Scientific Dissent From Darwinism

[Turtlesoup]

Hitler was what? He was no evolutionist at all. He made a "conservative", a "nazional", an "authoritarian" revolution. He was a Darwinist - a racist.

His big belief was that the Aryan race was superior to other races based on ToE. Your sad lacking of history and Hitler with his beliefs that he and his race were superior and had the right to "exterminate" the inferior races. This is based on his twisted and wrong notion that evolution is for the strong to survive. He wrote of evolution as such in his infamous Mein Kampf autobiography.

'Interestingly, I discovered that all these translators rendered “Entwicklung” as “evolution” in certain contexts, especially in the chapter on “Nation and Race.” The reason for this is rather obvious: In that chapter Hitler describes the struggle for existence among organisms as a natural process that improves the species. Sure sounds like evolution to me — and all these translators agree.
In any case, here are three brief passages from the Mussey translation (from the chapter “Nation and Race”), where Mussey translates “Entwicklung” as “evolution”:'

Evolutionists should own up to their evil past of their Aryanism. Perhaps Mein Kampf was supposed to be the twisted and evil equivalent of the Bible.

Did Hitler Use the Term “Evolution” in Mein Kampf? | Evolution News

Some critics of my scholarship have tried to argue that Hitler did not believe in human evolution at all.

evolutionnews.org

You do not understand what Eugenics is obviously. You wrongly think that it is based on race when it is not...and you wrongly think that it is evolution. It has nothing to do with evolution.

Evolution is survival of the fittest. Its not race based. Whites evolved for cooler harder to live in climates that required tool building and more planning ahead while blacks evolved for warmer higher sun climates that had other issues requiring evolution of everything from skin tone to dick size.
Eugenics is sterilization breeding to get rid of GENETIC problems like birth defects such as mental retardation or genetic blindness/deafness from the gene pool. You don't allow "problem" members to breed "problem" offspring passing on "problem" genes from generation to generation.
Neither evolution or eugenics is based on race.

 

[zaangalewa]

Hitler was what? He was no evolutionist at all. He made a "conservative", a "nazional", an "authoritarian" revolution. He was a Darwinist - a racist.

His big belief was that the Aryan race was superior to other races based on ToE.

What's by the way very interesting, because this idea has to come from the English speaking world. Aryans were mystical people. If they had really existed then they were ancestors of the Iranians and not of the Germanics. So it looks like someone made a mistake and thought about Arians, because Germaninc indeed had been Arians before they became Catholics. But this mistake is not possible in the German language. Aryans = Arier. Arians = Arianer. Both words sound in German totally different. This mistake is only possible in the English language.

Your sad lacking of history

I will never understand why nearly all US-Americans always argue so damned stupid.

and Hitler with his beliefs

No one knows hat Hitler believed in

that he and his race were superior and had the right to "exterminate" the inferior races.

The idea of Heinrich Himmler - the boss of all policemn and all SS-soldiers in Germany - had been that only two superior races exist which are able to rule the world: The Germanics and the Jews. So he tried to murder all Jews without any exception: Men, women, children, babies.

But the concepts of biological evolution know not really a concept of "inferior" and "superior". They know only the concept "to fit".

This is based on his twisted and wrong notion that evolution is for the strong to survive.

As far as I know was the wrong expression "survival of the strong" replaced from Charles Darwin after 1864 with the expression "survival of the fittest" from Herbert Spencer. "Das Überleben des Stärkeren" was indeed a propaganda strategy of the Nazis. The psychology behind this expression is just simple "Only if we will be strong, we will survive"

He wrote of evolution as such in his infamous Mein Kampf autobiography.

What Hitler said or not said is for me personally nearly alwas only totally unintersting. The father of Joachim Fest had said about his contemporary Adolf Hitler: "Hitler is such a damned good liar so even the opposite of his lies are lies again"

'Interestingly, I discovered that all these translators rendered “Entwicklung” as “evolution” in certain contexts, especially in the chapter on “Nation and Race.”

The word "Entwicklung" says only that something becomes slowly more clear during time. Step by step.

The reason for this is rather obvious: In that chapter Hitler describes the struggle for existence among organisms as a natural process that improves the species. Sure sounds like evolution to me — and all these translators agree.
In any case, here are three brief passages from the Mussey translation (from the chapter “Nation and Race”), where Mussey translates “Entwicklung” as “evolution”:'

Evolutionists should own up to their evil past of their Aryanism. Perhaps Mein Kampf was supposed to be the twisted and evil equivalent of the Bible.

Did Hitler Use the Term “Evolution” in Mein Kampf? | Evolution News

Some critics of my scholarship have tried to argue that Hitler did not believe in human evolution at all.

evolutionnews.org

The Nazis had for example the theory the sun is an iceberg. No joke. Even the most Nazis on their own were not so stupid to think this. But do you think anyone had said this is not true? Not a good reason to go in jail, isn't it?

But I have to agree with you in one point: It's a thousand times more better not to believe in evolution at all than to believe the nonsense, which the Nazis had said about biology and evolution. Nevertheless in the German language "evolution" means normally a developement step by step - slowly - without violence - while a revolution is a big violent thing, which changes everything with violence immediatelly. The Nazsi were a so called "right wing" revolution - with an own form of anti-Christian mystics, which combined a lot of things. Himmler saw for example in his SS leaders knights of the round table of King Arthur - what's totally absurde. Perhaps we can say the so called "third empire" in Germany was a deadly revolution of absurdities. The Nazis made out of everything an absurdity.

 

[james bond]

None of that is true. Really shameful that you post such falsehoods.

It appears that the creationists and their scientists have all the scientific evidence backing them while the atheists and their scientists believe in lies. Not one shred of evidence It is incredulous that grown educated adults can be fooled by the lies of the atheist religion and atheist science.

 

[Hollie]

None of that is true. Really shameful that you post such falsehoods.

It appears that the creationists and their scientists have all the scientific evidence backing them while the atheists and their scientists believe in lies. Not one shred of evidence It is incredulous that grown educated adults can be fooled by the lies of the atheist religion and atheist science.

Actually, it’s quite obvious that the creationers have none of the scientific evidence backing them. That’s because creationers do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals. Creationer charlatans are limited to quack fundie ministries for a reason: they’re not taken seriously.

 

[xband]

https://www.discovery.org/m/2020/04/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-04072020.pdf

Many scientists don't accept evolution as the key to Nature

Lambda

 

[james bond]

None of that is true. Really shameful that you post such falsehoods.

It appears that the creationists and their scientists have all the scientific evidence backing them while the atheists and their scientists believe in lies. Not one shred of evidence It is incredulous that grown educated adults can be fooled by the lies of the atheist religion and atheist science.

Actually, it’s quite obvious that the creationers have none of the scientific evidence backing them. That’s because creationers do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals. Creationer charlatans are limited to quack fundie ministries for a reason: they’re not taken seriously.

Practically, every time you post here you are wrong. Science backs up the good book even though it's not a science book. Just today, I learned how Sperry Top Siders shoes for sailors and its soles came to be to prevent slipping when the boat decks are wet.

All the atheists have here are complaints. The Earth isn't special to them.

 

[Hollie]

None of that is true. Really shameful that you post such falsehoods.

It appears that the creationists and their scientists have all the scientific evidence backing them while the atheists and their scientists believe in lies. Not one shred of evidence It is incredulous that grown educated adults can be fooled by the lies of the atheist religion and atheist science.

Actually, it’s quite obvious that the creationers have none of the scientific evidence backing them. That’s because creationers do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals. Creationer charlatans are limited to quack fundie ministries for a reason: they’re not taken seriously.

Practically, every time you post here you are wrong. Science backs up the good book even though it's not a science book. Just today, I learned how Sperry Top Siders shoes for sailors and its soles came to be to prevent slipping when the boat decks are wet.

All the atheists have here are complaints. The Earth isn't special to them.

Practically every time you post, you make the same false statements. Science doesn’t “back up” a 6,000 year old planet, talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old, etc.

Are you suggesting Sperry Top Siders shoes were worn by the deck hands on Noah’s Ark? Or, perhaps, the gods made Sperry Top Siders shoes in various sizes and configurations for all the animals who war on Noah’s pleasure cruise?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

None of that is true. Really shameful that you post such falsehoods.

It appears that the creationists and their scientists have all the scientific evidence backing them while the atheists and their scientists believe in lies. Not one shred of evidence It is incredulous that grown educated adults can be fooled by the lies of the atheist religion and atheist science.

Actually, it’s quite obvious that the creationers have none of the scientific evidence backing them. That’s because creationers do no research and publish in no peer reviewed journals. Creationer charlatans are limited to quack fundie ministries for a reason: they’re not taken seriously.

Practically, every time you post here you are wrong. Science backs up the good book even though it's not a science book. Just today, I learned how Sperry Top Siders shoes for sailors and its soles came to be to prevent slipping when the boat decks are wet.

All the atheists have here are complaints. The Earth isn't special to them.

Practically every time you post, you make the same false statements. Science doesn’t “back up” a 6,000 year old planet, talking snakes, men living to be 900 years old, etc.

Are you suggesting Sperry Top Siders shoes were worn by the deck hands on Noah’s Ark? Or, perhaps, the gods made Sperry Top Siders shoes in various sizes and configurations for all the animals who war on Noah’s pleasure cruise?

Once again you LYING TOAD almost NO ONE believe the earth is only 6000 years old.

 

[surada]

None of that is true. Really shameful that you post such falsehoods.

It appears that the creationists and their scientists have all the scientific evidence backing them while the atheists and their scientists believe in lies. Not one shred of evidence It is incredulous that grown educated adults can be fooled by the lies of the atheist religion and atheist science.

Do you believe the earth is 7,000 years old?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

None of that is true. Really shameful that you post such falsehoods.

It appears that the creationists and their scientists have all the scientific evidence backing them while the atheists and their scientists believe in lies. Not one shred of evidence It is incredulous that grown educated adults can be fooled by the lies of the atheist religion and atheist science.

Do you believe the earth is 7,000 years old?

almost no one believe that. And the ones that do are fools.

 

[surada]

None of that is true. Really shameful that you post such falsehoods.

It appears that the creationists and their scientists have all the scientific evidence backing them while the atheists and their scientists believe in lies. Not one shred of evidence It is incredulous that grown educated adults can be fooled by the lies of the atheist religion and atheist science.

Do you believe the earth is 7,000 years old?

almost no one believe that. And the ones that do are fools.

Do you believe in demons , Noah's flood and the Rapture?

 

[harmonica]

https://www.discovery.org/m/2020/04/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-04072020.pdf

Many scientists don't accept evolution as the key to Nature

so if you don't believe in evolution, you must believe a fully formed human just ''appeared'' like a Star Trek Engergizer
..how did it happen then?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

None of that is true. Really shameful that you post such falsehoods.

It appears that the creationists and their scientists have all the scientific evidence backing them while the atheists and their scientists believe in lies. Not one shred of evidence It is incredulous that grown educated adults can be fooled by the lies of the atheist religion and atheist science.

Do you believe the earth is 7,000 years old?

almost no one believe that. And the ones that do are fools.

Do you believe in demons , Noah's flood and the Rapture?

I believe there was a flood and as for the end times yes I believe in that too. demons not so much but Satan rules the earth and there are a shit load of evil people doing his bidding.

 

[harmonica]

science does not work on consensus

No, but the people who signed the petition are scientists and you are not.

..we had this discussion in the climate thread--scientists can be and ARE idiots/WRONG also--they are not [ hahahahha ] gods

 

[harmonica]

there is no suck link for man you have linked to the links they have now and there are numerous breaks and none linked species that supposedly prove that man descended from an ape like creature. go ahead prove me wrong. why would such a link convince me? are you serious? If you can show such a list for mankind of course it would be compelling proof of the claim.

so, in about 10 sentences, how did '''it''' happen?

 

[surada]

Hitler was what? He was no evolutionist at all. He made a "conservative", a "nazional", an "authoritarian" revolution. He was a Darwinist - a racist.

His big belief was that the Aryan race was superior to other races based on ToE.

What's by the way very interesting, because this idea has to come from the English speaking world. Aryans were mystical people. If they had really existed then they were ancestors of the Iranians and not of the Germanics. So it looks like someone made a mistake and thought about Arians, because Germaninc indeed had been Arians before they became Catholics. But this mistake is not possible in the German language. Aryans = Arier. Arians = Arianer. Both words sound in German totally different. This mistake is only possible in the English language.

Your sad lacking of history

I will never understand why nearly all US-Americans always argue so damned stupid.

and Hitler with his beliefs

No one knows hat Hitler believed in

that he and his race were superior and had the right to "exterminate" the inferior races.

The idea of Heinrich Himmler - the boss of all policemn and all SS-soldiers in Germany - had been that only two superior races exist which are able to rule the world: The Germanics and the Jews. So he tried to murder all Jews without any exception: Men, women, children, babies.

But the concepts of biological evolution know not really a concept of "inferior" and "superior". They know only the concept "to fit".

This is based on his twisted and wrong notion that evolution is for the strong to survive.

As far as I know was the wrong expression "survival of the strong" replaced from Charles Darwin after 1864 with the expression "survival of the fittest" from Herbert Spencer. "Das Überleben des Stärkeren" was indeed a propaganda strategy of the Nazis. The psychology behind this expression is just simple "Only if we will be strong, we will survive"

He wrote of evolution as such in his infamous Mein Kampf autobiography.

What Hitler said or not said is for me personally nearly alwas only totally unintersting. The father of Joachim Fest had said about his contemporary Adolf Hitler: "Hitler is such a damned good liar so even the opposite of his lies are lies again"

'Interestingly, I discovered that all these translators rendered “Entwicklung” as “evolution” in certain contexts, especially in the chapter on “Nation and Race.”

The word "Entwicklung" says only that something becomes slowly more clear during time. Step by step.

The reason for this is rather obvious: In that chapter Hitler describes the struggle for existence among organisms as a natural process that improves the species. Sure sounds like evolution to me — and all these translators agree.
In any case, here are three brief passages from the Mussey translation (from the chapter “Nation and Race”), where Mussey translates “Entwicklung” as “evolution”:'

Evolutionists should own up to their evil past of their Aryanism. Perhaps Mein Kampf was supposed to be the twisted and evil equivalent of the Bible.

Did Hitler Use the Term “Evolution” in Mein Kampf? | Evolution News

Some critics of my scholarship have tried to argue that Hitler did not believe in human evolution at all.

evolutionnews.org

The Nazis had for example the theory the sun is an iceberg. No joke. Even the most Nazis on their own were not so stupid to think this. But do you think anyone had said this is not true? Not a good reason to go in jail, isn't it?

But I have to agree with you in one point: It's a thousand times more better not to believe in evolution at all than to believe the nonsense, which the Nazis had said about biology and evolution. Nevertheless in the German language "evolution" means normally a developement step by step - slowly - without violence - while a revolution is a big violent thing, which changes everything with violence immediatelly. The Nazsi were a so called "right wing" revolution - with an own form of anti-Christian mystics, which combined a lot of things. Himmler saw for example in his SS leaders knights of the round table of King Arthur - what's totally absurde. Perhaps we can say the so called "third empire" in Germany was a deadly revolution of absurdities. The Nazis made out of everything an absurdity.

Hitler was also poorly educated.

Aryan | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica

Aryan | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica

Aryan, name originally given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent. Since the late 20th century, a growing number of scholars have rejected the concept of...

www.britannica.com

Aryan, name originally given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent. The theory of an “Aryan race” appeared in the mid-19th century and remained prevalent until the mid-20th century.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

there is no suck link for man you have linked to the links they have now and there are numerous breaks and none linked species that supposedly prove that man descended from an ape like creature. go ahead prove me wrong. why would such a link convince me? are you serious? If you can show such a list for mankind of course it would be compelling proof of the claim.

so, in about 10 sentences, how did '''it''' happen?

the only conclusive link is to Neanderthal and around that time, there is no actual link to this mythical man ape from 7 million years ago and science ADMITS that openly only retards and stupid people keep claiming they have a fossil record to support it.

 

[harmonica]

there is no suck link for man you have linked to the links they have now and there are numerous breaks and none linked species that supposedly prove that man descended from an ape like creature. go ahead prove me wrong. why would such a link convince me? are you serious? If you can show such a list for mankind of course it would be compelling proof of the claim.

so, in about 10 sentences, how did '''it''' happen?

the only conclusive link is to Neanderthal and around that time, there is no actual link to this mythical man ape from 7 million years ago and science ADMITS that openly only retards and stupid people keep claiming they have a fossil record to support it.

....no, no--give us your ''creation'' of man theory in about 10 or 20 sentences

 

[harmonica]

there is no suck link for man you have linked to the links they have now and there are numerous breaks and none linked species that supposedly prove that man descended from an ape like creature. go ahead prove me wrong. why would such a link convince me? are you serious? If you can show such a list for mankind of course it would be compelling proof of the claim.

so, in about 10 sentences, how did '''it''' happen?

the only conclusive link is to Neanderthal and around that time, there is no actual link to this mythical man ape from 7 million years ago and science ADMITS that openly only retards and stupid people keep claiming they have a fossil record to support it.

..why go to insults/etc unless YOU are a jackass???

 

[RetiredGySgt]

there is no suck link for man you have linked to the links they have now and there are numerous breaks and none linked species that supposedly prove that man descended from an ape like creature. go ahead prove me wrong. why would such a link convince me? are you serious? If you can show such a list for mankind of course it would be compelling proof of the claim.

so, in about 10 sentences, how did '''it''' happen?

the only conclusive link is to Neanderthal and around that time, there is no actual link to this mythical man ape from 7 million years ago and science ADMITS that openly only retards and stupid people keep claiming they have a fossil record to support it.

....no, no--give us your ''creation'' of man theory in about 10 or 20 sentences

I don't know when evolution created man that's the point. the only actual record is as I stated.