Just saw Ben Stein's documentary, "Expelled" about the issues of Darwinism......

reply to post by Conspiriology


I thought we were posting sections of fiction written not written in English. My bad. You started it, though. I was merely following suit.

reply to post by Conspiriology


i'm not bothering to respond to your whole posts anymore, i've gone back and forth with you enough times to know that you don't care about evidence, i'm just going to respond to one thing

it's vague when it has several meanings in a context.
what kind of animal?
a) an old silverback
b) an ape
c) a gorilla
d) all of the above

don't accuse people who dismantle your arguments of being illiterate, it's unbecoming.

the ignorance in this forum is too much for my happy mood, i'm off to do something that's more fun for the next few days

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
it's vague when it has several meanings in a context.
what kind of animal?
a) an old silverback
b) an ape
c) a gorilla
d) all of the above

LOL Whats so vauge Maddness! HA HA It's a multiple choice asking what "kind" of animal it is!

No on second look, it doesn't even suggest that much. It just says what kind of animal? umm ok.

Choice D isn't a kind of anything because you didn't give a referance for all of the above. So it isn't "kind" making the context vague it is that YOU never made a contextual distinction for the choice to referance.

You ask a question "what kind of animal? what kind of animal WHAT?
what about what kind of animal madd? This is your argument to suggest the word "kind" is vague? You have GOT to be kidding.

Sorry madd,, it isn't the word "kind" making it vague,, it is you making it vague purposefully as their is no context given other than a question asking what kind of animal and a list of some with one named all of the above. It could have been what kind of animal "does" this or looks like that or any thing but you just say what kind of animal with not only a vague referance to follow, but NONE, NO referance PERIOD.

So far I have seen you cloudy about what the meaning of the word universe, confused about the word kind and now you seem to be making statements suggesting you have a point to make when the only point you have made is their is none.

don't accuse people who dismantle your arguments of being illiterate, it's unbecoming.

It may be unbecoming Maddness but please show me where you have dismnantled anything when you can't seem to assemble a simple mulitiple choice question where at least one of the choices is correct. Say for instance, "what kind of animal has an opposing thumb?" That would be a referance to the KIND of animal that has one.

You see what I mean Maddness?? do you get it now that it isn't KIND that makes it vague. IT IS YOU making a vague question.

The word kind isn't the fault for that and is not the test taker failing that question but the test maker failing to form a question that has anything to do with the choices given.

You may THINK you have dismantled my argument but you prove my point AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN.

You have lost this one Madd and it is now a matter of losing and losing REAL BAD.

What "kind" of point?

Johnson AGAIN

- Con





[edit on 23-5-2008 by Conspiriology]

I do not mean to seem unkind but am a real scientist much much smarter than any of you.
So Genus Gorilla
Western Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla)
Western Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla gorilla)
Cross River Gorilla (Gorilla gorilla diehli)
Eastern Gorilla (Gorilla beringei)
Mountain Gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei)
Eastern Lowland Gorilla (Gorilla beringei graueri)

I haven't had time to read through the whole thread (will do soon) so I apologise if what is in my post has already been posted.

I thought you might want to take a look at this website.

Expelled Exposed

Richard Dawkins also stated that he was mislead and the intentions of the film explained to him by Ben Stein before filming were false, or extremely vague in the concept/purpose of the film.

Here is also an article from Richard Dawkin's website. It concerns a letter written by a Jewish man, whose family were victims of the holocaust, to Michael Shermer. The Jewish man, under the influence of Ben Stein's film Expelled, accused all Darwinists and Atheists of being Holocaust deniers and more-or-less Nazi/Hitler sympatheisers. Richard Dawkin's sent an excellent repy to him detailing his specific beliefs pertaining to Darwinism.

Dawkin's Letter

I only intend these links to show the other side of the argument, not my own personal view.
(Directed to the threadstarter) I think you need the include both sides of the argument (in your argument) in order for people to give a informed answer. It prevents a lot of confusion and arguing.

I FINALLY saw it!

THE BEST movie ever!
I will buy copies for families and friends!
FANTASTIC!
It shows the COMPLETE hypocrisy by those in power in the academic realm!
Freedom, indeed.

reply to post by Clearskies


wow i thought necromancy was considered witchcraft?

clear probabily the funniest film in that a clown takes the death of 50 million people and trivialises to fit an argument thats frankly made up and all the evidence goes against it

and well the expelled wernt expelled

one didnt qualify for his doctorate, several wernt sacked, one had already handed in his notice long before what he was supposedly expelled for happened

no wonder Bentein i called a comic this is deffinatley more mocumentary then documentary

intelligent people hear these wonderous claims and ya know what ...? they go look into them ....... want to look into the claims clear? or just take the face value?

these videos will give you a glimpse of ome of the claims accuracy, the rest is up to you

looking at the expelled's claims of expulsion


a christian scientist checking the science



something i have found that will cheer you up, i have actually found video evidence of Hitler and if you check the language yes he deffinatley sounds like a critical thinking atheist ...



[edit on 14/2/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun


wow i thought necromancy was considered witchcraft?

What are you taliking about?
I don't talk to dead people!

clear probabily the funniest film in that a clown takes the death of 50 million people and trivialises to fit an argument thats frankly made up and all the evidence goes against it

It's really not funny how regimes killed those they considered genetically inferior!
"Survival of the fittest" and all that.

and well the expelled wernt expelled

one didnt qualify for his doctorate, several wernt sacked, one had already handed in his notice long before what he was supposedly expelled for happened

Yeah? It's all in the movie. Of course those expelled for questioning Darwin had no recourse in the justice system(As usual!)
so there's no trial evidence to look at, is there?It's funny Smithsonian or these other Universities didn't sue for libel! MAYBE because there was evidence not in their favor!

But, I guess you'll take the 'establishments' word over 'regular' people.
It's also ridiculous how the Smithsonian refused an interview over Mr. Sternberg's case!

looking at the expelled's claims of expulsion

So, they actually finally got a job?!!
Wow, it must mean something!

a christian scientist checking the science

He sounds so smart.

Childish!
Get me REAL footage of the Nazi genetic utopia program! Thanks!
Here's some info on the nazi Volksgesundheit;
In The Name of Public Health
Here's something more;
Blood and Soil





[edit on 14-2-2009 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by Clearskies

What are you taliking about?
I don't talk to dead people!

or read all that much either

necromancy i raising the dead e.g. 5 month dead topics

It's really not funny how regimes killed those they considered genetically inferior!

it really isnt funny and thats the point, when you take a twisted racist with anger isue put him in charge of a country allow him to convice the ret of the country he has a good idea through a shared connection and they the go on to massacer million .. but then 50 years later some idiot comes along and says hey yeah thats all down to a 150 year old book ... whe the idiot didnt bother to check if said 150 year old book was banned and burned by said megolomaniac

"Survival of the fittest" and all that.

genocide isnt surbival of the fitest, there are no graound for genocide in ToE

Yeah? It's all in the movie. Of course those expelled for questioning Darwin had no recourse in the justice system(As usual!)
so there's no trial evidence to look at, is there?It's funny Smithsonian or these other Universities didn't sue for libel! MAYBE because there was evidence not in their favor!

ummm wait becasue someone didnt do somthing then they are guilty?

there is no evidence they simply wernt expelled, how can you claim you were acked for writting a pro ID column when your still writting for the news paper

how can you claim your expelled for a pro ID paper when you had already been told at the end of the emester your no longer needed as your work i no longer up to scratch

are they psychic? do they know thye wil be pro ID in the future so tell them they are no longer needed before they do what ever it is they were supposedly sacked for?

But, I guess you'll take the 'establishments' word over 'regular' people. It's also ridiculous how the Smithsonian refused an interview over Mr. Sternberg's case!

im sorry didnt you know there was a full govermental review over that already, no wonder they couldnt be bothered to do an interview on it

and well i dont know if you noticed they usually wernt what you would class as regular everday joe's

but int it odd that to get meyers and Dawkins interviews they lied about the title of the film, lied about the subject of the film then expelled Meyers when he turned up to watch it with free tickets he had reserved over the internet in his own name .....

So, they actually finally got a job?!!
Wow, it must mean something!

so you didnt actually watch it then?

as that comment ha no relevance to the video...what so ever

He sounds so smart.

he really is

Childish!

about as childish as the arguemnts in expelled

Get me REAL footage of the Nazi genetic utopia program! Thanks!
Here's some info on the nazi Volksgesundheit

know this already, he had everyone checked to rigerous medical standards made abortion for fine healthy german women illegal and gave finaincial and social reewards for mass producing the next gen of germans

so how does

Hitler catholic creationism mixed with his anti-sematism and psychotic nature equate to darwin casued the nazi's?

how does Hitlers aryian eugenics policies based upon eugenics(been practiced for thousands of years so not evolution) and the belief that ariens were the same biblical kind as adam and eve, and he wanted to recreate the garden of eden for the pure decendants of adam and eve

i want to be very clear here im not idiotic or ignorant enough to state hitler did all those things becasue he was catholic or a creationist or had brown hair im not idiotic enough to try and simplify somthing so complex to 1 cause especially when that 1 cause has nothing to do with the subject

hitler didnt do it becasue of evolution, he never mentions evolution or Darwin he has all book relating to evolution banned and burned

when your film has two such glaring holes in it,

most of the expelled wernt expelled, and the ones that were were expelled for bieng bad at thier job or for several other reason and 1/2 of them knew they were on the way out before thier pro ID stance was taken

and hitler had nothing to do with evolution

then its not really a very well researched documentary really is it

its about as accurate as a documentary on the life of jesus that portrays him as the pink power ranger and has a detaied re-enactment of how he took on godzilla and single handedly saved tokyo by wrestling godzilla back out to sea

and nice work on posting the anti bolshovik communist propoganda image .. they used that stuff to justify 4 million russians killed in concentration camps and around 26 million moret raped to death, stabbed, drowned, hung, starved or just shot in streets Russia accounts for the majority of civillain casualties of WW2

just becasue the picture looks interesting and you cant read the wording doesnt mean no one else can

[edit on 14/2/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun
or read all that much either

necromancy i raising the dead e.g. 5 month dead topics

I didn't know it was 'forboden' to post on old threads!
Thanks mod.

it really isnt funny and thats the point, when you take a twisted racist with anger isue put him in charge of a country allow him to convice the ret of the country he has a good idea through a shared connection and they the go on to massacer million .. but then 50 years later some idiot comes along and says hey yeah thats all down to a 150 year old book ... whe the idiot didnt bother to check if said 150 year old book was banned and burned by said megolomaniac

Hitler MAINLY and publicly followed Lamarkian evolution
which was a predecessor to Darwin's form of evolution!

"Survival of the fittest" and all that.

genocide isnt surbival of the fitest, there are no graound for genocide in ToE

Really???
Even Darwin himself said that even stupid people don't allow their worst animals to breed, but that if we put a damper on human breeding it might create evil in our psyche!
So, if we have no 'qualms' about mitigating racial cleansing or only 'good breeders' to populate, we will have 'Utopia'. Have you ever seen "The Island"?
Good movie.

there is no evidence they simply wernt expelled

No evidence 'PRESENTED'.

how can you claim your expelled for a pro ID paper when you had already been told at the end of the emester your no longer needed as your work i no longer up to scratch

"Up to scratch" or "Not towing the party line"?

are they psychic? do they know thye wil be pro ID in the future so tell them they are no longer needed before they do what ever it is they were supposedly sacked for?

After numerous victims were castigated for ID??? Why should they stay and kowtow to the 'man'???

im sorry didnt you know there was a full govermental review over that already, no wonder they couldnt be bothered to do an interview on it

I'd sure like to see the review!

and well i dont know if you noticed they usually wernt what you would class as regular everday joe's

They're smart, but they received no 'Institutional' accolades like Dawkins, that's for sure! Biased, much?

but int it odd that to get meyers and Dawkins interviews they lied about the title of the film, lied about the subject of the film

Dawkins could tell by the line of questioning, they weren't 'boot-lickers'!

then expelled Meyers when he turned up to watch it with free tickets he had reserved over the internet in his own name .....

Can't producers pick and choose who goes to a screening?
I always thought so!

Get me REAL footage of the Nazi genetic utopia program! Thanks!
Here's some info on the nazi Volksgesundheit

know this already, he had everyone checked to rigerous medical standards made abortion for fine healthy german women illegal and gave finaincial and social reewards for mass producing the next gen of germans

Yes, German women WITHOUT GENETIC defect were ENCOURAGED to breed and forbidden to have abortions!

Hitler catholic creationism mixed with his anti-sematism and psychotic nature equate to darwin casued the nazi's?

He mixed them to get EVERYONE involved!

how does Hitlers aryian eugenics policies based upon eugenics(been practiced for thousands of years so not evolution) and the belief that ariens were the same biblical kind as adam and eve, and he wanted to recreate the garden of eden for the pure decendants of adam and eve

To create the Highest Evolved race for The Reich!

i want to be very clear here im not idiotic or ignorant enough to state hitler did all those things becasue he was catholic or a creationist or had brown hair im not idiotic enough to try and simplify somthing so complex to 1 cause especially when that 1 cause has nothing to do with the subject

How generous of you.

hitler didnt do it becasue of evolution, he never mentions evolution or Darwin he has all book relating to evolution banned and burned

Hitler and Darwin were separated by years and geography, but Hitler used the term Entwicklung(Evolution)
MANY times in Mein Kampf!

and hitler had nothing to do with evolution

Even those smarter than you, say he used Lamarkian evolution@!!!!

and nice work on posting the anti bolshovik communist propoganda image .. they used that stuff to jsutify 4million russians killed in concentration camps and more then double that raped to death, stabbed, drowned, hung or just shot in streets

The Slavs were supposedly 'inferior', or more related to transitional forms!!!!!!!


Why Evolution Breeds Monsters



[edit on 14-2-2009 by Clearskies]

Originally posted by Clearskies
Hitler MAINLY and publicly followed Lamarkian evolution
which was a predecessor to Darwin's form of evolution!

And you determined that by plugging 'hitler and lamarckian evolution' into a google book search?

lol

You'll have to do better than that.

Hitler and Darwin were separated by years and geography, but Hitler used the term Entwicklung(Evolution)
MANY times in Mein Kampf!

No, he didn't. Not in the way you are attempting to suggest.

Hitler's goal was the "purification" of the "Aryan race" through the elimination of "subhumans", which included Jews, gypsies, Asians, black Africans, and everyone else who was not a white Aryan. Despite the creationists claims that this was based on Darwinain evolutionary theory, Hitler's own writings give quite a different story. The ICR claims that "Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) over and over again in his book." (ICR Impact, "The Ascent of Racism", Paul Humber Feb 1987) Like so many of ICR's claims, this one is simply not true -- a quick scan of several online English translations of Mein Kampf shows only ONE use of the word "evolution", in a context which does not refer at all to biological evolution, but instead to the development of political ideas in Germany: "This evolution has not yet taken the shape of a conscious intention and movement to restore the political power and independence of our nation."

Read it yourself.

gutenberg.net.au...

I can't be bothered counting, but maybe you could compare the number of times he talks about god, the lord, and almighty creator, christian, protestant with evolution. The problem in the german version is that 'entwicklung' also means development.

So, lets take the first use of entwicklung in mein kampf:

Am 1.April 1924 hatte ich, auf Grund des Urteils- spruches des Münchner Volksgerichts von diesem Tage, meine Festungshaft zu Landsberg am Lech anzutreten.
Damit bot sich mir nach Jahren ununterbrochener Arbeit zum ersten Male die Möglichkeit, an ein Werk heran-zugehen, das von vielen gefordert und von mir selbst als zweckmäßig für die Bewegung empfunden wurde. So habe ich mich entschlossen, in zwei Bänden nicht nur die Ziele unserer Bewegung klarzulegen, sondern auch ein Bild der Entwicklung derselben zu zeichnen. Aus ihr wird mehr zu lernen sein als aus jeder rein doktrinären Abhandlung.

In the 1939 English translation we have:

After years of uninterrupted labour it was now possible for the first
time to begin a work which many had asked for and which I myself felt
would be profitable for the Movement. So I decided to devote two volumes
to a description not only of the aims of our Movement but also of its
development. There is more to be learned from this than from any purely
doctrinaire treatise.

You can put evolution in there, but it has absolutely nothing to do with biology or Darwin. That's the forward by another dude, though.

So lets take the first use by Hitler:

Diese Entwicklung machte bei mir sehr schnelle Fort-schritte, so daß ich schon mit fünfzehn Jahren zum Verständ-nis des Unterschiedes von dynastischem „Patriotis-mus“ und völkischem „Nationalismus“ gelangte; und ich kannte damals schon nur mehr den letzteren.

And in the translation:

I developed very rapidly in the nationalist direction, and by the time I
was 15 years old I had come to understand the distinction between
dynastic patriotism and nationalism based on the concept of folk, or
people, my inclination being entirely in favour of the latter.

German version of mein kampf (too bad, pdf):

www.radioislam.org...

You can do the rest. Find one that is actually related to Darwin or evolutionary biology. It's your claim. Support it.

Of course, all you really do is trawl creationist websites for readily prepared nuggets of scat.

[edit on 14-2-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by StellarX

Doesn't that just show up the limitations of science ( which it obviously is) when it comes to it's demand for certain types of evidence only?

Consider the progress we've made in the last 200 years of naturalistic science, especially the last 50 years, compared to sciences which make allowances for spiritual, supernatural, or godly interventions. Consider the rate of technological advancement in both the Hellenistic and Enlightenment eras compared to.. say.. the Dark Ages.

Consider that the scientific method itself was designed and shaped primarily by the principals of two very religious men who had ardent beliefs in god. Ibn Al-Haytham, a devout muslim - and Galileo Galilei, a devout Catholic. Yet they did not allow their faith to circumvent their reason.

If anything, mixing religion and science has only ever served to retard the acquisition of knowledge and the advancement of technology. Be it by substituting untestable and unprovable "magic" to fill in gaps, or at worst by proactively going out and burning acquired knowledge. Complain all you like about academic institutions firing religious employees (a fallacious charge, anyhow) - at least we're not forcing them to drink hemlock or scraping off their skin with oyster shells and burning them alive.

The scientific method isn't perfect... but thus far, it has proven to be the best system for acquiring knowledge.

----------------

As for any IDiots who spout lines refering to "Darwinism" or "Survival of the Fittest", you're merely showing your complete ignorance of the subject matter.

Firstly, there is no such thing as "Darwinism". Just as there is no such thing as Newtonianism, Einsteinsim, or Faridayism. If there were such a thing as "Darwinism", it would only refer to the outline of Evolution as proposed by Darwin - which we know is incorrect in it's incomplete picture. For instance, we have identified far more mechanisms for evolution than just selection; such as Genetic Drift for instance. Darwin was also wrong in his concept of a "Tree" of life. In reality, the vast majority of life on earth are single celled microbes - and they are susceptible to Horizontal Gene Transfer - meaning that the "tree" of life, is merely a branch on a much larger "Web" of life. Multicellular organisms aren't exempt from HGT either - as such is the case with Retroviruses that inject their own genetic code into our own. Any insertion, substitution, or deletion in the genetic code can cause a frame shift and modify traits expressed by your genes.

Secondly, the term "Survival of the Fittest" is not supported by Evolution in any form. It's simply inaccurate to the highest degree. It's merely a social meme that has perpetuated in the popular vernacular - but not among academics actually studying, applying, and furthering the understanding of Evolution.

The term was not proposed by Darwin, but by Herbet Spencer - an economist. To use the idea of "Survival of the Fittest" as a way to claim that Evolution is somehow antithetical to cooperation or a healthy society is completely ignorant and underhanded. This is because Evolution isn't described as "Survival of the Fittest", but "Survival of the most well adapted". Society is a behavioral adaptation that promotes survival of the individual by the living and working withing the group. The healthier the society, the healthier the individual. Evolution favors cooperation, which is why we see it so often in the form of herds, flocks, and schools.

Originally posted by Clearskies

Hitler MAINLY and publicly followed Lamarkian evolution which was a predecessor to Darwin's form of evolution!

its the predecessor in the same wy thinking the sun treavels around the earth wa the precursor to the earth going around the sun

and ever read mein kampf? has nothing to do with lamarkism, i can happily and in context copy paste a whole range of hitlers comments out and then stick next to them almost identicle quotes from creationists and preachers

you will ...ummm.. never be able to do that with Darwins work or Lemarks work

Really???
Even Darwin himself said that even stupid people don't allow their worst animals to breed, but that if we put a damper on human breeding it might create evil in our psyche!
So, if we have no 'qualms' about mitigating racial cleansing or only 'good breeders' to populate, we will have 'Utopia'. Have you ever seen "The Island"?
Good movie.

wait what?

but thats not survival of the fitest, that Darwin talking about slective breeding used by farmers for thousands of years and how some people want to use those principle on people eugenics) which he considered evil

so who has no qualms about mitiganting racial groups? well as Darwins work shows that all racial group are pointless and we are all the same species, not different kinds(yes in the biblical sense) so the black kind isnt the ame kind as adam+ eve ad all the white folk .. which was used as a valid reason for slavery not bieng cruel (Darwin work on descent of man and origins were tied directly to anti-slavery actions www.telegraph.co.uk... re-to-end-slavery.html)

so if Evolution is showing we are all the same so racial group are nonsense, and survival of the fiteste is about each individual and species struggaling to survive and breed not deciding 1/2 your species arnt worthy and killing them especially for none survival reasons

then where in Evolutionary theory does it come from?

No evidence 'PRESENTED'.

i got sacked, but your still working for them years later ..... umm yeah but i was still expelled

they wouldnt give me my doctorate becuase im pro Id, we saw your test results you flunked them didnt you? ..... yes

i had been told my services were no longer required i then decided to publish a pro ID paper and that why i lost my job ....... but you were sacked before wernt you ... umm yes

what evidence is there to present except thier claim simply dont match the facts

"Up to scratch" or "Not towing the party line"?

had had several critical reviews and been told his service were no longer needed BEFORE he made any pro ID comments

not up to scratch

After numerous victims were castigated for ID??? Why should they stay and kowtow to the 'man'???

what who? several people? jsut not the ones in the documentary

havnt you noticed yet if they are being told they are no longer needed before the incident, had already handed in thier notice before the incident, still works for who they were supposedly sacked by ... then no one was castigated for anything to do with thier faith

I'd sure like to see the review!

look it up it shows that after the incident they did make efforts to make ure he knew he wasnt welcome and the sooner he left the better

but it failed to show any connection between pro ID and this action but could show a deffinate connection between totally destroying the journals integrity by breaking all the rules to publish the paper, and it was the fact the paper was badly written and accurate that the article should have been refused on and handed back for a re-write

also the fact it was an unpaid position and he had already handed in his notice before the article was even sent to the jounral ... he broke the rules embarassed his bosses destoryed thier journals credability ... not suprising they wanted rid

They're smart, but they received no 'Institutional' accolades like Dawkins, that's for sure! Biased, much?

maybe becasue Dawkin has put in 30+ years of very very good scientific work rather then or 4 years of sloppy work

its funny but when your good at your job and work hard some times you get rewarded for it, and when your bad at it and dont bother trying sometimes they let you coast sometimes they sack you

Dawkins could tell by the line of questioning, they weren't 'boot-lickers'!

they noticed very odd things during the questioning but they thought hey no reason to think they are total liars even if the questions are odd

richarddawkins.net... its covered here

Can't producers pick and choose who goes to a screening?
I always thought so!

he is in the film, thanked in the credits, booked the ticket online in his name (this was for a mall showing with Benstien introducing) so guests were vetted, arrived and stood in line, someone realsied who he was when he was close to entering and expelled him .... but lkeft Dawkins who had gone with him stood in the cue

Dawkin actually wondered in and watched the film

so yes they can pick and choose thanking them in credits, having them in your film, then panicking and expelling them becasue they come to watch the film .... hypocritical really given the films supposed subject matter

Yes, German women WITHOUT GENETIC defect were ENCOURAGED to breed and forbidden to have abortions!

but this has nothing to do with evolution

the enviroment and predatorial pressure didnt decide who was elligable to breed or not, and it wasnt based on genetics they hadnt been discovered yet it was based purley on appearance

He mixed them to get EVERYONE involved!

mein kampf was written long before his push for power, hi catholic upbringing goe just that traighjt back to child hood

but hey even if he didnt believe it that still means he tricked amost all the christians in germany with his fake faith and talked them into taking part in some truley horendous things becasue they had faith

To create the Highest Evolved race for The Reich!

pure blood race isnt evolved

again read mein kampf he goes with the people made as is garden of eden were just as we were then we havnt evolved etc etc

he wanted a german race of pure blood areian who were the true decendants of adam and eve and so thier purety should be preserved

thats not evolution or evolving ...

How generous of you.

nothing to do with generous so ill ignore the condesention its a matter of honesty and integrity

hitlers actions cannot be drawn down to 1 simple casue such a he wa catholic or he had brown hair or he had a moustache or he painted pictures

its even harder to draw one conclusion when that conclusion has nothing at all to do with hitler as the above ones do

Hitler and Darwin were separated by years and geography, but Hitler used the term Entwicklung(Evolution)
MANY times in Mein Kampf!

no he used the word evolve but that isnt evolution, language evolvse culture evolves, things that evolve mean they change

using the word evolve under its meanin as an alternate to change is not the same a talking about the theory of evolution

No State could exist any longer. All order would be shattered. And all vestiges of cultural products which had been evolved through thousands of years would disappear. Nothing would be left but one tremendous field of death and destruction submerged in floods of water and mud.

Volume Two - The National Socialist Movement, Chapter II: The State

culture i not a biological organsim that replicates so this isnt about evolutionary theory

Not even the best of States and statal institutions can evolve faculties from a people which they lack and which they never possessed

Volume Two - The National Socialist Movement, Chapter II: The State

infact he only uses the word evolve twice, he uses devolve 3 times and none of those are about biological processes either

Even those smarter than you, say he used Lamarkian evolution@!!!!

why are you calling it lamarkian evolution? its just lamarkism, it doesnt carry the tag evolution becasue it makes them easier to distinguish

and even if he did follow lamarkism thats got nothing to do with Darwins evolution or survival of the fitest

and id like to see evidence of that, there simply is none in mein kampf or any of his other writtings ive read

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated.

For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

well that Genesis not Lamarkism

Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

more Genesis origins of man stuff

so not lamarkism and theres the fox like a fox, goose like a goose quote of creationism he makes a well

The Slavs were supposedly 'inferior', or more related to transitional forms!!!!!!!

a lesser race cant be transitional if you believe Genesis is accurate sticking a word used in evolutionary thoery on the end of somthing doesnt make it right

It's a VERY strong possibility that the people in the movie had their "test" results artificially lowered by the people in charge because of their beliefs. You can't fire someone because of their beliefs SO they find other ways to "expel" them. A lot of semantics are used in one of those youtube videos but the bottom line is, these people were fired, relieved of duty, demoted; "expelled".

[edit on 2/15/2009 by JPhish]

You want your children to learn religion from an institution, send them to catholic school. Homeschool, sunday school.

It is not like there are not other options out there.

Education is for the sake of education. not for the teaching of unfounded ideas and a to be used as a platform for religious recruitment.

And any good scientist is going to reject using science as a religious means of spreading a message.

I am sure all the Christians already lug their kids to church and say prayer ever night, they don't need to have thier religion re-affirmed at school, so this is nothing more then a sales attempt at reaching the masses.

I just don't understand the massive insecurity of a group of people that insist on breaking every civil right and trying to force the remaining population into a belief system.

I always said that if God wanted people to recruit, he would of made his followers better salesmen.

If ID is taught at schools, then we will have to waste precious time then teaching all the other supposed un tested unscientific theories like Scientology, numerology, and tea leaf reading.

There is too much about the world to learn these days to start inputting information from recruitment groups.

God may have made the student smart, but it is the school that teaches them about cell processes so they can invent the cure to the next disease.

The last eight years have shown how misplaced religious ideals can hold a world back from curing itself.

Originally posted by JPhish
It's a VERY strong possibility that the people in the movie had their "test" results artificially lowered by the people in charge because of their beliefs. You can't fire someone because of their beliefs SO they find other ways to "expel" them. A lot of semantics are used in one of those youtube videos but the bottom line is, these people were fired, relieved of duty, demoted; "expelled".

[edit on 2/15/2009 by JPhish]

Hmm, yeah, lol.

Gonzalez: tenure-track assistant professor. Fails to attract research funds, PhD students, or consolidate independent research. Few papers unrelated to previous PI (i.e., no independence). And you would give him tenure? A job for life as a researcher? lol. 4/12 failed to get tenure in a few years before him in the department.

Sternberg: non-paid research assistant. Subverts scientific process to get a ID screed into press just before leaving editors post. Still has job, but some people called him a doodie-head. He actually is a doodie-head. Still is a non-paid research assistant.

Caroline Crocker: part-time contract lecturer in cell biology. Teaches creationist idiocy in her university lectures. Fails to have contract renewed. No surprises, it was cell biology not theology, academic freedom doesn't stretch so far. Students are essentially paying customers, and universities have to give them the education they pay for. Probably a doodie-head, but don't have much personal experience with her idiocy.

Egnor: motivation for the new term 'Egnorance'. People said nasty things about him on the internet. Aww diddums. Another doodie-head, could even be classed as a douche-nozzle. Still employed at SUNY.

Robert Marks: employed at the religious university Baylor as an engineer. Got involved in the ongoing Dembski issues at Baylor by offering him a post-doc, although he was still employed as a professor at some backwater baptist university (a wyrd post-doc, lol). Posted a website that gave the impression that their 'evolutionary informatics lab' was part of Baylor. It wasn't. Made to change wording on website before allowing it back on servers. Although not mentioned, people also call him a doodie-head. Believes he is a finch, likes to eat sticks whilst giving a smouldering hunter-man gaze. Still employed at Baylor.



Of course, there was a strong possibility they were expelled just because they were IDers, lol. But some weren't 'expelled', just called doodie-heads. Others were both doodie-heads and incompetent, so had to get jobs elsewhere. There is no positive discrimination for incompetents, sorry. That's life.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by melatonin]

Ben Stein = Genius. DId I mention besides the few acting gigs he's done, Stein is also a lawyer, economist, author, and ex-presedintial speech writer?????

No mention of scientist in there anywhere.

Ben Stein is getting old and probably trying to score a few points with God. And as a lawyer, economist, I am sure there are quite a few points to erase.

reply to post by nixie_nox


oooo nixie, my favorite post of the month.


reply to post by melatonin


what i'm saying is, many of these variables could be due to foul play. For instance; I know a student whom accused one of his teachers of being a pedophile. The teacher defended himself by saying that the student was doing poorly in his class and in turn was defaming his good name out of anger. But in truth, the student was doing excellent in his class and the teacher changed his grades so that the excuse would seem viable. See where i'm going with this?

The teacher ended up being fired for suspicion of pedophilia 2 years after the accuser graduated. Oh happy day . . .

[edit on 2/15/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
what i'm saying is, many of these variables could be due to foul play.

But come on, which variables?

The two who actually had to find other positions were clearly not fit for their post. Crocker has admitted what she was doing, but thunk it was fine and dandy to teach creationist tripe to students expecting a course on cell biology in a respectable university.

Despite claims of being fired, Crocker was allowed to continue teaching and complete her GMU contract after the Department became aware of her ID instruction through student complaints. She was instructed to not teach about intelligent design and creation science, which was not part of the curriculum of the courses she had been hired to teach. Academic freedom does not mean the freedom to teach about anything you want, regardless of the expected content of your courses. And, far from having her academic career “come to an abrupt end”, after leaving GMU, Crocker taught at NVCC, and additionally acquired in 2006 a postdoctoral position at the Uniformed Services University in Bethesda, MD, working on T-cell signal transduction – an actual scientific investigation – suggesting that her reputation as a scientist was unaffected by the controversy over intelligent design.

www.expelledexposed.com...

Gonzalez attracted no major funding, developed no PhD students (ABE: I'll correct this, he actually had one complete their dissertation in 7 years), published no independent research, he was informed of these issues repeatedly during his appraisals. Although he found time to write a book for the general public. These are all the 'variables' required of someone who might be a tempting tenured professor.

Both were incompetent. These are the facts. And so you raise issues of potential conspiracy to paint them as so, lol. Is that the best you can do?

The teacher ended up being fired for suspicion of pedophilia 2 years after the accuser graduated. Oh happy day . . .

But we're not talking about such deceptive covering of tracks. But readily verified information (Gonzalez did attract no funds, failed to develop the expected PhD students, published no independent research). And your attempts to do so are pretty disingenuous. Out of all the people labelled 'expelled', only two even had to find new positions, both were incompetent and unfit for their position. Both have now found their level where teaching such tripe is acceptable and/or being an independent researcher and attracting major funds is not an issue.

Many universities are competitive research institutions. They also need to attract funding and customers, and have a duty to their students. Again, there is no positive discrimination for incompetent idiots. Because that's what you would require for these two. For the rest, they still obviously do their job well enough, but their words have attracted ridicule. Oh well. I'm sure you know the saying about being quiet and people thinking you're a fool, rather than opening it and removing all doubt. This applies readily to Egnor, whose squeeks I follow closely. But apparently he can still cut open a skull and do his job.

[edit on 15-2-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by JPhish


but with the failing to achieve his doctorate, its a comprehensive national exam, im fairly sure its sent away for moderated marking rather then his tutor saying hmm dont like this clown ill just flunk him

so now its several people in several educational etablishments all envolved in a consipracy to flunk someone

much easier to plant some drugs in his jacket and disqualify him that way

[edit on 15/2/09 by noobfun]