800's who disagreed with Darwin.

and he begets racism and dictators... also experienced in this topic.

You've provided zero evidence that the theory of evolution causes otherwise sane people to become racists and dictators. But you are entertaining, little troll, so by all means keep on posting!

Originally posted by Schrödinger
Again you prove without a doubt, that you do not have even a middle-school understanding of the theory of evolution.
We did not evolve from the ape! The theory of evolution never stated that, modern apes evolved from a common ancestor several MILLION years ago.

try explaining that to the Children, to whom which effigy's and pictures speak a thousand words to down at the museum and in the school books.

again maybe the bulk of these professors of this view are teaching the wrong theory to our kids...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d814f500b3d2.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by iterationzero

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
yet again the topic is not about Christianity, how would you then account for the Islamic view of Darwins Theory ?

I wouldn't - my reply to Vicky's post mentioned neither Darwin or Islam.

I am sorry, yet again there are those that wish to gloss over my question repeated on the last several pages.

your response to Vicy32 is off-topic as this is not a discussion on faith, it is however a discussion on the negative aspects of Darwin's Theory.

thanks again...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


That is a very good point, this picture:




Have done more harm than good, and made allot of people think we evolved from modern apes.
When the truth is that we are from the same family of sub-species. Just like we are in family with every carbon based life form on the planet.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Schrödinger
Learn to read really it have been pointed out several times now, but yet you refuse to accept simple facts.

When Darwin is talking about races he aren't talking about Negroids, Caucasians, Arabs, Asians, he is talking about; mammals, reptiles and birds!

He acknowledged that the human race - homo sapiens sapiens, is ONE race.

yes we are animals too... I fail to see the logic in your statement since you admit homosapiens as ONE race.

Yes...and Darwin was referring to species as races. Why? Because he was writing a book, not a scientific paper.

And again, a subtitle for a book is not a damning argument.

circular reasoning.

Is not evident in the above.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

...he means genetic variations. He does't mean 'races' of humans, he means any sort of genetic variation.

orly now ? see above post

...in your above post...you don't rely on anything Darwin wrote and you're consistently ignoring massive chunks of posts that refute the entirety of your claims.

I have repeatedly asked you to provide any sort of quote from anything Darwin ever wrote to prove that he is, in fact, a racist. There are many publications of his for you to choose from, so why aren't you bothering to actually show that Darwin is a racist using his own words?

So far you've provided the subtitle of his book, something that doesn't prove anything, and a quote mine that I showed skewed what Darwin was actually trying to say in the paragraph that the quote was mined from.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
did you want to address Darwin's subtitling Preservation of the Favored Races ?

I addressed it by asking you to provide evidence from within that book or any other publication by Charles Darwin that he meant races of humanity and that he espoused racist viewpoints.

or would you like to still call my question stupid.. I have seen no one address it yet.

I addressed it. You're ignoring my addressing of it and picking individual sentences from incredibly lengthy posts to respond to.

the fact is Darwin was a Racist and viewed his race as superior, try reading the ascent of Man

Where is the proof of this supposed 'fact' of Darwin's racism? And the book is called The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex and is the first place in which he proposed sexual selection, a revolutionary idea in the field of evolutionary biology.

And to quote the book I assume that you're referring to:

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
yet again the topic is not about Christianity, how would you then account for the Islamic view of Darwins Theory ?

Ignorance?

please stay on topic and away from bashing the Theistic group of ones choice.

Then please hold to your own word and stop bashing atheists, as you have done excessively in this thread.

Darwin was a Racist and his doctrine can be read in the ascent of man, just as the title states.

Again, to quote the Descent of Man

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate

and he begets racism and dictators... also experienced in this topic.

Where are the examples of racism and dictatorship being begotten by Darwin's ideas? What racism and what dictatorship has been experienced in this thread?

I keep asking you for clarification, you keep not answering....

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
would you attempt to address my one simple question on the last page ? referring to...

here let me try to change the course, yet once again without discussing Creation and Christians

According to the (subtitle) in Darwin's Origin of Species,

"Preservation of favored Races"

I addressed this by asking you to provide any evidence in any of Darwin's publications that he favored one human race over another.

To repeat myself, from his other publication the Descent of Man:

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate

I would love to address, as also I would not like to have this strict doctrine of racism imprinted on any more of the worlds youth via the classroom at too early an age.

You're repeating yourself. Please demonstrate that this is:
1: A doctrine
2: Racist
3: Imprinted on the youth

I believe when you corrupt a young a mind with this sort of doctrine and without proper guidance that it could lead to many problems later in life (as pointed out via sociobiology) I guess this is a word not many scientist are familiar with ?

...screw it, you're just copy-pasting points that I've already addressed, so I'll just massively quote myself since you ignored the points I raised:

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

I've been addressing the topic with repeated requests that you back up your claims. Your only attempt to consisted of stupid photoshop that is now your avatar, links to books that exist without any quotations, a statement that Haeckel was a racist idiot, a quote mine of Darwin, and a cover of a National Geographic issue that teased the possibility that Darwin was wrong only to.....just say that he wasn't as the first part of the article.

You didn't respond to my counter-points. You didn't respond to the fact that I showed your sources were misleading you. You responded by simply asking me about the article in National Geographic, that is a red herring. That itself is off-topic.

Just because we disagree with the title doesn't mean we're not on the topic.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
here let me try to change the course, yet once again without discussing Creation and Christians

According to the (subtitle) in Darwin's Origin of Species,

"Preservation of favored Races"

...he means genetic variations. He does't mean 'races' of humans, he means any sort of genetic variation.

But honestly, your own proof in the works of Darwin is the subtitle? Shouldn't such a racist tract have filth from cover to cover? If he is, as you put it yourself, a 'super-racist', shouldn't his book have entire chapters that you can quote as evidence?

The only quotation you provided was a quote-mine of Darwin basically saying that European colonialism may drive less advanced societies to ruin. Where's the mountain of racism you would find in such a racist book?

A subtitle isn't all that is needed.

I would love to address, as also I would not like to have this strict doctrine of racism imprinted on any more of the worlds youth via the classroom at too early an age.

Again, please show that there is a 'strict doctrine of racism' in Darwin's work and show how it is being imprinted on the youth in the classroom.

I believe when you corrupt a young a mind with this sort of doctrine and without proper guidance that it could lead to many problems later in life (as pointed out via sociobiology)

Where does sociobiology point out this?

I guess this is a word not many scientist are familiar with ?

Sociobiology? Corrupt? Which word are you talking about? I mean, I know sociobiology is definitely a word scientists are familiar with, they're the ones that created it...

(see videos/page 1 and Mein Komfh) and also in sociobiology.

So...reference the nearly hour of videos and read an entire book that never mentions Darwin once? Can you just take the damning examples that are found in these videos? I mean, it should be easy to do if you're going on about this as if it is self-evident.

And where does Mein Kampf mention Darwin? Where does it mention evolutionary biology?

It's very easy to show that Hitler didn't believe in evolution by reading this book. Simply take a look at the following passages:

The fox remains always a fox, the goose remains a goose, and the tiger will retain the character of a tiger. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. i, ch. xi

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x

From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tabletalk (Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier)

Soooooo where in that horrible, filthy book does it contradict the obvious assertion that Hitler was a Creationist?

Once more you bring up sociobiology. Where in sociobiology do we find that there is a negative impact with regard to Darwin's ideas?

edit on 26/12/10 by madnessinmysoul because: (no reason given)

I admire your avoidance...

And you ignore my addressing of the points...

you are more than welcome to bust it down line for line in a string of one-liner responses !

Well, I've tried to refrain from doing that, and yet you've ignored every single point I've made in response to your incessantly ignorant assertions. I have brought forth external evidence using quotes from Darwin's own books that demonstrate he was not a racist (the man was an abolitionist for Cthulu's sake!) and evidence that Hitler was a creationist.

You have ignored all of this.

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
screw it... I am going to ask a Buddhist (a real one) if they think we evolved from Ape,

The opinions of a Buddhist are irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

I already know most all of the theistic views and their answer/response to that question in particular.

Argumentum ad populum, a logical fallacy that puts forth the idea that the majority consensus of the population is what validates a proposition.

Originally posted by Schrödinger
reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

 

That is a very good point, this picture:




Have done more harm than good, and made allot of people think we evolved from modern apes.
When the truth is that we are from the same family of sub-species. Just like we are in family with every carbon based life form on the planet.

maybe it should be bumped up to the senior year in High School ?

your link does not work... is it religious in nature ?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


that is some string of one-liner opinion !

thanks for your input, but I seriously doubt it is needed any longer in this particular topic, there is a plethora of topics which are more suited to your individual view.

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Schrödinger
Again you prove without a doubt, that you do not have even a middle-school understanding of the theory of evolution.
We did not evolve from the ape! The theory of evolution never stated that, modern apes evolved from a common ancestor several MILLION years ago.

try explaining that to the Children, to whom which effigy's and pictures speak a thousand words to down at the museum and in the grade school books.

No, you don't understand what these 'effigy's' (sic) and pictures are actually showing.

again maybe the bulk of these professors of this view are teaching the wrong theory to our kids...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d814f500b3d2.jpg[/atsimg]

edit on 12/26/2010 by Cosmic.Artifact because: (no reason given)

That is not a picture of a depiction of a modern ape, it is a depiction of a tool-using homonid. It's a depiction of Australopithecus afarensis

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

that is some string of one-liner opinion !

Yes, that's a great response. Apparently asking for clarification is an opinion, citing the books you're mentioning is an opinion, and demonstrating the actual facts of the matter is an opinion. Did you even bother reading my post? It contained four external sources, and was primarily not made up of 'one liners'.

Of course, your dismissive attitude towards my posts seems to imply that you could have readily dismantled it by actually addressing the points, something you curiously have not attempted to do. Why is that? Why, if my posts are just 'one-liner opinion' don't you just point that out by showing exactly how they are 'one-liner opinion'? What's more, that is a 'one-liner opinion' response to an incredibly lengthy post, which highlights the general hypocrisy and ignorance of your claims

thanks for your input, but I seriously doubt it is needed any longer in this particular topic, there is a plethora of topics which are more suited to your individual view.

Thank you for demonstrating that you don't bother reading my posts, let alone respond to their content. Thank you for also highlighting the hypocrisy in calling my posts nothing but 'one-liner opinion' whilst making incredibly tiny posts in response to lengthy refutations of every single portion of your claims.

*Note: None of the above in my response so far is 'one-liner opinion'*

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


the question was not if (I) understand it or not...

the question (was) if the (children) see it that way ?

thanks again for trying to twist my comment, the exit to the stage is at left !