Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Holding their feet to the fire ...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Holding their feet to the fire ...

    .
    .
    I had reason to review some research that I did for a presentation back in 2009. In so doing I discovered what follows here. I posted it in another thread and, predictably, the Evo-Faithful here have avoided it as a vampire avoids sunlight.

    This thread is to not let 'you' (you know who 'you' are!) get away with yet another display of intellectual dishonesty. Let me explain ...

    Below is the evidence (a picture) with a few of the article titles that appear in this "scientific" journal. This goes towards proving what I know to be 100.00% pure fact yet 'you' people (dishonestly) refuse to accept [because it demolishes your beliefs ... your 'god' ... your religion].

    What specifically am I referring to that is 100.00% pure fact? It is that Evolution has been, is and will undoubtedly continue to serve as "scientific" justification for a large set of human atrocities - in this case eugenics.

    Furthermore, the promoters of Evolution are secretive and deceptive - satanically so. Why do they behave this way? I believe that it is because they know full well that they are promoting evil and, as all evil, it operates best under the cover of darkness and deception.

    In the image below, for example, we see how they wish to deceive utilizing propaganda and psychology that would have made Joseph Goebbels proud. Specifically, knowing that most people recoil at the word "eugenics" they changed the name of this "scientific" journal in 1969 from "Eugenics Quarterly" (oops - their agenda is out in the open) to "Social Biology" (much better - a deceptively harmless name and agenda) so that people aren't repulsed.

    Could it be any more obvious?

    You don't want to openly admit the patently obvious? Fine - you have a right to be dishonest if that is your choice. I too have a right - to expose that dishonesty for all to see.

    Eugenics Quarterly.jpg


    Article: Attitudes of parents of retarded children toward voluntary sterilization, M.S. Bass, Eugenics quarterly 04/1967; 14(1):45-53.

    Article: Jews, genetics and disease, R.H. Post, Eugenics quarterly 10/1965; 12(3):162-4.

    Article: Additional comments on schizophrenia and evolution, R.E. Kuttner & A.B. Lorincz, Eugenics quarterly 07/1967; 14(2):160-1.


    That's just a very small sample. It is enlightening to read their early articles (1950's) to see the role that Evolution plays in all of this. As years went by they began to "soften" their speech and better-conceal their motives. Once again, satanically-deceptive tactics.

    Read 'em and weep, all ye Evo-Faithful!

    Jorge

  • #2
    It is that Evolution has been, is and will undoubtedly continue to serve as "scientific" justification for a large set of human atrocities - in this case eugenics.
    The Bible - among a number of religious texts - has been misused to support any number of atrocities. Alfred Nobel's work on explosives earned him the epithet, "merchant of death". Why would anyone expect different for the The Theory of Evolution?
    sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

    Comment


    • #3
      Lets say all you're saying is true Jorge, so what?
      Last edited by Leonhard; 08-31-2014, 09:26 AM. Reason: missing word

      Comment


      • #4
        Holding your feet to the fire:
        Originally posted by no-one of consequence
        Heck, I've wasted enough time - let me waste a bit more and spare you the agony: Orgel and Crick (yeah, the same Crick of Nobel fame - not a Biblical Creationist) wrote:

        "... much DNA in higher organism is a little better than junk ... its accumulation in the course of evolution ... can be compared to the spread of a not-too-harmful parasite within its host ... it would be folly in such cases to hunt for one." ["one" here referring to "a function"]
        Leslie E. Orgel and Francis H. C. Crick, Selfish DNA: The Ultimate Parasite, Nature 284 (1980): 604-607.
        Where did that so-called quote actually come from? It wasn't from Orgel and Crick. It wasn't even from J Wells. So where did you get it? Kent Hovind? Ken Ham? bornagain77?

        You've got no business trying to hold any-one else's feet to the fire unless you can stand the heat yourself.

        Roy
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

        Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        Mountain Man: this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

        Comment


        • #5
          In the same issue of Nature (284:604), Leslie Orgel and Francis Crick wrote that "much DNA in higher organisms is little better than junk," and its accumulation in the course of evolution "can be compared to the spread of a not-too-harmful parasite within its host." Since it is unlikely that such DNA has a function, Orgel and Crick concluded, "it would be folly in such cases to hunt obsessively for one."
          Seems to have come from "evolutionnews.org" - looks like an ID site.
          sigpic1 Cor 15:34 εκνηψατε δικαιως και μη αμαρτανετε αγνωσιαν γαρ θεου τινες εχουσιν προς εντροπην υμιν λεγω

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            Seems to have come from "evolutionnews.org" - looks like an ID site.
            No, that's not where Jorge got it - unless he managed to introduce three changes while copying it.

            Incidentally, "Evolution news" is an ID site - one that produces more misrepresentations that most such. Even their name is a misrepresentation.

            Roy
            Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

            mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

            Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
            Mountain Man: this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              .
              .
              I had reason to review some research that I did for a presentation back in 2009. In so doing I discovered what follows here. I posted it in another thread and, predictably, the Evo-Faithful here have avoided it as a vampire avoids sunlight.

              This thread is to not let 'you' (you know who 'you' are!) get away with yet another display of intellectual dishonesty. Let me explain ...

              Below is the evidence (a picture) with a few of the article titles that appear in this "scientific" journal. This goes towards proving what I know to be 100.00% pure fact yet 'you' people (dishonestly) refuse to accept [because it demolishes your beliefs ... your 'god' ... your religion].

              What specifically am I referring to that is 100.00% pure fact? It is that Evolution has been, is and will undoubtedly continue to serve as "scientific" justification for a large set of human atrocities - in this case eugenics.

              Furthermore, the promoters of Evolution are secretive and deceptive - satanically so. Why do they behave this way? I believe that it is because they know full well that they are promoting evil and, as all evil, it operates best under the cover of darkness and deception.

              In the image below, for example, we see how they wish to deceive utilizing propaganda and psychology that would have made Joseph Goebbels proud. Specifically, knowing that most people recoil at the word "eugenics" they changed the name of this "scientific" journal in 1969 from "Eugenics Quarterly" (oops - their agenda is out in the open) to "Social Biology" (much better - a deceptively harmless name and agenda) so that people aren't repulsed.

              Could it be any more obvious?

              You don't want to openly admit the patently obvious? Fine - you have a right to be dishonest if that is your choice. I too have a right - to expose that dishonesty for all to see.

              [ATTACH=CONFIG]1895[/ATTACH]


              Article: Attitudes of parents of retarded children toward voluntary sterilization, M.S. Bass, Eugenics quarterly 04/1967; 14(1):45-53.

              Article: Jews, genetics and disease, R.H. Post, Eugenics quarterly 10/1965; 12(3):162-4.

              Article: Additional comments on schizophrenia and evolution, R.E. Kuttner & A.B. Lorincz, Eugenics quarterly 07/1967; 14(2):160-1.


              That's just a very small sample. It is enlightening to read their early articles (1950's) to see the role that Evolution plays in all of this. As years went by they began to "soften" their speech and better-conceal their motives. Once again, satanically-deceptive tactics.

              Read 'em and weep, all ye Evo-Faithful!

              Jorge
              Ah yes a picture of some hardbound copies of the Eugenics Quarterly goes a long way in proving ... well ... um ... nothing really does it.

              If you followed the eugenics movement you would quickly discover that genetics played the largest role not evolution but cussing and spitting and blaming Gregor Mendel doesn't fit in with your agenda so you conveniently skip over that part.

              When you first brought this up I covered what Charles Darwin wrote about eugenical concepts and will re-post it here:
              Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              Since you brought up eugenics (here as well as earlier), perhaps we should look at what Charles Darwin himself thought of such thinking. The simple fact is that he made it clear in no uncertain terms that he rejected Galton's eugenical ideas outright.

              In referencing his half-cousin Francis Galton (who coined the term "eugenics" shortly after Darwin's death) and his views in "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex," Darwin wrote that:

              Source: Descent of Man, chapter 21


              "On the other hand, as Mr. Galton has remarked, if the prudent avoid marriage, whilst the reckless marry, the inferior members tend to supplant the better members of society. Man, like every other animal, has no doubt advanced to his present high condition through a struggle for existence consequent on his rapid multiplication; and if he is to advance still higher, it is to be feared that he must remain subject to a severe struggle. Otherwise he would sink into indolence, and the more gifted men would not be more successful in the battle of life than the less gifted. Hence our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means. There should be open competition for all men; and the most able should not be prevented by laws or customs from succeeding best and rearing the largest number of offspring."

              © Copyright Original Source



              This makes clear that Darwin was unequivocally not a supporter of things like coerced sterilization and his belief that rapid multiplication is good for evolution (in fact, he didn't even like the idea of birth control) and "our natural rate of increase, though leading to many and obvious evils, must not be greatly diminished by any means" is the exact opposite of what the eugenics movement advocated. He wanted "open competition for all men."

              Further Darwin also wrote in the "The Descent of Man" that:

              Source: Descent of Man, chapter 5


              The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

              © Copyright Original Source



              IOW, if anything Darwin saw eugenical thinking as being an overwhelming evil. He held that our "the instinct of sympathy" for the weak represented "the noblest part of our nature." The fact is that due to their disagreements over this and other things (including some of Darwin's ideas concerning evolution) he and Galton drifted apart.

              Now, to add an additional point, when Darwin wrote to Galton after the latter published his "Hereditary Genius" he said that,

              Source: Letter to Francis Galton, December 23, 1869


              "you have made a convert of an opponent in one sense, for I have always maintained that, excepting fools, men did not differ much in intellect, only in zeal and hard work; and I still think [this] is an eminently important difference."

              © Copyright Original Source



              Hopefully you notice that Darwin explicitly listed himself an opponent of Galton’s ideas.

              Furthermore, in your attempt to link Darwin's Theory of Evolution to eugenics you are overlooking the deep roots that it had in the Christian community (where it was supported by both many liberal and conservative church leaders). Recently the United Methodist Church issued an apology for their support of eugenics.

              Take a look at Christine Rosen's "Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement" for more details about the connection. Ironically, a group you have declared to not be True Christians™, the Catholic Church, was at the forefront of the anti-eugenics movement both here in the U.S. and abroad although some of their clergy still supported eugenics.

              Finally, it should not be overlooked that a couple of the self-styled "Team of Ten" who founded the modern YEC movement remained enthusiastic and vocal advocates for eugenics and the selective breeding of humans decades after the end of WWII when the civilized world, repulsed by the practice, had utterly rejected and repudiated it.

              As the last paragraph briefly mentions (and I will be more than happy to provide details) YECs should first be concerned about how gleefully their leadership ran forward and hoisted the banner of eugenics after the fall of Nazi Germany when eugenics fell into disrepute. Matthew 7:1-5 cf. Luke 6:41-42 seems to come to mind.

              I'm always still in trouble again

              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

              Comment


              • #8
                Every now and then, just for grins, someone will go to the trouble of tracking down all the footnotes in a creationist tract. Most citations fall into one of three categories: the source doesn't exist at all, the source exists but the cited quote is not found in it, or the quote exists in the source but in context says the opposite of what it's represented as saying.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                  Lets say all you're saying is true Jorge, so what?
                  Absolutely!

                  It's a total category error, and one that Jorge has tried in his previous thread and gotten decimated more than Hiroshima.

                  Pitiful...



                  K54

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Roy View Post
                    No, that's not where Jorge got it - unless he managed to introduce three changes while copying it.

                    Incidentally, "Evolution news" is an ID site - one that produces more misrepresentations that most such. Even their name is a misrepresentation.

                    Roy
                    Looks like it was Evolution Spews and Snooze quoting Moonie Jonathan Wells' trash book The Myth of Junk DNA from 2011

                    linky

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                      Absolutely!

                      It's a total category error, and one that Jorge has tried in his previous thread and gotten decimated more than Hiroshima.

                      Pitiful...



                      K54
                      Jorge is making progress.

                      He went from trying to smear Darwin with a WW1 claim that's 100 years out of date to a journal title that's almost 50 years out of date.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View Post
                        Looks like it was Evolution Spews and Snooze quoting Moonie Jonathan Wells' trash book The Myth of Junk DNA from 2011

                        linky
                        Nope, Jorge's version is different.

                        Roy
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                        Mountain Man: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        Mountain Man: this is how liberals argue these days, with labels instead of ideas.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jorge, from OP
                          This thread is to not let 'you' (you know who 'you' are!) get away with yet another display of intellectual dishonesty. Let me explain ...



                          film-projector.jpg

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                            Absolutely!

                            It's a total category error, and one that Jorge has tried in his previous thread and gotten decimated more than Hiroshima.
                            Jorge, please show us you do know what Klaus means by "total category error" here.
                            The greater number of laws . . . , the more thieves . . . there will be. ---- Lao-Tzu

                            [T]he truth Im after and the truth never harmed anyone. What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tabibito View Post
                              The Bible - among a number of religious texts - has been misused to support any number of atrocities. Alfred Nobel's work on explosives earned him the epithet, "merchant of death". Why would anyone expect different for the The Theory of Evolution?

                              I've addressed this before (in other threads) and so I'll answer the above very concisely:
                              One has to MISuse the Bible in order to support a number of atrocities.
                              OTOH, the LOGICAL application of Evolution supports eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, etc.
                              The evidence for this is beyond overwhelming.

                              There you have it - short, sweet and true.
                              Now it's up to you to either accept or reject this truth.

                              Jorge

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by lee_merrill, Yesterday, 10:25 PM
                              1 response
                              13 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by rogue06, 11-22-2020, 08:25 AM
                              4 responses
                              56 views
                              3 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by TheLurch, 11-19-2020, 02:11 PM
                              1 response
                              25 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 11-10-2020, 08:50 AM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by shunyadragon, 11-09-2020, 06:36 PM
                              2 responses
                              15 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X