Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Dr. David Berlinski on Evolution
- On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Laurie Appleton <lappleto@...>wrote:
> **Nope, if anything, it is evidence he was not a Darwinist.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Truman
> To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 1:16 PM
> Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Dr. David Berlinski on Evolution
> There is no evidence that Hitler actually read Origin of Species, or any
> other scientific book. All references to "Darwinism" as understood by
> Hitler are nothing like what Charles Darwin had for his ideas about
> evolution theory.
> LA> Is that your proof that Adolf Hitler was a "christian" then?
> -----------------------------------I have never claimed that I believe Hitler was a Christian. I may have
> "Many are under the impression that Hitler was a
> Christian, which, in fact, is not true. Although Hitler was
> born and raised a Roman Catholic, he abandoned that faith
> very early in his life. He described himself as "a total
> pagan." He furthermore said that the kaiser had failed
> because he was a Protestant. "But I will succeed because I
> know about this Roman Catholic thing, and I know how to
> control it," he said."
> In fact, Hitler had plans to destroy Christianity,
> which he considered the illegitmate offspring of Judaism.
> Once he extirpated the Jews, whom he described as "human
> bacteria," he would kill Christians, which he had already
> begun to do. The holocaust involved the murdering of eleven
> to sixteen million people. Six million of these individuals
> were Jews. Most of the rest were Christians -- real and
> nominal." . . . . .
> "William Shirer, a journalist who covered the Nazi
> regime and wrote the widely respected book 'The Rise and
> Fall of the Third Reich,' said, "The Nazi regime intended
> eventually to destroy Christianity in Germany, if it could,
> and substitute the old paganism of the early Germanic gods
> and the new paganism of the Nazi extremists."
> (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1959, p.240
> (D. James Kennedy, "Skeptics Answered" 1997, p.116-7)
> "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never
> seems to happen."
> (Niles Eldredge, leading evolutionist, 1995)
claimed that using the logic of Discoveroids, with their standard methods
of selective quotation, you can make the case that Hitler was a Christian.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of D R Lindberg
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 3:17 PM
Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Dr. David Berlinski on Evolution (The flagellum)
> Kamran: If the science of life were rediscovered by physicists andengineers, many terms in the biological science would be remade to better
represent the structure and function of the components in question. The
flagellum is a good example and the proper name for it would be a
"nano-propulsion engine." A proper engineering name would leave no room for
hopelessly vague generalities regarding genetic changes or conjectures
linked to modern molecular science. According to the evolutionary
explanation, incremental change in the genetic make-up would over
generations accumulate to produce a complete and functionally operational
flagellum (propulsion engine), while in the interim process elements or
components of the system would supposedly be formed and retained and
reproduced with no function at all, and be "hopelessly(!)" waiting for other
components to come and miraculously match and complement earlier
components in such a way that none of the previous changes will go to
>architecture of life looks at the flagellum system and function, he/she
> If an engineer with a general understanding of the software and hardware
would see in a matter of seconds how an evolutionary explanation is a
non-starter. Evolutionary biologists, who are wrongly considered by the
general population to be the scientific authority on the subject, seem to
want to take a few hundred years before they understand that their current
explanations are outright senseless.
>understand that evolutionary explanations are not acceptable because people
> You see, it not a matter of questioning for not understanding. You need to
do understand how to weigh those explanations against the actual phenomenon
being studied. Perhaps if you carefully review the following diagrams and
schematics about a flagellum's structure and the role and function of
all of its individual components, you would see how such a system must first
have an overall design for a defined purpose before the process of its
implementation even begins:
>DRL: I have a friend who is in charge of a university hospital medical
research laboratory, who I ran into the other day. I hadn't seen him for a
long time, so I asked him what he was doing. He told me he is studying a
protein in the liver that causes high blood pressure. When it is treated,
the protein dies, but first passes on its characteristics that cause
hypertension to surrounding cells.
Shall I tell him that he is wrong, because these things are all machines,
and machines do not die, or pass on their functioning to other machines in
Kamran: Yes if he doesn't recognize that, you can tell him that proteins
either have a structural function or are machines. As for the proteins that
are machines, like every other machine, they have a certain life cycle and
they in fact do die, or become scrapped. This is why new proteins are
constantly made in ribosome. And for what a protein may do just prior to
becoming scrapped, well they may do a lot of things and delivering an effect
to surrounding cells may be among them. This does not change the fact that
they are energy consuming machines with all sorts of machine functions.
DRL: Or is it possible that he may know more about what he and his
colleagues have doing for decades than you do?
Kamran: Based on what you have posted so far, right now I can only say that
it looks like you neither understand what they say nor what I say and have
no reason to assume that what either of us says contradicts the other.
(quote offered by DRL:)
"In our country are evangelists and zealots of many different political,
economic and religious persuasions whose fanatical conviction is that all
thought is divinely classified into two kinds - that which is their own and
that which is false and dangerous." - Robert Jackson
Kamran: Sounds like a statement from Richard Dawkins when he considers those
opposed to the idea of evolution to be stupid and possibly wicked.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]