Has evolutionism become a leading religion?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

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. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla."

Chapter 7

-states that he will describe the differences between the sub-species (races) of man

http://ministries.tliquest.net/theol...%20Racism.html

As the founder of a religious cult, Darwin has some extreme and dangerous positions

I see Darwinism is bad science and horrific ideology. I can see people with high moral values run from these demonic positions. He was a very sick man.

Originally Posted by coadie

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
"crack pipe coadie." That's you. And everyone else agrees. Lamentably.

We all want the very best for you, but you have to want that as well.

Originally Posted by coadie

This is getting a little trashy and i suspect prax condones it

I'll make a deal with you. I will FOREVER stop calling you "crack pipe coadie" if you do the following:

1) Show us how Zerubbabel could possibly be literally descended from the paternal lines of both Solomon and Nathan, the sons of King David.

(See Matthew 1; Luke 3; 1 Chronicles 3; Haggai 1:1-2:23 and Zechariah 4:6-14).

2) Select a single fossil from the list I gave you at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils) and demonstrate why this fossil DOES NOT represent a transitional form as predicted by Charles Darwin.

Deal?

[coadie]

More on this abberant religion



-States that it would be very good if wealthy nations replaces the less privileged races in his above quoted power struggle

"But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilized races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races."

Comparison with 10th chapter of Hitler’s Mein Kampf:

"Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife . . .where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed, one general law leading to the advancement of all organic beings . . . let the strongest live and the weakest die."


One would think Darwinism has became quite like a religion and built on theories, instead of empirical facts... filling in unknowns on faith... with few or even no facts to substantiate some of the wild claims found floating around. Many forget, Darwinists themselves, are not scientists. The theory of Natural Selection was only godless enough to permit Atheists to camouflage their toxic bigotry against God and people of faith, under the guise of "Science".

More observations on why evolutionists are on the attack. No science and observations but tons of religious zeal.

[coadie]

So is Darwinism a religion? We have flushed out several of it's most religious zealots.

We have the atheists united in trying to get science teachers fired quickly if they ask questions that could cause the faithfull Darwiniac to stumble.

Darwin is on a racist rant and the communists jump on the bandwagon to cleanse the inferior race

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

[coadie]

Originally Posted by pelathais

The footnote in both his book and the Powerpoint slide presentation where he "challenges" radio-carbon dating methods reads:

1. a seal

"A seal?" That's one of his sources? Another is The Weekly World News. Get his book.

Just another reminder. We do not take what you write, say or post in any literally truthfull way. We keep it as interesting ideas and allegories but factually not verifiable.

I am sure you didn't intend for any of it to be literall and true.
Like you treat Genesis.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Just another reminder. We do not take what you write, say or post in any literally truthfull way. We keep it as interesting ideas and allegories but factually not verifiable.

I am sure you didn't intend for any of it to be literall and true.
Like you treat Genesis.

Originally Posted by coadie

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelathais
"crack pipe coadie." That's you. And everyone else agrees. Lamentably.

We all want the very best for you, but you have to want that as well.

Originally Posted by coadie

This is getting a little trashy and i suspect prax condones it

I'll make a deal with you. I will FOREVER stop calling you "crack pipe coadie" if you do the following:

1) Show us how Zerubbabel could possibly be literally descended from the paternal lines of both Solomon and Nathan, the sons of King David.

(See Matthew 1; Luke 3; 1 Chronicles 3; Haggai 1:1-2:23 and Zechariah 4:6-14).

2) Select a single fossil from the list I gave you at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tional_fossils) and demonstrate why this fossil DOES NOT represent a transitional form as predicted by Charles Darwin.

Deal?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by coadie

Just another reminder. We do not take what you write, say or post in any literally truthfull way. We keep it as interesting ideas and allegories but factually not verifiable.

I am sure you didn't intend for any of it to be literall and true.
Like you treat Genesis.

And by the way... who is "we." You had better hurry and open a window there buddy. You need some air.

[pelathais]

The Nazi ideology was firmly attached to Lamarckism.

Lamarkism was the prevailing theory that Darwin's theory of Natural Selection would eventually overturn. When they did reach for a "scientific" quote to substantiate their racist agenda, the Nazis never quoted Darwin. You won't find a single reference to Darwin, Darwinism, Natural Selection or anything related to Charles Darwin and his ideas in any Nazi publication.

Instead, the Nazis would cite the famous Lamarckian writer Ernst Haeckel when they cited anyone at all. See UC Stanislaw Professor Richard Weikart's book "From Darwin to Hitler" for many examples of this.

How did actual proponents of Darwinism fare in Nazi Germany? Ask the most famous German Darwinist of all time, the man who developed what is known as "The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis," Ernst W. Mayr.

Mayr was forced to flee Nazi Germany because of his close association with "Jews" (like his patron Walter Rothschild) and because he held to such "British" doctrines as "Darwinism."

[pelathais]

This is my brief book review of Weikart's "From Darwin to Hitler" posted online last March:

"In the opening pages of this book Richard Weikart thanks a subsidiary of the Discovery Institute for funding his "research." What is ironic is that the Discovery Institute itself was funded with support from holocaust denier R. John Rushdoony's foundation. A better title may have been: "From Denying the Holocaust to Exploiting Misconceptions About the Holocaust."

Weikart's foil throughout the book is an attack primarily upon the work and influence of a German Lamarckian naturalist named Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel was a contemporary and rival of Charles Darwin. Darwin himself devoted much of his Origin of Species to debunking Lamarckism, which was then the prevailing view of evolution. Somehow Weikart misses this simple fact and the plain distinction between the two competing outlooks in his "research."

I was left amazed that a book which claims to be examining the influence of Darwinism on German science and culture in the early 20th Century overlooks every single German Darwinist of that time period. There is no mention of the most influential Darwinists such as Janensch, Rensch, Gross and Stromer. And, the most influential Darwinist since Darwin himself, Ernst Mayr doesn't get a mention either.

Did Weikart deliberately leave out these names because they were all persecuted by the Nazis for holding such a "foreign ideology" as Darwinism and for "consorting" with Jewish colleagues? Or perhaps, did Weikart's holocaust denying funders possibly cause him to ignore the important *Jewish* contributions to Darwinism on the Continent like Baron von Rothschild's own funding and financial support for Darwinian research?

All in all, the book is a disappointing read for anyone who is even the least bit familiar with the history and development of Darwinism. Weikart repeatedly misses his mark and displays a level of ignorance of his subject that will consign this whole escapade to the same dusty shelves as the other failures of the Discovery Institute such as Ben Stein's lamentable and grossly inaccurate film.

Lessons to be learned: When you're going to be using the Jewish Holocaust to bash another's ideas, don't take your funding from holocaust deniers."

[DAII]

Must be the Neanderthal in me because I am utterly enjoying this carnage.

Coadie, you're getting pummeled.
It really isn't fair. Pela, is toying with you.


.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by coadie

It is slang as i said.


Medical Dictionary
No entries found that match "heparanize." Please select a spelling suggestion below or try your search again

Medical Dictionary
No entries found that match "incoaguable." Please select a spelling suggestion below or try your search again.

1.incoagulable


MedlinePlus is the National Institutes of Health's Web site for patients and their families and friends. Produced by the National Library of Medicine,


look prax. We have Medline dictionaries in our general software package.
I notice it is a standard several levels superior to what you use. You have heparanize defined by another slang word incoaguables.

Between you and pelthais, you are external to the medical world and need to use merrium webster.



You guys have shown that the evolutionist and old earth agenda is a religion.




This is getting a little trashy and i suspect prax condones it

wow, all I did was quote an online medical dictionary. BTW Coadie, I am surrounded by Doctors and Nurses. I suppose I can ask them for you?

It's funny though, all of a sudden the dictionary doesn't qualify for a word?

JAMA uses it the word, you'll have to take your eyes away from your "software" and register to read it
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/summary/113/1/25

And another by the American Stroke Association
http://stroke.ahajournals.org/cgi/re...20/7/968/a.pdf

British Medical Journal, again you have to register
http://www.bmj.com/content/2/4148/6.full.pdf+html

And even our own Government health agencies use the term
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00473109

BTW, what is slang?
Few linguists have endeavored to clearly define what constitutes slang.[1] Attempting to remedy this, Bethany K. Dumas and Jonathan Lighter argue that an expression should be considered "true slang" if it meets at least two of the following criteria:

• It lowers, if temporarily, "the dignity of formal or serious speech or writing"; in other words, it is likely to be considered in those contexts a "glaring misuse of register."
• Its use implies that the user is familiar with whatever is referred to, or with a group of people who are familiar with it and use the term.
• "It is a taboo term in ordinary discourse with people of a higher social status or greater responsibility."
• It replaces "a well-known conventional synonym". This is done primarily to avoid the discomfort caused by the conventional item or by further elaboration.[1]

Slang should be distinguished from jargon, which is the technical vocabulary of a particular profession. Jargon, like many examples of slang, may be used to exclude non–group members from the conversation, but in general has the function of allowing its users to talk precisely about technical issues in a given field.[citation needed]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slang