Originally posted by rogue06

Descartes then. According to the "New Cambridge Modern History," vol. IV, p.139:

[Descartes'] "innovations in mathematics and optics were welcomed but his mechanistic physics and physiology were at first opposed, in Protestant Ubrecht and Leiden as in Catholic Louvain and in Paris, because his doctrines were held to lead to atheism and to have theologically dangerous implications for the nature of the soul and for the eucharist."

Yes. That's one point. But Jorge's arguments bring us back to Einstein caused the A-bomb and the H-bomb. And Newton caused all those artillery shells and bombs to be dropped with such precision on all kinds of folk, including innocent civilians.

Einstein and Newton have millions of lives to answer for.

Fortunately for Einstein, he did speak out against QM (and thus the unspeakable damage it has done to our minds, courtesy of modern electronics such as the TV, the internet and DVDs). But Newton, to his everlasting discredit, remained silent.



Regards, Roland

Darwin wasn't just wrong - Darwin was POLYWRONG.

Originally posted by flipper

You should check out all the stuff Newton was wrong about. Or Einstein.

***********************************************************

Newton and Einsten were both wrong on TONS of stuff.
Your point / logic are totally worthless - par for the course.

Jorge

There it is, folks. Back to back posts for content comparison.

Originally posted by CTD___

Darwin wasn't just wrong - Darwin was POLYWRONG.

Well, we do manage to show how Darwin was also right, on many things. Its called experimental evidence.

And we have managed to show how Newton and Einstein were responsible for the deaths of millions of people and the corruption of many, many minds.


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Jorge

***********************************************************


Your point / logic are totally worthless - par for the course.

Jorge

Which is why you have nothing more to say Jorge?


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

There it is, folks. Back to back posts for content comparison.

Whoa, deja vu.

- T

Originally posted by wattsr1

Yes, but providing you send your brain on holiday and don't think about it too much, neither Newton's nor Eintein's theories were used to cause harm to people.

However, if you have brains and you think about it, then just don't tell Jorge of the conclusions you reached.



Regards, Roland

Oh that's what they're driving at?

Feh. Martin Luther was totally wrong about the Jews but that hardly stopped Hitler from citing his antisemitism approvingly. Does that invalidate Protestantism?

Originally posted by Jorge

***********************************************************

Newton and Einsten were both wrong on TONS of stuff.
Your point / logic are totally worthless - par for the course.

Jorge

So true. And yet, like Darwin they were scientific geniuses who have made lasting contributions to the body of scientific knowledge, despite their mistakes.

I seem to recall that Newton sent a good number of counterfeiters at the royal mint to the gallows and personally seems to have been a peevish and rather arrogant man who was quick not to give credit where credit was due. And what of it?

Even if I were to allow that Darwin's theory was a contributing factor behind the mindset that led to the holocaust (which I don't), I also note that the Turks managed to massacre the Armenians and the Hutu did away with the Tutsis quite successfully without his intellectual contribution. And Stalin was persuaded to totally reject Darwinism to the further misery and starvation of millions of his countrymen. I also find no record of Mao ever saying anything about evolutionary biology.

If this is to be your tack, do make sure at this conference that you also look to the hundreds of years of antisemitism as inspired by Christians of all stripes and see how that factors into conditions for the Holocaust, eh Jorge?

Originally posted by flipper

So true. And yet, like Darwin they were scientific geniuses

Darwin was a "scientific genius"??? DARWIN??? A "scientific genius"???

Oh, I get it... you're using the New Age Dictionary For The Evo-Faithful.

Even if I were to allow that Darwin's theory was a contributing factor behind the mindset that led to the holocaust (which I don't), I also note that the Turks managed to massacre the Armenians and the Hutu did away with the Tutsis quite successfully without his intellectual contribution. And Stalin was persuaded to totally reject Darwinism to the further misery and starvation of millions of his countrymen. I also find no record of Mao ever saying anything about evolutionary biology.

You really need to catch up on your studies.

If this is to be your tack, do make sure at this conference that you also look to the hundreds of years of antisemitism as inspired by Christians of all stripes and see how that factors into conditions for the Holocaust, eh Jorge?

Like I said, I expect that the DWWC will eventually be put online / on DVD. You'll be able
to decide for yourself. Of course, from the Evo-Faithful I am expecting the usual -- rabidly
prejudiced, less-than-honest critiques.

Jorge

Originally posted by Jorge

Like I said, I expect that the DWWC will eventually be put online / on DVD. You'll be able
to decide for yourself. Of course, from the Evo-Faithful I am expecting the usual -- rabidly
prejudiced, less-than-honest critiques.

Jorge

And the DWWC will not be "rabidly prejudiced, less-than-honest critiques"? After all, you start out with the premise that Darwin was wrong, don't you?

- FreezBee

Originally posted by FreezBee

And the DWWC will not be "rabidly prejudiced, less-than-honest critiques"? After all, you start out with the premise that Darwin was wrong, don't you?

Oh come now. In land, "Evo-faithful", basing their predictions of what content will be offered by speakers at DWWC on previous experience with Creationists is radbily prejudiced, less-than-honest critiques, while Creationists starting with a conclusion and looking for facts to support it is solid science and scholarship.

Of course hats are worn on the feet and hamburgers eat people there.

Originally posted by FreezBee

And the DWWC will not be "rabidly prejudiced, less-than-honest critiques"? After all, you start out with the premise that Darwin was wrong, don't you?

- FreezBee

*****************************************************

With your all-too-familiar less-than-honest comments, you and your comrade (USIncognito)
fail to mention the FACT that we do NOT start off with the premise that "Darwin Was Wrong",
we are going to SHOW that Darwin was wrong with plenty of evidence -- scientific,
philosophical, theological evidence.

Here's a dollar $$$ -- the two of you can go out and buy yourself some integrity.
A dollar won't get you much but anything will be better than what you presently have.

Jorge

Originally posted by Jorge

*****************************************************

With your all-too-familiar less-than-honest comments, you and your comrade (USIncognito)
fail to mention the FACT that we do NOT start off with the premise that "Darwin Was Wrong",
we are going to SHOW that Darwin was wrong with plenty of evidence -- scientific,
philosophical, theological evidence.

Of course you'll also show how Darwin being wrong on some minor scientific details 150 years ago somehow falsifies the modern evolutionary theory which bears his name, right?








man, I crack me up sometimes!

- T

Originally posted by Jorge

*****************************************************

With your all-too-familiar less-than-honest comments, you and your comrade (USIncognito)
fail to mention the FACT that we do NOT start off with the premise that "Darwin Was Wrong",
we are going to SHOW that Darwin was wrong with plenty of evidence -- scientific,
philosophical, theological evidence.

Here's a dollar $$$ -- the two of you can go out and buy yourself some integrity.
A dollar won't get you much but anything will be better than what you presently have.

Jorge

Keep the dollar, Jorge -- you'll need it to buy some scientific evidence.
A dollar won't get you much but anything will be better than what you presently have.

- FreezBee

Originally posted by Jorge

Darwin was a "scientific genius"??? DARWIN??? A "scientific genius"???

Oh, I get it... you're using the New Age Dictionary For The Evo-Faithful.

Most YECs are willing to acknowledge that Darwin was indeed a scientific genius though they would argue he was still wrong. Jorge, OTOH, is too petty and mean-spirited to manage even that. Poor Jorge.

Originally posted by Jorge

You really need to catch up on your studies.

And you flee far and fast anytime I seem to start exposing the fraudulent nature of these attempts to smear evolution. Why is that Jorge?

But since I’ve covered Hitler and the Nazis to some extent, let’s turn to Stalin for a change.

Stalin specifically rejected Darwinian evolution primarily due to his disagreement with genetics, with its proposal that traits are fixed at birth, which opposed the Marxist idea of shaping and improving traits. He also believed that the concept of Natural Selection, with its individual competition, contradicted the communist ideal of Class Struggle. Stalin officially denounced genetics as a "a bourgeois pseudoscience,” destroying the Soviet's excellent genetics programs when he banned the teaching of evolution, research into evolution and even research that were thought to have had Darwinian overtones, and instead supported Lamarckism.

The result was that under Stalin, supporters of Darwin were viewed with suspicion, denied rank and promotions, often fired, executed (including Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or exiled to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943.

Stalin, as I noted, promoted Lamarckian propaganda and even claimed that Homo sovieticus (ideal Communist) could be created through totalitarian psychology rather than breeding. Consequently Russian dictionaries were rewritten to describe genes as being mythical concepts.

And perhaps most telling, there is no instance when Stalin ever used ToE as a justification for his brutality. That is because Stalin opposed the ToE. Stalin obviously accepted Newton's theory of gravity, but YECs don’t claim that Newton's theory should be suppressed because Stalin believed it.

Finally, here is a quote from Stalin himself:

“Mendeleyev's "periodic system of elements" clearly shows how very important in the history of nature is the emergence of qualitative changes out of quantitative changes. The same thing is shown in biology by the theory of neo-Lamarckism, to which neo-Darwinism is yielding place.”

Originally posted by Jorge

Like I said, I expect that the DWWC will eventually be put online / on DVD. You'll be able
to decide for yourself. Of course, from the Evo-Faithful I am expecting the usual -- rabidly
prejudiced, less-than-honest critiques.

Jorge

Ah yes. And an agenda-driven conference set out to prove “Darwin was wrong” is going to provide anything other than “rabidly prejudiced, less-than-honest critiques.”



Jorge, just wanted you to know that I’m “sharpening up my claws and beak in readiness” of your little review of the presentation that “proves” Darwin was a racist.