Was Darwin Racist and Homophobic at the Same Time?

[Jose Fly]

Darwin's racist theories led to Jewish and black genocide and the promotion of scientific racism. It's ugly. I'll be starting a thread on this soon.

I don't know if you realize this (or if maybe you're doing it on purpose), but these sorts of threads and arguments make you look positively ridiculous and rather dim as well. By being so absurd, you're doing far more for the science side of things than you are for creationism. Simply put, you're helping to perpetuate the stereotype of the ignorant, less intelligent creationist.

Let's move on to Darwin's "scientific accuracy" since you will not peer-review creation theory despite all the evidence.

Let's see if you can actually answer a question. First, what exactly is "creation theory"?

Darwin was wrong about survival of the "fittest." Part of it is the strongest, fastest and smartest will get dates and mates and a chance to "pass their genes." They'll be the ones to get to procreate, consume and survive. We see this with humans. Plants and animals, as well, but it's not in every case. We do not have a "one answer fits all" like Darwin tried to promote. Humans, plants and animals also cooperate instead of being in competition. Thus, Darwin was wrong about the drivers of natural selection.

Darwin most certainly did not account for every factor in the evolutionary process. Given that he published Origin of Species in the 1850's, that's hardly surprising. It's not at all uncommon for the early pioneers of a branch of science to have incomplete ideas. You can see this play out in pretty much every branch of science....physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.....all have their history of subsequent generations of scientists expanding on and adding to the work of their predecessors.

So again, this looks like nothing more than a mud-slinging exercise on your part.

Darwin was also wrong with his racist theories of humans evolving from chimpanzee-like-apes. People will not accept Lucy and we have evidence that evos committed fraud with the other apes and early man. What people have realized is that evolution scientists committed fraud and scientific racism in trying to promote their ToE. Fossil evidence doesn't really lead one to the truth when one doesn't know what happened to the earth or the fossils.

Lots of empty assertions, and zero substance. You could have just posted "The moon is made of cheese" and it would have been just as meaningful.

As for creation, I think it will become stronger once baraminology has been made into a book or complete theory.

Maybe you aren't aware, but no one really cares what you think of any scientific subject.

The evo scientists are stealing creation science ideas because they cannot explain their own theories. Today, we have science nut jobbers like Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Bill Nye. Interesting that they defend evolution science when scientific racism tried to destroy their people. Tyson has set science back to the dark ages with his advocacy of ToE, dark energy, dark matter, multiverses and the universe is suitable for life ramblings. At least Nye knows something about science and can explain it even though he isn't a scientist.

More empty, childish mud-slinging.

That you have to resort to such shallow, juvenile tactics speaks volumes about both you and creationism.

 

[Simurgh]

i just had to look up that word "baraminology" JB uses it as if it is an actual word with meaning. I read the wiki on that fun thing and laughed so hard, my dog hid under the bed just to be sure there was no "end of the world"scenario approaching. i'm not even gonna talk about how the cats high tailed it out of the room. I hope they recover too.
creationism is just a funny ideology. i wonder what it is that makes creationists so afraid of admitting that we do know how life evolved, what space holds, why bananas are not created to fit the human hand--that's just another laugh riot. Yeah, JB, we do know about how fossils come to be, how to date them, put them in the appropriate clade, and every now and again we come across formerly missing links that broaden our understanding of how life evolved on this planet.

JB, now just explain that whole racism thing to me and how this figures into evolution to the point where you conflate the two. if anything, evolution shows just how ridiculous a concept RACE actually is. so far you have plenty of rantings going on, but like Jose Fly points out, none of them make sense. there is not one viable argument concerning how evolutionary theory is ever so wrong besides your opinions. How about you lay out a logical argument that goes beyond "god did it"?

 

[Sapiens]

Hitler was anti-Darwinism and a creationist: "The fox is always a fox, the goose a goose, the tiger a tiger, etc., and the difference can lie at most in the varying measure of force, strength, intelligence, dexterity, endurance, etc., of the individual specimens." - Mein Kamph, Volume One - A Reckoning, Chapter XI: Nation and Race

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I've mated already. Have you? Ha ha?

More than most of us Bond yes, but that was because of your superhuman qualities, like being able to get in a dozen fist fights in the same day and still look fresh as a daisy.

That was some fortunate fluke mutation!

 

[Simurgh]

so Bond is part of a mated pair. very impressive. i just have to ask, though, what kind is he? following the tenets of baraminology, he's got to be a special kind, not part of the homo sapiens group of course, that would make him a monkey. oh, don't correct me. i am very well aware of the fact that we share a common ancestor with apes and not monkeys, but that's just sophistry where the creationist minions are concerned. i'm trying to figure the "kind" thing out, so let's humor them.
what does the creationist kind look like? they obviously mate since they multiply on some level. do they have fun doing that? given the admonishments against carnal delights, i have to doubt that. so, back to the "kind" thingy. what "kind" is he? can't be the Neanderthal kind, since they were absorbed into homo sapiens long ago. there must be another kind out there somewhere, i'm sure. i just wonder where they all come from? flat earth, where they faked the moon landing?

 

[james bond]

I don't know if you realize this (or if maybe you're doing it on purpose), but these sorts of threads and arguments make you look positively ridiculous and rather dim as well. By being so absurd, you're doing far more for the science side of things than you are for creationism. Simply put, you're helping to perpetuate the stereotype of the ignorant, less intelligent creationist.


Let's see if you can actually answer a question. First, what exactly is "creation theory"?


Darwin most certainly did not account for every factor in the evolutionary process. Given that he published Origin of Species in the 1850's, that's hardly surprising. It's not at all uncommon for the early pioneers of a branch of science to have incomplete ideas. You can see this play out in pretty much every branch of science....physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.....all have their history of subsequent generations of scientists expanding on and adding to the work of their predecessors.

So again, this looks like nothing more than a mud-slinging exercise on your part.


Lots of empty assertions, and zero substance. You could have just posted "The moon is made of cheese" and it would have been just as meaningful.


Maybe you aren't aware, but no one really cares what you think of any scientific subject.


More empty, childish mud-slinging.

That you have to resort to such shallow, juvenile tactics speaks volumes about both you and creationism.

TLDR. Creation theory is Genesis (See figure on the bottom)

 

[Simurgh]

TLDR. Creation theory is Genesis (See figure on the bottom)

and that proves what? that creationists have no sense of time? that they confuse millions of years of change and evolution with days?

 

[columbus]

TLDR. Creation theory is Genesis (See figure on the bottom)

Oh!
Well, why didn't you say you were an Old Earth Creationist? You people who have divorced your beliefs and worldviews from evidence and reason all look alike to me.
Tok

 

[Jose Fly]

TLDR. Creation theory is Genesis (See figure on the bottom)

That's not the "creation theory" espoused by Answers in Genesis or the Institute of Creation Research. It doesn't look like anything put forth by the Discovery Institute either. Also, you do realize that a picture does not constitute a theory, don't you?

Oh, and one more thing......is there a reason you keep skipping over all the quotes from Hitler where he directly appeals to Christianity, the Bible, and Jesus to justify the atrocities he carried out against the Jews? Is that a little too inconvenient for you?

 

[Sapiens]

... or where Hitler denigrates Darwinism.

 

[james bond]

That's not the "creation theory" espoused by Answers in Genesis or the Institute of Creation Research. It doesn't look like anything put forth by the Discovery Institute either. Also, you do realize that a picture does not constitute a theory, don't you?

Oh, and one more thing......is there a reason you keep skipping over all the quotes from Hitler where he directly appeals to Christianity, the Bible, and Jesus to justify the atrocities he carried out against the Jews? Is that a little too inconvenient for you?

Hitler was raised Catholic, but left his Bible at home. He found his life's calling when he found Darwin. He was wearing the I ♥ Darwin shirt when he put his victims in ovens and performed medical torture on them. This led him to become the 2nd anti-Christ.

 

[Darkstorn]

Hitler was raised Catholic, but left his Bible at home. He found his life's calling when he found Darwin. He was wearing the I ♥ Darwin shirt when he put his victims in ovens and performed medical torture on them. This led him to become the 2nd anti-Christ.

****.

I invoke Poe's Law.

 

[Simurgh]

i can't understand why bible bangers always insist that hitler was an atheist and trot him out as if their fantasies made that a truth. he was a catholic, proclaimed it often enough, and had a pretty cozy relationship with the vatican. so even if he was not the good little catholic he said he was, how do you explain away the complicity of the church? and by the way, do those same alt-reality people also claim that Cortez, Columbus, Diaz,any of the crusaders, etc. were atheists too? might as well, since they live on another planet--alt-earth.

here is a bit on that famous, saintly pope Pius XII:
(read the full report at) The Holocaust and the Catholic Church

That indictment is made explicit in the title Cornwell has given his book: Hitler's Pope. His criticism, rooted in a painstaking examination of Pacelli's record as the Vatican's point man in dealing with the rise of Hitler in the 1930s and of his maneuvering as Pius XII during the war years, is a devastating refutation of the claim that this Pope's diplomacy can in any way be characterized as wisdom. Instead of a portrait of a man worthy of sainthood, Cornwell lays out the story of a narcissistic, power-hungry manipulator who was prepared to lie, to appease, and to collaborate in order to accomplish his ecclesiastical purpose—which was not to save lives or even to protect the Catholic Church but, more narrowly, to protect and advance the power of the papacy. Pacelli's personal history, his character, and his obsession with Vatican prerogatives combined at the crucial hour to make him "the ideal Pope for Hitler's unspeakable plan," Cornwell writes. "He was Hitler's pawn. He was Hitler's Pope."

 

[Jose Fly]

Hitler was raised Catholic, but left his Bible at home. He found his life's calling when he found Darwin. He was wearing the I ♥ Darwin shirt when he put his victims in ovens and performed medical torture on them. This led him to become the 2nd anti-Christ.

So you're going to stick to this talking point no matter how stupid it makes you look, and no matter what the historical evidence (including Hitler's own words) shows.

All right then.

 

[Jose Fly]

****.

I invoke Poe's Law.

Yup.

 

[james bond]

Who wrote what? More evidence to show he was racist and caused the Holocaust and black genocide.

Darwin: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace the savage races throughout the world..."

Hitler: "Therefore, here, too, the struggle among themselves arises less from inner aversion than from hunger and love. In both cases, Nature looks on calmly, with satisfaction, in fact. In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher development."

 

[james bond]

****.

I invoke Poe's Law.

What I would invoke Poe's Law on is your post. The atrocity that we celebrate Darwin Day in February when it is Black History month in the US is cause for ridicule, but not in the way the atheists and Darwin supporters want it. We need to destroy Darwin for the racist that he is and just dump his day. Otherwise, it will lead to a race war (which the extreme liberals in the US want).

Fortunately, we have blacks who have documented the ugly hate and legacy of Darwin:
"Where did the "biomedical vision" of Hitler and his party originate? The primary sources were Darwinian biology and evolutionary theory; Social Darwinism, the evangelistic dissemination of Darwinism; and a pseudo-science called "eugenics." In the first several decades of the twentieth century, eugenics was considered by many as humanity's best hope for the future. It played the role now played by "genetic engineering." It was applied Darwinism. The following outlines, briefly, the nature of these related sources:

Today, our orthodox theory of biology and evolution is "neo-Darwinism." Neo-Darwinism combines what is called "classical Darwinism" with modern genetics. Classical Darwinism dates from 1859, the year in which English naturalist Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, subtitled (note carefully) The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Despite the fact key premises underlying Darwin's theory were unproven scientifically, the theory was embraced by numerous scientists and intellectuals as if it was gospel -- the Gospel of Science. In a relatively short time, the Origin replaced the Bible as western civilization's preferred authoritative text on the subject of the nature of life on Earth. In 1871, Darwin published the even more controversial The Descent of Man.

The major premises of Darwinism may be summarized as follows, 1) The first premise, the concept of the evolutionary transformation of one species into others, was derived from the "Transformism" of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who founded evolutionary science in 1809with the publication of Philosophie Zoologique. In his History of Creation (1873), evolutionist ErnstHaeckel writes, "To him [Lamarck] will always belong the immortal glory of having for the first time."

Genocide and Darwinism (by Ted Hall) | Darwinism

US Slave: A Fatal Impact: Eugenics, Social Darwinism, and Genocide

Maafa 21: Black Genocide in The 21st Century

Other views:
Christian

AHRP
American Eugenics Research — Racism masquerading as “science”

 

[Simurgh]

JB you assign racism to Darwin because he expresses the sentiment of his day in regard to the protestant ethic of having to lift up humanity by converting everyone the brits managed to conquer and then lord it over them. you might want to read Joseph Conrad in that regard. Very educational. still the issue remains, what has that got to do with evolution as a scientific endeavor? constantly attacking darwin in hope to disparage his scientific contribution is just a straw-man attack. predictable and boring. is that because you don't understand what genetics and evolution are actually about? do you at least understand the out-of-africa theory? understand the concept of multiple hominin branches and niche adaptation? do you know that we share neanderthal and denovisian dna?
stop attacking darwin for being a white, male, anglican brit who thought of himself as every other white, male, anglican raised brit did: namely superior to all other white males on the planet. you flogged that equine sufficiently to be flat like a pancake. start arguing actual issues. maybe even explain why you are so against evolution that you need to attack the old dude.