Escapecraft

697134002 wrote:

asi1998 wrote:
Hitler did think that he was helping science develop but I have no doubt that he was a very evil man.

Prove it. Show me one occasion where he said that he was helping science by killing jews.

Darwin's original book was called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. When Hitler promoted the Aryan race he believed that he was helping Darwinian evolution advance because Darwin wrote that a white race would one day overpower a darker race in that book.

It doesn't mean favored by human standards but favored in that those specific genes go in the animals favor to survive

asi1998 wrote:

697134002 wrote:

asi1998 wrote:
Hitler did think that he was helping science develop but I have no doubt that he was a very evil man.

Prove it. Show me one occasion where he said that he was helping science by killing jews.

Darwin's original book was called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection and the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life. When Hitler promoted the Aryan race he believed that he was helping Darwinian evolution advance because Darwin wrote that a white race would one day overpower a darker race in that book.

No, he didn't. Preservation of Favoured Races refers to faster cheetahs reproducing more than slower ones, or other such things.

697134002 wrote:

SneakyPie wrote:You can't prove that God either exists or does not exist, so why argue about it?

The only thing we can be sure of is that these discussions typically end up being the ramblings of zealous believers and deniers who have a need to feel more intellectually superior than the other.

Because of things like Texas declaring that it will no longer teach critical thinking and higher level thinking to students because it may cause them to challenge religious beliefs.
Because of homophobia, which religion is a large contributor to.
Because of all of the people dying in third world countries because of religious groups urging them not to take vaccines or use condoms.

So arguing about something none of us have the power of changing really makes a difference.

Seems legit.

Lord_Mountbatten wrote:I don't think I'll wade into this myself, but I would like to point out that Hitler did not do what he did in the idea that he was developing science. He did what he did because he was a vindictive, psychotic man, but it's not very easy to justify such a reason to the wider populace, least of all to yourself. Most of the "scientific" part of Nazism is a load of rubbish perpetuated to sustain popular support.

He was also not an Atheist, if not easily identifiable with an established religion.

Hitler was likely jewish.
The only reason he was eradicating the jewish people is that he was crazy, and that many people back then (and now) didn't like jewish people.
He was also power hungry.

SirrusSamiyaza wrote:

Lord_Mountbatten wrote:I don't think I'll wade into this myself, but I would like to point out that Hitler did not do what he did in the idea that he was developing science. He did what he did because he was a vindictive, psychotic man, but it's not very easy to justify such a reason to the wider populace, least of all to yourself. Most of the "scientific" part of Nazism is a load of rubbish perpetuated to sustain popular support.

He was also not an Atheist, if not easily identifiable with an established religion.

Hitler was likely jewish.
The only reason he was eradicating the jewish people is that he was crazy, and that many people back then (and now) didn't like jewish people.
He was also power hungry.

To Gerhard Engel, 1941 wrote:I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11 wrote:....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.

Speech on April 12th, 1922 wrote:My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...

697134002 wrote:

SirrusSamiyaza wrote:

Lord_Mountbatten wrote:I don't think I'll wade into this myself, but I would like to point out that Hitler did not do what he did in the idea that he was developing science. He did what he did because he was a vindictive, psychotic man, but it's not very easy to justify such a reason to the wider populace, least of all to yourself. Most of the "scientific" part of Nazism is a load of rubbish perpetuated to sustain popular support.

He was also not an Atheist, if not easily identifiable with an established religion.

Hitler was likely jewish.
The only reason he was eradicating the jewish people is that he was crazy, and that many people back then (and now) didn't like jewish people.
He was also power hungry.

To Gerhard Engel, 1941 wrote:I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.

Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 11 wrote:....the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.

Speech on April 12th, 1922 wrote:My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. ...Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. ...

He most likely had jewish blood in him, that does not mean he practiced it.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... erjew.html

Saying Hitler was likely Jewish due to his heritage is actually similar to Nazi Race theory; as the lines between who is and isn't Jewish are rather blurred due to individual views on traditional Jewish beliefs and of course, people that are of Jewish heritage and don't follow Judaism or vice verse, in someone who converts to Judaism after a secular upbringing or one of another faith. Due to this the Nazis increasingly widened the scope of people considered Jewish, which included people with 'Jewish features' which included people who 'looked Jewish' ie. conforming with racial stereotypes associated with Jews.

That wandered a bit, but what i'm trying to say is that Judaism is NOT a race, it is a religion. To be Jewish you must believe in Judaism, similar in that to be a Christian or Muslim one must believe in Christianity or Islam respectively. So saying Hitler was Jewish due to possible Jewish ancestry is flawed.

On another note, I've just read through this thread and i have a problem with some examples people are using to support their points. See what i did at the start of this post? (Saying Hitler was likely Jewish due to his heritage is actually similar to Nazi Race theory) Merely associating a view or action with 'Hitler did that' or 'the Nazis did that' and using this as a reason for it to be wrong is silly. Yes, the Nazis were evil, but they also engineered a dramatic economic recovery in Germany after the WSC of 1929. They almost eradicated unemployment in Germany and as a result Germany was among the richest and most powerful countries in the world. This, is of course, a positive thing the Nazis did, so just because Hitler or the Nazis did something, doesn't make it bad.

Note: I am not supporting the Nazis. I am merely saying that using them to prove a point in the way i described above is silly. The Nazis were evil and genocide is most definitely wrong.

SneakyPie wrote:

697134002 wrote:

SneakyPie wrote:You can't prove that God either exists or does not exist, so why argue about it?

The only thing we can be sure of is that these discussions typically end up being the ramblings of zealous believers and deniers who have a need to feel more intellectually superior than the other.

Because of things like Texas declaring that it will no longer teach critical thinking and higher level thinking to students because it may cause them to challenge religious beliefs.
Because of homophobia, which religion is a large contributor to.
Because of all of the people dying in third world countries because of religious groups urging them not to take vaccines or use condoms.

So arguing about something none of us have the power of changing really makes a difference.

Seems legit.

Do you vote?

697134002 wrote:Do you vote?

Nope.

SneakyPie wrote:

697134002 wrote:Do you vote?

Nope.

well then your giving up your way of changing things then saying that we cant change things... seems legit.

vallorn wrote:

SneakyPie wrote:

697134002 wrote:Do you vote?

Nope.

well then your giving up your way of changing things then saying that we cant change things... seems legit.

Are you really suggesting that the act voting (and voting for what was never specified) is somehow comparable to arguing on an internet forum?

SneakyPie wrote:

vallorn wrote:

SneakyPie wrote:Nope.

well then your giving up your way of changing things then saying that we cant change things... seems legit.

Are you really suggesting that the act voting (and voting for what was never specified) is somehow comparable to arguing on an internet forum?

Yes. A single vote is unlikely to change anything, but if nobody voted then, well, it would be very bad.
If nobody tried to discuss things with others and change their minds, society would stagnate. Two people debating is almost irrelevant, but lots of people debating has an effect.

I see.

I'm going to see myself out.

Can we just call Godwin's law on this thread and move on?

Jake55778 wrote:Can we just call Godwin's law on this thread and move on?

Well, I'm sort of waiting for asi to respond to my post concerning the Richard Lenski E. coli experiment.

Although I will also add something new to the conversation, this time directed towards creationism rather than in defence of evolution.



Cheetahs run fast. The reason they run fast is to catch their main prey, the gazelle. The reason they need to run fast to catch gazelles is that the gazelles can run fast to escape the cheetahs.
Why would a creator make them both run fast, which consumes more resources, instead of making them both slower, which conserves more resources? Is it a blood sport or something?

That made me giggle, and I'm not sure why.

697134002 wrote: Well, I'm sort of waiting for asi to respond to my post concerning the Richard Lenski E. coli experiment.

This experiment shows about 50,000 generations of bacteria and the only result is a little bit of micro-evolution (which I believe in). After 50,000 generations you should typically see something totally different.

697134002 wrote: Cheetahs run fast. The reason they run fast is to catch their main prey, the gazelle. The reason they need to run fast to catch gazelles is that the gazelles can run fast to escape the cheetahs.
Why would a creator make them both run fast, which consumes more resources, instead of making them both slower, which conserves more resources? Is it a blood sport or something?

Maybe to preserve some gazelles. I do not understand everything God does. That is where faith comes into play but maybe to preserve some gazelles while still giving Cheetahs food. That is my guess.

asi1998 wrote:

697134002 wrote: Well, I'm sort of waiting for asi to respond to my post concerning the Richard Lenski E. coli experiment.

This experiment shows about 50,000 generations of bacteria and the only result is a little bit of micro-evolution (which I believe in). After 50,000 generations you should typically see something totally different.

So what's micro-evolution then? Remember evolution occurs over hundreds of millions of years, over far more generations than 50,000. So really micro-evolution is just evolution. I don't see how you can believe in one but not the other.

Surely a great show of evolution is the common cold. That adapts and evolves so rapidly no ones found a way to cure it yet. And what about 'Superbugs'? We used to be able to destroy them but they are now immune to most everything we throw at them.

Because I enjoy ruining things, here is the evolutionary pinnacle of Godwin's Law:

dombyrne13 wrote:

asi1998 wrote:

697134002 wrote: Well, I'm sort of waiting for asi to respond to my post concerning the Richard Lenski E. coli experiment.

This experiment shows about 50,000 generations of bacteria and the only result is a little bit of micro-evolution (which I believe in). After 50,000 generations you should typically see something totally different.

So what's micro-evolution then? Remember evolution occurs over hundreds of millions of years, over far more generations than 50,000. So really micro-evolution is just evolution. I don't see how you can believe in one but not the other.

Actually micro evolution is the reason people have different hair colors, eye colors, etc. See this website for more info on micro-evolution: http://creationliberty.com/questions/ecoli.php

asi1998 wrote:

dombyrne13 wrote:

asi1998 wrote:This experiment shows about 50,000 generations of bacteria and the only result is a little bit of micro-evolution (which I believe in). After 50,000 generations you should typically see something totally different.

So what's micro-evolution then? Remember evolution occurs over hundreds of millions of years, over far more generations than 50,000. So really micro-evolution is just evolution. I don't see how you can believe in one but not the other.

Actually micro evolution is the reason people have different hair colors, eye colors, etc. See this website for more info on micro-evolution: http://creationliberty.com/questions/ecoli.php

What you call "Micro Evolution" is actually called Genetic Diversity. without it we wouldnt have different eye colours and hair colours.
Micro Evolution is actually The adaption of a species to its environment. For example the lizard experiment posted above. Insect eating lizards were introduced to an island with far reduced insect population and so they evolved to be able to consume and digest the plant matter found on the island. they could still breed with the original species to create fertile offspring so were still the same species but given time the two would have diverged as drasticly as Donkeys and Horses.

just as an FYI here is the definition of a species:
A Group of similar animals that can breed to produce Viable and Fertile Offspring.

For example. Donkeys and Horses are 2 different species because while Mule's are viable they are not fertile (Cant reproduce) and so Donkeys and Horses are not the same species as they do not meet the requirement.

Oh and if your trying to disprove something. use a credible source. not one with dinosaurs and modern animals living together on the banner... that just weakens your argument.

asi1998 wrote:

697134002 wrote: Well, I'm sort of waiting for asi to respond to my post concerning the Richard Lenski E. coli experiment.

This experiment shows about 50,000 generations of bacteria and the only result is a little bit of micro-evolution (which I believe in). After 50,000 generations you should typically see something totally different.

697134002 wrote: Cheetahs run fast. The reason they run fast is to catch their main prey, the gazelle. The reason they need to run fast to catch gazelles is that the gazelles can run fast to escape the cheetahs.
Why would a creator make them both run fast, which consumes more resources, instead of making them both slower, which conserves more resources? Is it a blood sport or something?

Maybe to preserve some gazelles. I do not understand everything God does. That is where faith comes into play but maybe to preserve some gazelles while still giving Cheetahs food. That is my guess.

The starting sample was all identical. It was then divided into several groups, which were all identical. Later on, they were all different. You seriously think that there was that much variation in the original population?
Also, there is no such thing as microevolution.



That makes no sense. Preserve some gazelles... from what? The fast cheetahs? Why are the cheetahs fast? To catch gazelles. Why do they need to be fast? Because cheetahs are fast.
If there was a creator, why wouldn't both gazelles and cheetahs be slower? Why waste so many resources?

This has turned into a debate about evolution, which anyone can learn about, as Google's a thing. asi just clearly doesn't want to learn anything different than what he already "knows."

So let's turn this back around to the existence of a god.

I want to see what actual scientific proof exists that god is real. Do you have any studies that cite real evidence, asi? And please, no "you just gotta have faith" or "I heard that..." or "just gotta look around you at the beauty of the Earth to see proof that there's a god"s. I wanna see a study that proves it.

furdabip wrote:This has turned into a debate about evolution, which anyone can learn about, as Google's a thing. asi just clearly doesn't want to learn anything different than what he already "knows."

So let's turn this back around to the existence of a god.

I want to see what actual scientific proof exists that god is real. Do you have any studies that cite real evidence, asi? And please, no "you just gotta have faith" or "I heard that..." or "just gotta look around you at the beauty of the Earth to see proof that there's a god"s. I wanna see a study that proves it.

This question is rather biased, as the nature of god and various faiths is directly in conflict with there being any 'real' evidence.

dombyrne13 wrote:This question is rather biased, as the nature of god and various faiths is directly in conflict with there being any 'real' evidence.

Exactly. In reality, if there's no evidence to support a theory, the theory is incorrect. That's why there's no Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Chupacabra, etc, etc. People may THINK they exist, but there's no evidence to support it, therefore they do not exist. It's not OUR responsibility to prove something DOESN'T exist, it's whomever's making such a claim to prove that it DOES.

If you look down on people who believe in these silly things, then you now understand the position of an atheist. We know there's no evidence to support that a god exists, so think lower of people who believe in such fairy tales. Just as Christians would think lower of someone who believes the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the center of the universe (something Christians DID think, and murdered people for thinking differently, btw).

furdabip wrote:Fairy tales.

Yeah, try to be respectful please.

vallorn wrote: Oh and if your trying to disprove something. use a credible source. not one with dinosaurs and modern animals living together on the banner... that just weakens your argument.

I believe dinosaurs still exist today. As a matter of fact they found fresh dinosaur blood cells in Montana in the 1990s. In addition, to successfuly prove that dinosaurs no longer exist people must be positioned all over the earth (Including Underwater) at the same time and look around to see if they see any kind of dinosaur (Most dinosaurs were only about the size of a small sheep).