Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Sam]

Maybe if you had actually read my entire response you would have come up with a more educated reply yourself. Maybe not though. It’s pretty apparent today that Scientists working in Nazi Germany were DEEPLY inspired by Darwin’s work. This led to their practices in eugenics and helped to fuel their viewpoint that Jews were inferior to Secular Germans. Dictatorship may have been the tool that accomplished the Holocaust, but Scientism and Atheism were what drove this tool. If you read many of Hitler’s own writings, his viewpoint of Christianity was very similar to a lot of the posters on here.

How is this apparent today? There could be (and I suspect are) multiple reasons why Nazi Germany employed eugenics. While they may have used a distorted interpretation of Darwins theory in their resoning this certainly does not make the theory culpable.

Furthermore, the Jews were not considered inferior to 'Secular Germans' they were considered inferior to all other people. The majority of the German people, at this point still held religous views and in fact both Catholic & Protestant Priests and Nuns supported Hitlers movement. Hitlers own words clearly identify him as a Christian;

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. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, 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. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

As for Newton, his belief in God is what drove his Science. He actually spent more time studying scripture than he did Science. He believed that the laws of nature should make sense to man because they were part of God’s natural revelation. So his Creationist viewpoints were what drove him to discover the laws of gravity. You can try to deny history all you want, but it is really just a futile exercise.

This still doesn't mean you can credit 'Creationism' with the discovery. The discovery is credited to the man himself, regardless of what you feel his motivations were or his religous alignment.

Come on man! You have got to do better than this. The “Burden of Proof” is generally accepted to lie with the side making an affirmative statement. However, since Atheism and Theism are both belief systems that make affirmative statements (Theism affirms that God does exist, Atheism affirms that he does not exist) the burden of proof lies equally on both sides.

First of all, Atheism is not a belief system. In its self it is simply a lack of belief.

You will also find that the majority of 'Atheists' are actually Agnostic Atheists i.e. They feel that we cannot know definetively that god does or does not exists but feel it is most probable he does not and live their lives accordingly.

In any case, the Theists statement is affirmative whereas the 'Atheist' position is negative. Obviously you cannot prove a negative and as such the Burden of Proof rests permanently on the Theist shoulders.

However, since you have not even proposed a valid syllogism to make your argument, it’s pretty obvious I have the upper hand. So you can either propose the syllogism, or address one of my premises. Incorrectly asserting that the burden of proof is on my side does nothing for you though.

In fact, we need do nothing with regards your syllogism because it contains two completely unsupported premises. 1) That God Exists 2) Thats this God is Eternal. That observation alone nullifies your syllogism.

To say that Darwinism does not have social implications is quite frankly ridiculous. Humans are animals in the view of Darwinists, so Darwinian principles apply just as much to humans as they do ants. This viewpoint has lead to some of the worst human tragedies in reason history.

I think you'll find that Evolutionary theory and Social Darwinism are vastly different entities Statler. The principles of evolutionary theory deal with the natural development and speciation of life, they have nothing to do with social issues within those species.

. . . your posts are almost completely devoid of any citations, I guess it’s all just your opinion huh?

In the same way that you keep making assertions without any concilliatory evidence? i.e. 'The Human Genome Project supports a 6,000 year Old Earth'

There are Creationists who do Gene Therapy too, so apparently it does not require Evolutionary Theory at all to be successful. Ahem.

It was however developed using the principles of Evolutionary Theory though. This means that its existence and implementation is a direct result of evolutionary theory.

Cheers

Sam

---

Actually you are way off on your "Old Earther" list, every Scientist I listed is a young-earther. The list I looked at had over 200 names on it and had the Old-Earthers identified (their view on the age of the Earth was from their biographies and auto-biographies). I purposely didn't put any of them (like Richard Owen) on the list. So whereever you got your facts from, they are wrong.

Statler, did you even have the courtesy to read the reply?

it was specifically stated that the problem with your List was the times these people lived in (Before Evolutionary Theory etc . . .) As such their views were the de facto views of their time. I noticed you haven't cited your source for this list as well, so it seems slightly unfair to declare Lethe's list wrong and yours right without any supporting evidence.

Darwinism is a Religion too, so your point is moot.

Darwinsism? Please define the concept of Darwinism as you see it and state how this makes it a religion.

Cheers

Sam