Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Dr. David Berlinski on Evolution

Expand Messages
  • Truman
    ... Nope, if anything, it is evidence he was not a Darwinist. ... I have never claimed that I believe Hitler was a Christian. I may have claimed that using
    Message 1 of 40 , Feb 7, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Laurie Appleton <lappleto@...>wrote:

      > **
      >
      >
      >
      > ----- 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?
      >

      Nope, if anything, it is evidence he was not a Darwinist.


      > -----------------------------------
      > "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)
      >
      > ======================
      >
      > Laurie.
      >
      > "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never
      > seems to happen."
      > (Niles Eldredge, leading evolutionist, 1995)
      >
      >
      I have never claimed that I believe Hitler was a Christian. I may have
      claimed that using the logic of Discoveroids, with their standard methods
      of selective quotation, you can make the case that Hitler was a Christian.

      Truman


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Kamran
      From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of D R Lindberg Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 3:17 PM To:
      Message 40 of 40 , Mar 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        From: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com [mailto:OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com] On
        Behalf Of D R Lindberg
        Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 3:17 PM
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Dr. David Berlinski on Evolution (The flagellum)





        > Kamran: If the science of life were rediscovered by physicists and
        engineers, 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
        waste!!
        >
        >
        > If an engineer with a general understanding of the software and hardware
        architecture of life looks at the flagellum system and function, he/she
        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.
        >
        >
        > You see, it not a matter of questioning for not understanding. You need to
        understand that evolutionary explanations are not acceptable because people
        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
        their neighbourhood?





        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?

        Cheers!





        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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.