LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Islamic Creationist: 'All Terrorists Are Darwinists'

Science | Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 7:56:44 pm PDT

Turkish Islamic creationist Harun Yahya (Adnan Oktar) is interviewed by Spiegel Online, and says that “All Terrorists Are Darwinists.”

Oktar: Darwinism has laid the groundwork for Hitler’s and Mussolini’s fascism and Stalin’s communism. And when we look at the present day, we see that all the members of terrorist organizations — even those that portray themselves as Muslim organizations — are Darwinists, atheists. That is to say, a faithful person who prays regularly does not go and plant bombs here and there. It is just people who pretend to be Muslims, those who depict themselves as Muslims, who perpetrate bombings, or Darwinists who make it clear that they are terrorists or communists who commit terrorism. Consequently, they are all Darwinists.

As someone who’s been in the game for a while, Yahya doesn’t have much patience for the “intelligent design” hoax.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How much were you influenced by Christian movements, the so-called intelligent design movements in Europe and the United States?

Oktar: I find the concept of intelligent design rather dishonest. One should openly stand up for the existence of Allah, should sincerely stand up for religion, for Islam. Or, if one is a Christian, one should honestly stand up for Christianity. This is a theory which claims that things have somehow been created, but it is unknown who created them. I find this rather dishonest, actually. The followers of intelligent design should openly and clearly declare the existence of Allah as the Creator.

Advertisement

245 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 flynmudd  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 7:57:39pm

What an idiot.

2 Occasional Reader  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 7:58:01pm

Not true. The terrorists are all Lamarckians.

/

3 BlueCanuck  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 7:59:47pm

re: #1 flynmudd

At least he's an honest idiot. No hiding behind innuendo and rhetoric. Just say what you mean and stand by it. Unfortunately I don't think he's right about the terrorists.

4 pat  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:00:07pm

All Muslims are Neanderthals.

5 Slumbering Behemoth  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:00:20pm

I had no idea that "Allahu Ackbar!" was an atheist chant. Whoda thunk it?

6 Metal Man  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:01:36pm

How can a group that has not evolved their ideology since the 7th century be Darwinists'?

7 Walter L. Newton  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:02:16pm

Wow, those atheist Muslims sure had me fooled. I'm glad he cleared that up for me.

8 David IV of Georgia  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:03:08pm
Oktar: I find the concept of intelligent design rather dishonest. One should openly stand up for the existence of Allah, should sincerely stand up for religion, for Islam. Or, if one is a Christian, one should honestly stand up for Christianity. This is a theory which claims that things have somehow been created, but it is unknown who created them. I find this rather dishonest, actually. The followers of intelligent design should openly and clearly declare the existence of Allah as the Creator.

He basically gives the same reason I give for not trusting the Intelligent Design crowd. I don't really follow his terrorists are Darwinian atheists logic though—seems the founded of their cultus promoted the use of terror and murder to advance his religion.

9 The Other Les  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:04:17pm

re: #4 pat

All Muslims are Neanderthals.

Please do to insult the Neanderthals.

They were extinct long before The Big Moh' ever contaminated the Earth with his presence.

10 sleepy jesus  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:04:29pm

I smell a pig roast!

11 cliffster  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:04:37pm

re: #6 Metal Man

How can a group that has not evolved their ideology since the 7th century 100,000 BC be Darwinists'?

better?

12 Sharmuta  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:04:47pm
And when we look at the present day, we see that all the members of terrorist organizations — even those that portray themselves as Muslim organizations — are Darwinists, atheists.

No true Scotsman, eh?

13 The Other Les  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:04:55pm

PIMF!

Please do not insult the Neanderthals.

They were extinct long before The Big Moh' ever contaminated the Earth with his presence.

14 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:05:54pm

Just remember, no Islamist is in anyway responsible for Islamic terrorism.

If you get that, the mental contortionism that these idiots regularly display is all explained.

15 Globular Cluster  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:06:32pm

Charles, can we get a post about the Christian groups meeting with dinnerjacket?

16 anat  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:07:13pm

Surely he meant that all terrorists are candidates for the Darwin award.

17 Sharmuta  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:07:22pm
Darwinism has laid the groundwork for Hitler’s and Mussolini’s fascism and Stalin’s communism.

First- it did no such thing.

Second- the irony is that the first real fascist movement was islam.

18 Noam Sayin'  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:07:41pm

So... It's settled, then.

19 pat  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:09:15pm

re: #18 Noam Sayin'

Yep. Thread over. How about them Dodgers?/ lol

20 MandyManners  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:09:38pm
21 Metal Man  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:09:45pm

re: #11 cliffster

They only got their marching orders from Mohamed in the 7th century but you are right the actual ideology is much more ancient.

That part of the brain we in the civilized world work so hard to suppress.

22 The Archivist  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:10:29pm

OT:
Malkin has recently posted:

"Just heard from several readers that Lindsay Grahamnesty told Fox that the Mother of All Bailouts includes a reported $100 million more in funding for the left-wing housing entitlement thugs and heavily tax-subsidized fraudsters at ACORN. Under the original bailout proposal, apparently, a large portion of any repayment of the $700 billion would go to Barack Obama’s good friends at ACORN with a smaller allocation to debt repayment. Readers heard him say it was 20 percent."

Charles, can you confirm?

If true, we need to pull out the stops like never before--contact Senator and Congressman and everyone else regarding this travesty.

23 Noam Sayin'  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:10:36pm

re: #19 pat

Yep. Thread over. How about them Dodgers?/ lol

I don't know about the Dodgers, but the Twins are tied with the Sox at the top of the 9th.

24 cliffster  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:10:44pm

Where is Harry Truman now? He would go blow some shit up, and make everything ok.

25 HelloDare  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:11:52pm

Wasn't Harun Yahya on the Wired Smart List?

26 MandyManners  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:12:13pm

re: #24 cliffster

Where is Harry Truman now? He would go blow some shit up, and make everything ok.

Which shit would he blow up?

27 Mich-again  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:12:26pm

re: #22 The Archivist

Blood money.

28 Sharmuta  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:13:26pm
Oktar: Darwinism is under official protection throughout the world. No other ideology in history, no other idea, has ever been kept under such strict official protection. To make any kind of statement criticizing Darwinism causes an official reaction. However, the invalidity of Darwinism and the actuality of creation are scientific facts. Anyone reading or looking over my "Atlas of Creation" arrives at this opinion. Darwinism lies about many issues and deceives humanity. They have deceived the whole of humanity for 150 years.

I would have to say islam is more protected than any other ideology on this planet. In some countries- you're killed for criticizing it, for Pete's sake! When was the last time a creationist was killed for questioning evolution?

And- the comment about the scientific facts of creationism is just laughable. Indeed, Mr. Oktar- your creationist atlas was so based on scientific facts you had to use pictures of fishing lures to make your point.

29 cliffster  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:13:39pm

re: #26 MandyManners

Which shit would he blow up?

I don't know, I'm not Harry Truman. If I were, I'd be president. And, I'd be dead.

30 Wishing  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:16:23pm

PMorgan Buys WaMu's Deposits as Thrift Is Seized
Your text to link...

31 lori lane  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:16:29pm

re: #20 MandyManners

[Link: dailyrepublic.typepad.com...]

Good evening, Mandy! That is The.Strangest.Photo. What's it all about?

32 MandyManners  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:17:02pm

re: #29 cliffster

I don't know, I'm not Harry Truman. If I were, I'd be president. And, I'd be dead.

I can't argue that!

33 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:17:07pm

OT: Whoops, Bye-bye Wamu.

34 DrCruel  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:17:18pm

Maybe he's confusing Darwinism with the Darwin Awards.

As for who laid the ground work for all those totalitarian socialist feudal autocracies of the 20th century, I always thought it was the Marxists. Certainly Hitler got his inspiration from them.

35 Sharmuta  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:17:26pm

re: #25 HelloDare

No.

36 cliffster  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:17:58pm
all the members of terrorist organizations — even those that portray themselves as Muslim organizations — are Darwinists, atheists

All Darwinists are atheists? And, he gets to tell people whether they are atheists?

37 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:18:16pm

re: #33 CyanSnowHawk

OT: Whoops, Bye-bye Wamu.

Or should that be WooHoo!

38 Wishing  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:18:24pm

re: #30 Wishing

PMorgan Buys WaMu's Deposits as Thrift Is Seized
Your text to link...

...it seems life isnt waiting for the bigshots to come up with a deal....

39 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:19:36pm

re: #38 Wishing

...it seems life isnt waiting for the bigshots to come up with a deal....

It's been too late for WaMu for at least a week.

40 Sharmuta  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:20:03pm

re: #36 cliffster

All Darwinists are atheists? And, he gets to tell people whether they are atheists?

We've seen some of that here with a few creationists telling some of us we can't both believe in God and accept the validity of evolution. So why should an islamic creationist be any different?

41 Macker  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:20:35pm

Charles, if you're reading this, please check your e-mail. Something happened at work today that I want to let you know about. Nothing earth-shattering, but also not obscure.

Thanks!

42 EIDE_Interface  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:20:45pm

WTF does it even mean?

43 Mich-again  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:21:03pm

If terrorists are Darwinists, what did they evolve from? Peace-Loving Muslims?

44 Wishing  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:21:26pm

re: #41 Macker

Charles, if you're reading this, please check your e-mail. Something happened at work today that I want to let you know about. Nothing earth-shattering, but also not obscure.

Thanks!

Tease.

45 MandyManners  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:22:01pm

Good night!

46 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:22:41pm

re: #45 MandyManners

Good night, Mandy.

47 EIDE_Interface  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:22:48pm

Pot meet Kettle.

48 Metal Man  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:24:01pm

Hitler used Darwin's science much like Ammedinnerjacket is trying to use nuclear science.

To produce a holocaust against Jews. The science isn't evil the users are.

49 EIDE_Interface  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:24:23pm

re: #48 Metal Man

Hitler used Darwin's science much like Ammedinnerjacket is trying to use nuclear science.

To produce a holocaust against Jews. The science isn't evil the users are.

Science itself has no morality. Humans do.

50 Attaboid  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:27:24pm

And the Barbary Coast pirates were ... Barbarians.
/Aaarrr!

51 Sharmuta  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:27:41pm

re: #48 Metal Man

Hitler used Darwin's science much like Ammedinnerjacket is trying to use nuclear science.

To produce a holocaust against Jews. The science isn't evil the users are.

I dinged you up because of your last sentence, but I disagree about about hitler using Darwin's science. Eugenics is the antithesis of evolution and has nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

52 cliffster  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:27:41pm

re: #41 Macker

Charles, if you're reading this, please check your e-mail. Something happened at work today that I want to let you know about. Nothing earth-shattering, but also not obscure.

Thanks!

That ain't right.

53 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:28:50pm

To bad a suicide bomber cant come back and tell them"Damn,there aint no 72 virgins."

54 Noam Sayin'  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:29:01pm

Twins up; bottom of the 10th.

Not even a baseball fan.

55 PETN Sandwich  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:29:16pm
Oktar: I find the concept of intelligent design rather dishonest. One should openly stand up for the existence of Allah, should sincerely stand up for religion, for Islam. Or, if one is a Christian, one should honestly stand up for Christianity.

Gotta give'em credit for having some honesty there.

56 EIDE_Interface  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:29:24pm

re: #51 Sharmuta

I dinged you up because of your last sentence, but I disagree about about hitler using Darwin's science. Eugenics is the antithesis of evolution and has nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

Actually it depends on how you define eugenics. The pure research is not evil, it's an application of it to murdering people that is.

57 Joe Six Pack  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:30:09pm

re: #9 The Other Les

Please do to insult the Neanderthals.

They were extinct long before The Big Moh' ever contaminated the Earth with his presence filth.

Fixed.

58 Sharmuta  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:30:18pm

re: #56 EIDE_Interface

Actually it depends on how you define eugenics. The pure research is not evil, it's an application of it to murdering people that is.

I define it as "not evolution" therefore it's bullshit to call it "Darwin's science".

59 Metal Man  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:30:53pm

re: #50 Attaboid

And the Barbary Coast pirates were ... Barbarians.
/Aaarrr!

Maybe the Barbarians should meet the Gates:)

60 wiles  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:31:18pm

He's right about ID.

It could be worse: he could have said all Darwinists are terrorists. Pat Robertson still has time ...

61 Charles  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:31:37pm

re: #41 Macker

Charles, if you're reading this, please check your e-mail. Something happened at work today that I want to let you know about. Nothing earth-shattering, but also not obscure.

Thanks!

Thanks. Another over zealous filter, blocking LGF. All you can do is complain to your IT people, but they may not be very sympathetic.

62 The Other Les  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:32:29pm

re: #57 Joe Six Pack

Fixed.

Thank you.

63 EIDE_Interface  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:32:32pm

re: #58 Sharmuta

I define it as "not evolution" therefore it's bullshit to call it "Darwin's science".

All the creationists who talk about Darwin have never even bothered to read "Origin of Species'.

64 Metal Man  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:33:16pm

re: #51 Sharmuta

You are right, but I think (and may be wrong) that Darwin's theories were used to legitimize Eugenics.

65 EIDE_Interface  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:34:53pm

re: #64 Metal Man

You are right, but I think (and may be wrong) that Darwin's theories were used to legitimize Eugenics.

Anyone can misuse science. Darwin never advocated murdering people.

66 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:34:57pm

Good eveing all y'all - this post is just about a delusional person with naturally flowing delusional ideas.
He is a Yutz.

67 EIDE_Interface  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:35:23pm

re: #66 realwest

Good eveing all y'all - this post is just about a delusional person with naturally flowing delusional ideas.
He is a Yutz.

You mean putz?

68 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:35:47pm

I think George Carlin has the best take on religion.

69 cliffster  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:36:00pm

re: #64 Metal Man

You are right, but I think (and may be wrong) that Darwin's theories were used to legitimize Eugenics.

Jesus's theories were used to legitimize the conquistadors.

70 Noam Sayin'  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:36:03pm

re: #61 Charles

Thanks. Another over zealous filter, blocking LGF. All you can do is complain to your IT people, but they may not be very sympathetic.

I get issues from time-to-time on my work computer, but stay hush on the matters so long as they don't bar access to LGF. Only a few sites are blocked there, so I just consider them sacrifices to the PC gods.

Don't want to bitch, for fear of bringing LGF into radar range.

71 DrCruel  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:36:58pm

Hitler didn't do anything that Lenin hadn't done before him, and based on similar crackpot premises. In particular, the institutional hatred for Jews seems to be resultant on their being replaced for capitalists in the conversion from Bolshevism to Nazism.

The key point being, that the mass killing of people based on some arbitrary attribute seems to be a Marxist idea. One never, for example, hears Richard Dawkins calling for the mass slaughter of creationists. Conversely, many leaders with Marxist credentials (Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il, etc) seem quite enthusiastic about group extermination as government policy - in most cases, based on racial or ethnic lines.

In fact, virtually every Marxist regime I can think of has worked to death and/or butchered people on some basis invariably related to ethnic affiliation. But I've never heard of a GuLAG or laogai run by evolutionary scientists.

72 EIDE_Interface  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:37:42pm

re: #71 DrCruel

Hitler didn't do anything that Lenin hadn't done before him, and based on similar crackpot premises. In particular, the institutional hatred for Jews seems to be resultant on their being replaced for capitalists in the conversion from Bolshevism to Nazism.

The key point being, that the mass killing of people based on some arbitrary attribute seems to be a Marxist idea. One never, for example, hears Richard Dawkins calling for the mass slaughter of creationists. Conversely, many leaders with Marxist credentials (Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il, etc) seem quite enthusiastic about group extermination as government policy - in most cases, based on racial or ethnic lines.

In fact, virtually every Marxist regime I can think of has worked to death and/or butchered people on some basis invariably related to ethnic affiliation. But I've never heard of a GuLAG or laogai run by evolutionary scientists.

Either way you end up dead. Who cares about what their ideology was.

73 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:39:24pm

re: #33 CyanSnowHawk
Indeed and bye-bye to a lot of jobs at WaMu as well.
The single largest S&L being taken over by JP Morgan Chase is not good news at all for anyone except depositors at WaMu - if there were any left.

74 EIDE_Interface  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:39:55pm

re: #73 realwest

Indeed and bye-bye to a lot of jobs at WaMu as well.
The single largest S&L being taken over by JP Morgan Chase is not good news at all for anyone except depositors at WaMu - if there were any left.

Oh please, WaMu has many depositors.

75 least  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:40:15pm

re: #51 Sharmuta

. . . I disagree about about hitler using Darwin's science. Eugenics is the antithesis of evolution and has nothing to do with Darwin's theory.

Hitler perverted the ideas behind Darwin's work -- something that many people do with ideas and ideals. IOW, he bent and twisted things to fit his own ideas and ideals.

76 flynmudd  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:40:18pm

How many S&L's failed in the 80's?

77 least  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:41:35pm

re: #63 EIDE_Interface

All the creationists who talk about Darwin have never even bothered to read "Origin of Species'.

Generalize much?

78 Sharmuta  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:42:38pm

re: #64 Metal Man

You are right, but I think (and may be wrong) that Darwin's theories were used to legitimize Eugenics.

That wouldn't make it "Darwin's science".

79 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:43:05pm

re: #74 EIDE_Interface

Oh please, WaMu has many depositors.

Not as many as there were 3 weeks ago. I would of bailed had I been there, too many rumors about failure. Rumors that eventually turned self-fulfilling, even without Chucky Schumer's help.

80 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:43:54pm

re: #77 least

Generalize much?

You don't have to do it much if you just do one big one every now and again.

81 cliffster  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:43:55pm

re: #77 least

Generalize much?

People around here are always generalizing..

82 Metal Man  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:44:04pm

re: #78 Sharmuta

Touche.

83 EIDE_Interface  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:44:14pm

re: #79 CyanSnowHawk

Not as many as there were 3 weeks ago. I would of bailed had I been there, too many rumors about failure. Rumors that eventually turned self-fulfilling, even without Chucky Schumer's help.

It really makes no difference which bank you are in as long as it's FDIC insured accounts.

84 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:44:53pm

re: #76 flynmudd

How many S&L's failed in the 80's?

In Texas between 1982-1985 there were 40 failed

85 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:45:32pm

re: #83 EIDE_Interface

It really makes no difference which bank you are in as long as it's FDIC insured accounts.

True, and I don't have too many accounts above the limit either.

86 least  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:46:05pm

re: #81 cliffster

People around here are always generalizing..

Was that a generalization about greneralization?
heh

87 CyanSnowHawk  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:46:19pm

re: #84 Oldasdirt

In Texas between 1982-1985 there were 40 failed

Was that before or after Texas began to allow branch banking?

88 Noam Sayin'  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:46:28pm

Twins Sweep Sox

89 flynmudd  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:46:49pm

re: #84 Oldasdirt

And we survived!

90 cliffster  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:47:04pm

re: #86 least

Was that a generalization about greneralization?
heh

It's late, it's the best I could come up with.

91 Noam Sayin'  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:47:35pm

re: #88 Noam Sayin'

re: #88 Noam Sayin'

Tough to beat the Twins in the Metrodome when it's all on the line.

92 least  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:47:43pm

oh my -- greneralization

93 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:47:45pm

The WaMu failure was due to large depositors pulling their money out.

All banks in the US (and just about everywhere else) do not have enough cash on hand to pay out to depositors if they all come to the door and want their money.

WaMu can't sell their loans to raise more cash because no one is buying loans.

In any other environment, WaMu would be fine.

94 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:48:04pm

re: #87 CyanSnowHawk
Does not really matter,under Clinton it was all kept very hush,hush.
Just like Whitewater.

95 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:48:36pm

re: #76 flynmudd
A whole lot of S&L's failed in the late 80's early 90's;
however WaMu is the single largest S&L to ever fail in US history.
Just for comparison sake, Seattle-based Washington Mutual has about $307 billion of assets and $188 billion of deposits, regulators said. The nation's largest previous banking failure was Continental Illinois National Bank & Trust, which had $40 billion of assets when it collapsed in 1984. (see spinoff link above)

96 least  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:48:49pm

re: #90 cliffster

It's late, it's the best I could come up with.

Well, I giggled.
Thx.
Bai.

97 spidly  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:48:54pm

re: #93 karmic_inquisitor

The WaMu failure was due to large depositors pulling their money out.

All banks in the US (and just about everywhere else) do not have enough cash on hand to pay out to depositors if they all come to the door and want their money.

WaMu can't sell their loans to raise more cash because no one is buying loans.

In any other environment, WaMu would be fine.

they sucked. not as bad as first interstate though

98 cliffster  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:50:02pm

re: #95 realwest

That was a shameless plug for your spinoff link!

99 Sharmuta  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:50:04pm

re: #75 least

Eugenics is not a perversion of evolution no matter how many times people want to claim it is. Eugenics is a rationale used by people who want to rid the world of what they view as "undesirables". Evolution has natural selection as a means of speciation- the promotion of life and variety. Eugenics has human selection as a means to validate the destruction of life viewed as tainting the gene pool.

100 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:50:21pm

re: #74 EIDE_Interface
Really? "The bailout came after the thrift suffered deposit outflows of $16.7 billion since September 15, the OTS said." (see spinoff links). That they may still have many depositors doesn't change the number of layoffs that will occur as a result of this.

101 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:50:47pm

re: #98 cliffster
Yeah, I know - I'm bad!

102 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:51:48pm

If you guys want to learn about money and debt,,the film here is very good,,the rest of the site is BS,but the film is very good.
[Link: throwawayyourtelescreen.wordpress.com...]

103 cliffster  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:52:32pm

re: #101 realwest

Yeah, I know - I'm bad!

I respect your honesty and dinged you up.

104 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:52:57pm

re: #83 EIDE_Interface
WaMu's depositors are NOT being bailed out by the FDIC - they are being bailed out by the money put up by JP Morgan - virtually all shareholder equitry and debt equity (bonds) have been wiped out by this manouver by the Feds.

105 flynmudd  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:53:18pm

re: #94 Oldasdirt

How old is dirt anyway?

106 uptight  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:53:39pm

All terrorists are Darwinists. Most terrorists are Muslims. Therefore Darwin was a Muslim. Mostly.

107 Tarkus289  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:54:05pm

Regarding two threads ago, I was the infamous 5 millionth poster, It was a proud moment and I don't get many of those these days. You guys rule, Charles rules. and LGF rules. Good luck on the next milestone.

108 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:54:17pm

re: #97 spidly

they sucked. not as bad as first interstate though

I remember having an account with them after they took over Security Pacific here in Ca. SP was a good bank. FI sucked indeed. I have never done business with WaMu except to use one of their ATMs once.

109 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:54:20pm

re: #93 karmic_inquisitor
Bingo!

110 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:55:07pm

re: #105 flynmudd

How old is dirt anyway?

Im almost 60 years young.

111 Joe Six Pack  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:55:15pm

re: #88 Noam Sayin'

Twins Sweep Sox

Wow, they move 1/2 game ahead of the Sox.

112 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:55:37pm

re: #103 cliffster
Why thankew! Thankew very much!

113 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:56:28pm

re: #104 realwest

WaMu's depositors are NOT being bailed out by the FDIC - they are being bailed out by the money put up by JP Morgan - virtually all shareholder equitry and debt equity (bonds) have been wiped out by this manouver by the Feds.

The idea is to have the depositors stay whole, including the ones with more than 100K. They have gotten burned at the Fed take overs, which is why they are pulling money out of other banks. The fed wants them to stick around and can't use the FDIC to reassure them.

114 Mars Needs Neocons  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:56:40pm

re: #70 Noam Sayin'

I get issues from time-to-time on my work computer, but stay hush on the matters so long as they don't bar access to LGF. Only a few sites are blocked there, so I just consider them sacrifices to the PC gods.

Don't want to bitch, for fear of bringing LGF into radar range.

If work blocks it, I've got my phone.

Hope I can get a job that I have a computer.

115 flynmudd  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:56:44pm

re: #110 Oldasdirt

That's not old at all. You only have 15 on me. The way I look at it, you are 5 years from retirement and I have too many.

116 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:58:08pm

I've been blocked out of here for about six hours.

It's good to see that we are still focused on the most important current events.

117 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:59:21pm

re: #115 flynmudd
I was put out to pasture 2 years ago,,back surgery,and nerve damage.

118 EIDE_Interface  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:59:24pm

WaMu depositors under 100K are safe. Stop fear mongering.

119 flynmudd  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 8:59:55pm

re: #117 Oldasdirt

Sorry to hear that. However, I hear that being put out to pasture is better than being put down.

120 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:00:30pm

re: #118 EIDE_Interface

WaMu depositors under 100K are safe. Stop fear mongering.

All depositors are safe at WaMu. Shareholders are wiped out.

121 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:01:04pm

re: #113 karmic_inquisitor
The Fed can't reassure anyone with idiots like Dodd in the Senate and Frank in the house. They are the respective heads of the Senate and House banking committees and neither one has done their job, although Dodd has, at least, availed himself of a bushel full of campaign dough from various and sundry banks.
And Dodd and Frank both blamed McCain for "scuppering" the deal that Bush wanted and that - according to them- the House and Senate had agreed on the framework for.
Seems Johnny Mac was against all those "golden parachutes that the top people at the institutions who would have benefitted most from the bailout that was almost worked out by the House and Senate.

122 flynmudd  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:02:09pm

re: #120 karmic_inquisitor

Risk is a b*tch. I love capitalism. There is still lots of money to be made out there. Buy houses in foreclosure and rent them.

123 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:02:13pm

re: #110 Oldasdirt
Well dirt and I are older than that! LOL!

124 ggt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:03:10pm

> If you get an e-mail with "Nude Photos of Sarah Palin" in the subject
> line, do not open it. It might contain a virus.
>
> If you get an e-mail with "Nude Photos of Hillary Clinton", do not
> open it.
> It might contain nude photos of Hillary Clinton.

125 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:04:05pm

re: #123 realwest
Are you livin in Texas?

126 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:04:06pm

I clicked the new comments button and got a page refresh. What's up with that?

127 J.D.  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:05:14pm

re: #124 ggt

LOL!

128 really grumpy big dog Johnson  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:05:35pm

Wow, it happened again. Looks like the ajax code has been broken.

129 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:05:57pm

re: #126 really grumpy big dog Johnson

I clicked the new comments button and got a page refresh. What's up with that?


I think thats what is suposed to do.But not positive.

130 J.D.  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:06:21pm
131 Mars Needs Neocons  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:06:28pm

re: #124 ggt

> If you get an e-mail with "Nude Photos of Sarah Palin" in the subject
> line, do not open it. It might contain a virus.
>
> If you get an e-mail with "Nude Photos of Hillary Clinton", do not
> open it.
> It might contain nude photos of Hillary Clinton.

And god help you if it says "nude photos of Rosie O'Donnel"

132 lifeofthemind  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:07:11pm

HT Instapundit: More thuggery and blackmail from the Democrats,
This time it is over NRA ads. Monday it was threatening Jewsish charities over Sarah Palin. Earlier today it was the entire US economy to get $100,000,000 for Acorn.

133 Tarkus289  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:07:32pm

Run for your life if it says nude pictures of Helen Thomas.....

134 Sharmuta  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:07:51pm
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Next year, a part of the world will celebrate the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his first publication of "On the Origin of Species." Will you be celebrating, too?

Oktar: It will actually turn out to be a worldwide celebration of Darwinism’s collapse. People will be stunned at how they believed in Darwinism. They will be amazed at how they were taken in by such a hoax for years. They will also be astonished at themselves and at how hundreds, thousands of universities around the world and hundreds, thousands of professors backed such a hoax, and how they were deceived by Satan's plot.

He's certifiable.

135 karmic_inquisitor  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:08:03pm

This will disgust you:

Politico: Pelosi / Reid ambush Republicans at White House Crisis Meeting

The former Goldman Sachs CEO even went down on one knee as if genuflecting, to which Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) is said to have joked, “I didn’t know you were Catholic.”

It was McCain who had urged Bush to call the White House meeting but Democrats made sure Obama had a prominent part. And much as they complained later of being blindsided, the whole event turned out to be something of an ambush on their part—aimed at McCain and House Republicans.

Speaking professionally,” said one Republican aide, “They did a very good job.

When Bush yielded early to Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D- Nev.) to speak, they yielded to Obama to speak for the assembled Democrats. And it was Obama who raised the subject of the conservative alternative and pressed Paulson on what he thought of the idea.

Remember that it was Nancy Pelosi that said:

We pledge to make this the most honest, ethical, and open Congress in history. - 10/14/06

136 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:08:38pm

re: #131 Mars Needs Neocons

And god help you if it says "nude photos of Rosie O'Donnel"


I would pay money not to see nude pictures of Rosie O'Donnel.Hell i would pay never to see her at all.

137 ggt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:09:41pm

Good Evening Lizards! It was another warmish, humid day in the Very Far Western Suburbs of Chicagoland.

We have a referendem on the possibilities of a Constitution Convention coming up in the State of Illinois. Got the official phamplet in the mail and everything.

How are you-all today and what are we talking about? Is this an ID thread?

138 Mars Needs Neocons  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:10:20pm

re: #136 Oldasdirt

I would pay money not to see nude pictures of Rosie O'Donnel.Hell i would pay never to see her at all.

Maybe we can take up a fund.

139 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:10:47pm

re: #122 flynmudd You are quite right about that.
The only problems are that a) you'd need a lot of capital to buy enough homes, because no bank is gonna loan it to you and b) there is gonna be stiff competition for you're idea, but the "pool" of possible renters will shrink with every job layoff.

I'll give JP Morgan Chase credit for one thing: they have the leanest bank of any size in the country. When I left Manhattan in 2006, JP Morgan Chase had something close to 275 "branches" in Manhattan and less than 1,500 employees - everything's automated these days, doncha know?

140 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:12:04pm

re: #125 Oldasdirt
Nope, North Carlolina! Ya know, the state that has little if any gasoline STATEWIDE! LOL!

141 flynmudd  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:12:40pm

re: #139 realwest

I luckily saved up for just a day like this.

142 ploome hineni[deleted]  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:13:11pm
143 ggt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:14:09pm
144 flynmudd  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:15:11pm

re: #140 realwest

Maybe NC should vote for offshore drilling. They could tell the Fedzillla to go F themselves and take it to the SC. States rights and all.

145 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:15:50pm

re: #140 realwest

Nope, North Carlolina! Ya know, the state that has little if any gasoline STATEWIDE! LOL!


I hear you guys will be getin some gas soon,,hope ya do.If someone could stick Harry Reed,and Strech Pelosi in a box,and drop it in the middle of the ocean,you might get more,,and cheaper.

146 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:16:41pm

re: #130 J.D.
Hey {J.D.} - yes, someone linked to that earlier today - I think on the DT, not sure.
It's an interesting article and the basic premise is sound: the government will in all probability make out like a bandit - but not yet, not since Paulson's plan has been, apparently flat out rejected.

147 J.D.  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:16:43pm

re: #142 ploome hineni

Someone on the previous thread couldn't get on from Explorer.
I use Firefox and I haven't had any problem.

148 J.D.  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:18:14pm

re: #146 realwest

Hey {J.D.} - yes, someone linked to that earlier today - I think on the DT, not sure.
It's an interesting article and the basic premise is sound: the government will in all probability make out like a bandit - but not yet, not since Paulson's plan has been, apparently flat out rejected.

Any good reason for that?

149 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:18:16pm

re: #131 Mars Needs Neocons
and
re: #133 Tarkus289

ROTFL! But also nearly upchucking at just the thought of those photos. Ewww!

150 Oldasdirt  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:19:52pm

Guess i will be moveing on to next thread,,I love this place.

151 ploome hineni[deleted]  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:21:14pm
152 Summersong  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:21:36pm

re: #30 Wishing

PMorgan Buys WaMu's Deposits as Thrift Is Seized
Your text to link...

Wow. Thanks for the link.

153 opilio  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:21:38pm

re: #142 ploome hineni

anyone else having trouble getting into LGF with MSN?

I just installed firefox to get connected

Yes. IE6 won't load LGF tonight. I'm using FF now.

154 ploome hineni[deleted]  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:21:58pm
155 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:22:21pm

re: #141 flynmudd
Wow - you are very lucky - or presicient indeed!
I wasn't, btw, arguing with your basic premise: in a more or less - less these days I'm afraid - capitalistic society, your plan is SOLID. But where to get the dough to buy the houses and find the renters?
I just checked my savings (man, that mattress is heavy) and I can chip in about $14.85 to any fund you want to start!

156 ploome hineni[deleted]  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:23:25pm
157 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:25:03pm

re: #144 flynmudd
Well I don't understand a whole lot about the "All bidness" as my Texas friends call it, but it seems that crude isn't the problem, it's getting refinaries built and operating and the greenies have - so far at least - succeeded in blocking any of that for nearly 25 years.

158 realwest  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:30:19pm

re: #148 J.D.
Well it depends on which MSM reports you believe. Apparently Pelosi and Reid - in a move almost too smart to believe of these two, handed the meeting with President Bush over to Obama who pointed at McCain and said "he's the reason we haven't worked out a plan yet, he's playing presidential politics at this late hour!"
Fortunately his teleprompter went on the Fritz and McCains' comments aren't fit for publication but they were, I'm told, caustic. Actually he sided with House Republicans on deleting measures that would've paid the golden parachutes to top level executives at firms that the Feds bail out and wasn't real thrilled about the credit card lenders, auto finance lenders, student loan lenders and the partridge in a pear tree that Dodd and Franks had wanted to add on to the ornaments on the bail out tree!
No, actually the fight now seems to be whether to simply "give" $700 Billion to the Fed now, or dribble it out to them as needed.

159 Moe Katz  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:30:50pm

re: #105 flynmudd

How old is dirt anyway?

Don't ask a geologist that, you might get a straight answer.

160 J.D.  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:34:38pm

re: #158 realwest

Let's see what happens tomorrow. This is becoming too bizarre.

161 Dan G.  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:42:52pm

re: #157 realwest

I'd like to see some true mavericks just start building them... its easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission...

162 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 9:58:55pm

re: #56 EIDE_Interface

Actually it depends on how you define eugenics. The pure research is not evil, it's an application of it to murdering people that is.

The pure research has been done since long before Darwin was born; farmers culling their flocks to produce superior strains.

An advocate of evolutionary theory would leave evironmental selection to work its way unhindered; eugenicists are attached to imposing their own self-appointed 'intelligent designs.'

163 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 10:00:09pm

re: #64 Metal Man

You are right, but I think (and may be wrong) that Darwin's theories were used to legitimize Eugenics.

And quite illegitimately so.

164 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 10:02:35pm

re: #75 least

Hitler perverted the ideas behind Darwin's work -- something that many people do with ideas and ideals. IOW, he bent and twisted things to fit his own ideas and ideals.

The culling of herds to produce superior strains far predated Darwin's birth.

165 Indefatigable  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 10:18:38pm

Is it me, or does this guy's face just scream, "No Mr. Bond, I expect you to die"?

166 least  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 10:56:08pm

re: #99 Sharmuta

Eugenics is not a perversion of evolution no matter how many times people want to claim it is. Eugenics is a rationale used by people who want to rid the world of what they view as "undesirables". Evolution has natural selection as a means of speciation- the promotion of life and variety. Eugenics has human selection as a means to validate the destruction of life viewed as tainting the gene pool.


A little jumpy are we? In no way can you mistake what I wrote unless you are assuming I was trying to equate evolution with eugenics. I wasn't. I simply stated that the ideas behind Darwin's theory were perverted to fit into what Hitler wanted -- we call it genocide, he called it evolution. Hitler and his followers were thus able to put a "scientific" label on something that was pure evil.
That's all I said.
Take a deep breath.

167 least  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 11:09:47pm

re: #164 Salamantis

The culling of herds to produce superior strains far predated Darwin's birth.

Please see my #166

I wrote about how an idea that most people would instantly recognize as evil was given a "scientific" face through a perversion of an idea. That is all.

PS: You can't be equating the mass murder/genocide of humans with cattle breeding?

=======
#165 Inde . . .
heh

168 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 11:32:47pm

re: #166 least

A little jumpy are we? In no way can you mistake what I wrote unless you are assuming I was trying to equate evolution with eugenics. I wasn't. I simply stated that the ideas behind Darwin's theory were perverted to fit into what Hitler wanted -- we call it genocide, he called it evolution. Hitler and his followers were thus able to put a "scientific" label on something that was pure evil.
That's all I said.
Take a deep breath.

This is manifestly untrue. Hitler never once even mentioned the word 'evolution' in Mein Kampf, and ordered copies of Origin of Species burned.

169 Salamantis  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 11:34:38pm

re: #167 least

Please see my #166

I wrote about how an idea that most people would instantly recognize as evil was given a "scientific" face through a perversion of an idea. That is all.

PS: You can't be equating the mass murder/genocide of humans with cattle breeding?

=======
#165 Inde . . .
heh

I can reasonably claim that the idea of culling 'human herds' originated with the culling of animal herds, long before Darwin was born. The first appearance of the idea of eugenics in literature was in Plato.

170 DrCruel  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 11:36:54pm

Actually, for Himmler the metaphor was chicken farming.

171 Sharmuta  Thu, Sep 25, 2008 11:52:02pm

re: #166 least

A little jumpy are we? In no way can you mistake what I wrote unless you are assuming I was trying to equate evolution with eugenics. I wasn't. I simply stated that the ideas behind Darwin's theory were perverted to fit into what Hitler wanted -- we call it genocide, he called it evolution. Hitler and his followers were thus able to put a "scientific" label on something that was pure evil.
That's all I said.
Take a deep breath.

Except what you wrote was "Hitler perverted the ideas behind Darwin's work", which you repeated again just now. Eugenics was not an idea behind Darwin's work. Perhaps you were not precise enough with what you were trying to convey, but based off what you did post, then yes- I'm going to set the record straight.

172 revparadigm[deleted]  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 12:18:32am
173 Throbert McGee  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 2:56:57am

Harun Yahya:

I find the concept of intelligent design rather dishonest.

I wonder if he's also suspicious of ID because Yahya is quite radically and unambiguously Old Earth Creationist -- whereas ID leaves room for OEC while also leaving room for rival ideas such as Young Earth Creationism, and some versions (not all) of Theistic Evolution, without favoring any one of them. In other words, he may distrust ID because it doesn't specifically endorse his own favorite flavor of creationism.

174 Throbert McGee  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 2:57:30am

And Harun Yahya, again:

The followers of intelligent design should openly and clearly declare the existence of Allah as the Creator.

Hah-hah! </NelsonMuntz>

If it's true that Yahya's publishing efforts have gotten direct financial support from U.S. Christian fundamentalists who thought he'd make a great ally of convenience, they oughta get a kick (ahem) out of this interview.

175 Sizzlack  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 4:52:18am

If this were true, I would like to ask this guy why some suicide bombers shout "Allahuakbar" and not "we come from monkeys!".

176 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 6:05:11am

re: #28 Sharmuta

For the record, this guy's obviously a jerk.

But Sharmuta, you forget how many Soviet Baptists, Pentecostals, and other faiths who in opposition to official atheistic communism lost their professions or their opportunity to pursue a profession. Most of these took the Bible seriously (though not literally)as Divine revelation , and scoffed theistic evolution as a hollow pretense. Many in consistency with these beliefs were imprisoned, tortured and many died.
Evolution was the 'scientific' basis on which Soviet communism rested.
As for those who persist in doubting that Darwinism spawned the Nazi ideas of a superior race, I suggest you watch this or read this paper.

177 Lawrence Schmerel  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 6:06:06am

Not all Darwinists are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Darwinists, but all Turkish Islamic creationists are Harun Yahyas.

178 Lawrence Schmerel  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 6:12:39am

Belief in God doesn't preclude belief in evolution, and belief in evolution doesn't preclude belief in God, but those who insist otherwise are untrustworthy.

179 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 6:15:05am

re: #178 Lawrence Schmerel
What kind of God? We all have gods - some we don't even recognise.

180 Lawrence Schmerel  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 6:28:03am

re: #179 ebed_melech

What kind? Actually, I only recognize one.

181 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 6:38:03am

Is He good?

182 Lawrence Schmerel  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 6:49:26am

Yes.

183 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:04:14am

If He has brought all being into existence for His own pleasure and for displaying His own glorious Nature, how is that before any moral breach between God and man, there was death and misery on an appalling scale? How could omnipotent Benevolence be the immediate author of injustice, prior to sin?

How in a phrase could He have ever accurately have described such a tormented cosmos as 'very good'?

184 Lawrence Schmerel  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:14:42am

You only think it is miserable and unfair. Stop complaining. Life is short.

185 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:16:26am

No, I am quite content, but I don't think you're doing justice to God.

186 Basho  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:23:48am

re: #176 ebed_melech


As for those who persist in doubting that Darwinism spawned the Nazi ideas of a superior race, I suggest you watch this or read this paper.

Did Martin Luther have a role in that?

187 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:27:00am

re: #186 Basho

Fair question, he certainly played a central and very ugly role in promoting genocide, but not in the 'scientific justification' Mein Kampf and other Nazi publications revel in.

188 Throbert McGee  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:30:39am

re: #175 Sizzlack

If this were true, I would like to ask this guy why some suicide bombers shout "Allahuakbar" and not "we come from monkeys!".

Hmmm... maybe someone who actually speaks Arabic can check on this, but some Googling leads me to believe that if you wanted to say "Greater Than All Things Is the Monkey!" in Arabic, it would be something like al-qird akbar.

(Note that when using Latin letters to represent Arabic, "q" simply stands for a deeper-in-the-throatier version of the "k" sound").

The plural of qird, by the way, is quruud -- and the phrase "sons of pigs and monkeys" is something approximately like awlaad al khanazeer al quruud (using doubled vowels to signify long syllables) ... though, again, I'd welcome corrections from someone who truly groks Arabic.

189 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:36:42am

re: #176 ebed_melech
``Evolution was the 'scientific' basis on which Soviet communism rested.''

You forget Lysenkoism. That was the Soviet version of Lamarck's theory that the giraffe made its neck longer by stretching, and the long neck was passed down to later generations.

You could just as easily argue that both the Nazis and the Soviets got their ideology from Newton, because they both made a big deal of rockets, and rocket science is based on Newtonism, a pernicious doctrine that attempts to overthrow God's Own Aristotelean Theory of Why Things Fall. [It is their nature to fall, because all earthly things are fallen.]

Darwin never put forth a theology. Newton did think long and hard about theology, but his writing on gravity was in no way an attempt to overthrow or refute the Bible. Science isn't in some big argument with God.

Creationists are in a silly argument with God over whether all the evidence lying in rocks and DNA is God's own lies, put there to trick potential unbelievers into unbelief, or God's own truth, because creation is good, and therefore, not chockablock with lies.

190 sasmuse  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:41:58am

Wow! A moderating voice of reason from the muslim community. Individuals like Mr. Yahya need more air time. Let's just hope the fatwas for his head are kept to a minimum.

Sally Simpson
Perkasie, PA

191 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:44:47am

re: #189 lostlakehiker

You're right I neglected Lysenko, although as I understood him he was a Darwinist who resisted the neo-Darwinian synthesis with Mendel's genetics not a Lamarckian.
As to this straw man of claiming creationists think the DNA and the rocks are lying - can you cite a reference from a mainline creationist site?

192 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:47:24am

re: #176 ebed_melech

For the record, this guy's obviously a jerk.

But Sharmuta, you forget how many Soviet Baptists, Pentecostals, and other faiths who in opposition to official atheistic communism lost their professions or their opportunity to pursue a profession. Most of these took the Bible seriously (though not literally)as Divine revelation , and scoffed theistic evolution as a hollow pretense. Many in consistency with these beliefs were imprisoned, tortured and many died.

The religious have done much the same thing, and first, with the categories of orthodox and heterodox being verse-vice-a. Communists and fascists learned their lessons of terror and control well, at the feet of clerical masters who had previously done the same for almost two millennia.

Evolution was the 'scientific' basis on which Soviet communism rested.

Actually, you are quite wrong about this. Stalin rejected 'bourgeois' evolutionary theory in favor of Lysenkoism ( a variant of Lamarckism, with inheritance of acquired characteristics), which partially explains why so many people starved under his reign (trying to apply such dogmatic nonsense led to widespread crop failure and subsequent famine)(the other reason being that he intentionally starved many of them).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

As for those who persist in doubting that Darwinism spawned the Nazi ideas of a superior race, I suggest you watch this or read this paper.

Yet another link from a biblical literalist creationist propaganda site isn't going to convince me of anything but the credulousness and gullibility of the person who would recommend that its content be ceded some degree of credibility. The first person to propose in print that eugenics be practiced upon a human population was Plato, a couple of millennia before Darwin was born, and indeed, even before Jesus was. Practically every tribe from time immemorial once considered themselves to be intrinsically superior to other tribes, or in some way uniquely chosen or blessed. The Sioux traditionally called themselves, and none of their Native American neighbors, by an appelation that translates into 'human beings'; I doubt that they coined the term and its discriminatory application after reading Darwin. If Hitler ever read Darwin, he must have not liked him very much; the word 'evolution' is not once mentioned in Mein Kampf, and the Reich ordered German copies of Origin of Species burned as Godless blasphemy. Besides which, Hitler's self-conceived 'intelligent design' was about as far from what actual accepters of evolutionary theory would advocate (letting environmental selection proceed without human tinkering) as can be imagined.

193 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:49:58am

re: #189 lostlakehiker

I accept too Wiki claims Lysenko did believe in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, which is normally equated with Lamarckianism. So fair point.
His main damage to Russian biology he did was in denying genetics.

194 Throbert McGee  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:52:43am
if you wanted to say "Greater Than All Things Is the Monkey!" in Arabic, it would be something like al-qird akbar.

Just to clarify: I do understand just enough about Arabic to know that if you wanted to express "the monkey is large," you'd say al-qird kabiir. "Allah is big" would be, similarly, Allah kabiir -- to be contrasted with al-ilah kabiir, "the male deity is big" or "the (pagan) god is large."

But akbar is the comparative form of kabiir, meaning "bigger" -- or, in some contexts, "biggest." (Keep in mind that "biggest" and "bigger than all others" are logical synonyms.)

195 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:53:51am

Let's just focus on one thing at a time chaps.
I suggest we look at Darwin and Hitler.
Here are a few quotes from Mein Kampf
He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of bastards." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1943), pp. 286, 295, 325, 402, 403, 285, 289

Here are some quotes from writers on his thought:

Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

“Hitler’s morality was not based on traditional Judeo-Christian ethics nor Kant’s categorical imperative, but was rather a complete repudiation of them. Instead, Hitler embraced an evolutionary ethic that made Darwinian fitness and health the only criteria for moral standards.”

“Darwinian terminology and rhetoric pervaded Hitler’s writings and speeches, and no one to my knowledge has ever even questioned the common assertion by scholars that Hitler was a social Darwinist. It is too obvious to deny.”

Sir Arthur Keith (an infamous and fanatical creationist [not])
“We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people was organised slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … it is consistent with evolutionary morality. Germany reverted to the tribal past, and demonstrated to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.”

196 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:54:56am

re: #191 ebed_melech

You're right I neglected Lysenko, although as I understood him he was a Darwinist who resisted the neo-Darwinian synthesis with Mendel's genetics not a Lamarckian.
As to this straw man of claiming creationists think the DNA and the rocks are lying - can you cite a reference from a mainline creationist site?

What else could they think, when the radiometric isotope decay and Big Bang background echo radiation red shift data clearly indicate that fossils are millions, even hundreds of millions of years old, that the earth is 4.6 billion years old, and that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, not some few thousand, as the Young Earth Creationists insist.

Did God create light already in transit from multimillion light year distant stars, or didn't he?

197 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 7:57:33am

re: #196 Salamantis
Changing the subject already?

198 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:02:56am

re: #196 Salamantis

OK, first there are significant discrepancies in rock dating - sometimes in the order of 100 million to billions of years. Some egregious examples are with recently occurring volcanic eruptions in Hawaii, NZ and of course Mt St Helen's showing dating in millions of scores of miliions of years, but there are more significant examples of massive discrepancies between isotope types. As I've said before, I am not saying this is not a problem for creationists - it is, but there are some very serious problems for uniformitarian thinkers too. Refs at request.

Second I don't think light was created in transit, I suspect there must have been some immediate acceleration, though I don't hold to a subsequent c decay view.

199 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:03:50am

re: #195 ebed_melech

Let's just focus on one thing at a time chaps.
I suggest we look at Darwin and Hitler.
Here are a few quotes from Mein Kampf
He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of bastards." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1943), pp. 286, 295, 325, 402, 403, 285, 289

Here are some quotes from writers on his thought:

Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

“Hitler’s morality was not based on traditional Judeo-Christian ethics nor Kant’s categorical imperative, but was rather a complete repudiation of them. Instead, Hitler embraced an evolutionary ethic that made Darwinian fitness and health the only criteria for moral standards.”

“Darwinian terminology and rhetoric pervaded Hitler’s writings and speeches, and no one to my knowledge has ever even questioned the common assertion by scholars that Hitler was a social Darwinist. It is too obvious to deny.”

Sir Arthur Keith (an infamous and fanatical creationist [not])
“We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people was organised slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … it is consistent with evolutionary morality. Germany reverted to the tribal past, and demonstrated to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.”

Those actually sound like quotes from a creationist. Just like Darwin's contemporary, Louis Agassiz was:

"It was in Philadelphia that I first found myself in prolonged contact with Negroes; all the domestics in my hotel were men of color. I can scarcely express to you the painful impression that I received, especially since the feeling that they inspired in me is contrary to all our ideas about the confraternity of the human type (genre) and the unique origin of our species. But truth before all. Nevertheless, I experienced pity at the sight of this degraded and degenerate race, and their lot inspired compassion in me in thinking that they were really men. Nonetheless, it is impossible for me to repress the feeling that they are not of the same blood as us. In seeing their black faces with their thick lips and grimacing teeth, the wool on their head, their bent knees, their elongated hands, I could not take my eyes off their face in order to tell them to stay far away. And when they advanced that hideous hand towards my plate in order to serve me, I wished I were able to depart in order to eat a piece of bread elsewhere, rather than dine with such service. What unhappiness for the white race --to have tied their existence so closely with that of Negroes in certain countries! God preserve us from such a contact." -- Louis Agassiz in a letter to his mother (1846), quoted in Gould, Stephen The Mismeasure of Man (1981) p. 44-45

Remember what Hitler confided to his adjutant general in 1941: "I shall always remain a Catholic."

200 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:06:11am

re: #198 ebed_melech

OK, first there are significant discrepancies in rock dating - sometimes in the order of 100 million to billions of years. Some egregious examples are with recently occurring volcanic eruptions in Hawaii, NZ and of course Mt St Helen's showing dating in millions of scores of miliions of years, but there are more significant examples of massive discrepancies between isotope types. As I've said before, I am not saying this is not a problem for creationists - it is, but there are some very serious problems for uniformitarian thinkers too. Refs at request.

Second I don't think light was created in transit, I suspect there must have been some immediate acceleration, though I don't hold to a subsequent c decay view.

Oh, Puh-LEEEEZE! The Gordian contortions into which you twist yourself in a vain endeavor to dismiss or ignore millions of mutually verified tests would make a pretzel blush with envy!

201 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:08:47am

Another salient example of morbid racism in a 'mainline' evolutionary Darwinist.

Henry Fairfield Osborn was a professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University and Bryan's antagonsit at Scopes. For twenty-five years (1908-1933), he was President of the American Museum of Natural History's Board of Trustees. Osborn wrote:

The Negroid stock is even more ancient than the Caucasian and Mongolians, as may be proved by an examination not only of the brain, of the hair, of the bodily characteristics . . . but of the instincts, the intelligence. The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old-youth of the species Homo Sapiens.

Henry Fairfield Osborn, "The Evolution of Human Races," Natural History, April 1980, p. 129--reprinted from January/February 1926 issue.


In a book dedicated to John T. Scopes (the evolutionist teacher made famous by the Scopes "monkey trial"), Osborn wrote:

The ethical principle inherent in evolution is that only the best has a right to survive. . .


Henry Fairfield Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education (London: Charles Scibner's Sons, 1926), p. 48.

202 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:11:29am

re: #200 Salamantis

Oh, Puh-LEEEEZE! The Gordian contortions into which you twist yourself in a vain endeavor to dismiss or ignore millions of mutually verified tests would make a pretzel blush with envy!

Very good, your golden tongue shows itself again Sal' - but I don't think it's anything as contorted as abiogenesis or claiming that language has evolved when the empirical data slam both?

203 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:14:30am

re: #201 ebed_melech

Another salient example of morbid racism in a 'mainline' evolutionary Darwinist.

Henry Fairfield Osborn was a professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University and Bryan's antagonsit at Scopes. For twenty-five years (1908-1933), he was President of the American Museum of Natural History's Board of Trustees. Osborn wrote:


Henry Fairfield Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education (London: Charles Scibner's Sons, 1926), p. 48.

Practically all Caucasians, whatever their take on evolution or creation, were racist back then. Even Abraham Lincoln, who freed the slaves, made haste to insist that his action did not mean in the least that he entertained the idea that blacks and whites were equals.

But it was the creationist Confederacy and KKK who cited the Biblical story of Ham to justify slavery of blacks.

204 Throbert McGee  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:15:30am

re: #176 ebed_melech

But Sharmuta, you forget how many Soviet Baptists, Pentecostals, and other faiths who in opposition to official atheistic communism lost their professions or their opportunity to pursue a profession. Most of these took the Bible seriously (though not literally)as Divine revelation , and scoffed theistic evolution as a hollow pretense.

Soviet Baptists and Pentecostals? Are you for reals?!

While I'm sure that missionaries representing these two thoroughly American varieties of Protestant Christianity have found some fertile soil in countries that were formerly part of the USSR, I can assure you that neither Baptists nor Pentecostals (or Protestants in general) were ever persecuted in the Soviet Union -- simply because the "indigenous" Christianity there was either Eastern Orthodox, or Roman Catholic.

205 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:17:35am

I can name many creationists who opposed slavery and racism on anti-evolutionary grounds, some before Darwin, can you name any serious evolutionists who opposed racism on anti-Biblical grounds?

206 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:19:16am

re: #202 ebed_melech

Very good, your golden tongue shows itself again Sal' - but I don't think it's anything as contorted as abiogenesis or claiming that language has evolved when the empirical data slam both?

Abiogenesis is not evolutionary theory, as you damn well knew before you hauled that straw man out of the red herring barrel. Abiogenesis has to do - once again - with the beginning of life, while evolutionary theory has to do with what the environment does to mutating populations of already-present life.

And language has certainly changed greatly over the ages. Old english is practically unreadable by modern speakers, different englishes even now diverge in Britain, the US and Australia, the common root (shared ancestor) of the romance languages is Latin, and indigenous languages are presently going extinct as they are being globally selected against - just as others have in the past.

207 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:20:23am

re: #204 Throbert McGee

I don't think you know the USSR Throbert, my own pastor wrote an extensive account of unregistered Soviet Baptists before glasnost who were tortured and imprisoned throughout the SSRs. There were many Brethren and Pentecostal churches too from the late 19th C.
The Orthodox and of course dissident Jews were also imprisoned though often for political views.

208 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:21:32am

re: #205 ebed_melech

I can name many creationists who opposed slavery and racism on anti-evolutionary grounds, some before Darwin, can you name any serious evolutionists who opposed racism on anti-Biblical grounds?

Evolutionary grounds were quite enough for evolutionary theorists to employ in order to oppose racism. In fact, it has been the sequencing of the human genome that has given us the irrefutable refutation of any basis for it.

209 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:23:20am

re: #206 Salamantis

If abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution - strange the evolution texts just can't leave it alone. Come on Sal you're avoiding the obvious and you know it.

As to language, strange indeed that some of the most ancient languages are more highly inflected and more complex than modern languages - Sankrit being a classic example. The degeneration of modern from classical Greek a weaker but more contemporary one.

210 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:25:24am

re: #208 Salamantis

Name one serious pre Nazi evolutionist who opposed racism.

Remember this is what Darwin wrote in the Descent,

'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 . . . 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 [sic] or Australian and the gorilla

'

211 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:29:17am

I'm sorry to be rude guys I am going to have to leave -my wife has been calling...

I will try to revist to read your gems (and I'm not being sarcastic - you have often put me right).

212 Sharmuta  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:29:18am

re: #204 Throbert McGee

Soviet Baptists and Pentecostals? Are you for reals?!

Yeah- that cracked me up.

213 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:33:50am

re: #209 ebed_melech

If abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution - strange the evolution texts just can't leave it alone. Come on Sal you're avoiding the obvious and you know it.

As to language, strange indeed that some of the most ancient languages are more highly inflected and more complex than modern languages - Sankrit being a classic example. The degeneration of modern from classical Greek a weaker but more contemporary one.

Charles has previously posted an essay concerning OOL theory:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

It would well behoove you to carefully read it.

Languages operate under different strictures than does genetic evolution (which is why it is known as memetic evolution); to be able to express progressively more complex concepts in more easily expressible terms.

Here are two of my own essays on the topic:

Tools, Language and Text:
The Serial Isomorphic Evolution of Symbolic Capacity in Human Consciousness

[Link: blog.myspace.com...]

The Memetic Stance: The Position and Paradigm of a New Discipline
[Link: blog.myspace.com...]

214 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:40:32am

re: #210 ebed_melech

re: #208 Salamantis

Name one serious pre Nazi evolutionist who opposed racism.

Clarence Darrow
Robert Ingersoll

Remember this is what Darwin wrote in the Descent,

'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 . . . 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 [sic] or Australian and the gorilla

Remember also that the above indicates that he was referring to Caucasians, negros and Australians all as humas in various stages of civilization - a social difference, not one of species. But the point was that at the same time that more primitive indigenous wilderness cultures (not more primitive subspecies) of humans were becoming extinct, that the habitat for the great apes would also be disappearing - and both by means of the expansion of range of technologically more advanced humans.

215 Basho  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:50:10am

re: #187 ebed_melech

Fair question, he certainly played a central and very ugly role in promoting genocide, but not in the 'scientific justification' Mein Kampf and other Nazi publications revel in.

Meh... you can spend a lifetime arguing different people in different times lead to Nazism. The bottom line is: Stop blaming externalities for evil. No book lead to holocaust. People did it. Humans and humans alone. It exist in everyone.

If the bible is absolutely, scientifically correct in one aspect, it is the concept of original sin. Roseau was dead wrong that humans are a blank slate. You can ban violent video games, books, and cartoons, and it won't stop people from doing horrendous activities.

216 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:57:36am

re: #191 ebed_melech

The issue of whether the rocks and the DNA are lies is at the very heart of the creationist/evolution argument. The creationists have no other argument against this evidence, than to assert that though it is there, and that though if you take it at face value, you're forced to conclude that life has evolved over time from simple beginnings, this face-value appreciation of the evidence is wrong because the evidence is just God's own joke on us suckers.

There simply is no other way to explain it all away. Talk about how the great flood killed all the trilobites and deposited their skeletons high on the slopes of Everest, and instantly petrified them, doesn't pass the laugh test. How does bone mineralize if there is no persistent liquid water to carry minerals into the bone? And up on Everest, it's, like, cold! And then, there's the riddle of how a flood would kill masses of sea life.

The creationist case founders the moment it permits the rock and DNA evidence to be taken at face value. The very fact that these guys persist, in the face of that evidence, shows that they believe it to be bogus. And it's not that they think that all the people who put forward the evidence are faking. No conspiracy can last centuries and span continents, involving thousands of professionals and far more amateurs. They think that the evidence itself is bogus, put there by the master prankster, to test our faith or something.

217 Basho  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:57:46am

re: #215 Basho

To expand on that point; Christians who blame Darwin for whatever evil they're talking about are doing a very unChristian thing. The concept of original sin puts the blame squarely on those committing the evil. Not every Nazi read The Descent of Man, they did what they did because they chose to do it. Two people can read the Bible cover to cover, and one can turn into Mother Teresa and the other into a Slobadan Milosevic. (I know I probably misspelled that)

218 Dadmin  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 9:51:07am

Likewise, "The followers of [non]intelligent design should openly and clearly declare the [non]existence of Allah as the Creator."

Unfortunately, their belief that knowledge (a.k.a. science) trumps belief clearly puts them above 'religious' folk.

Evolutionism is a belief that a man can know the past with such force of surety, it's as if he were there to experience the event first hand. It denies the existence of the supernatural, the finitude and fallibility of human existence, and asserts precognition of past events. With this kind of thinking, it becomes impossible for them to realize it's still a belief.

219 Basho  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 10:12:09am

re: #218 Dadmin

So... if you came home one day and saw your windows broken and all your jewelry and valuables stolen, would you say that you cannot determine whether you have been robbed?

220 Basho  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 10:16:20am

re: #218 Dadmin

It denies the existence of the supernatural

There was a time that everything had a supernatural explanation. Lightning, earthquakes, etc. Then it turned out those things were natural. If you can prove the supernatural exists, there's a million dollar prize from the JREF in it for you. No one has been able to claim it yet.

221 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 10:53:00am

re: #214 Salamantis

Fair enough they both qualify.

re: #208 Salamantis
Remember also that the above indicates that he was referring to Caucasians, negros and Australians all as humas in various stages of civilization - a social difference, not one of species. But the point was that at the same time that more primitive indigenous wilderness cultures (not more primitive subspecies) of humans were becoming extinct, that the habitat for the great apes would also be disappearing - and both by means of the expansion of range of technologically more advanced humans.

Mmmm, looks to me as though more than the natural extinction of apes was intended - he describes 'extermination' and as to your subtle distinction between subspecies and species - he seems to leap over both when he refers to some future more advanced race than Caucasians. His words could all too easily be used to justify genocide [even as I believe it was far from his intention].

222 Charles  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 10:54:02am

re: #187 ebed_melech

Fair question, he certainly played a central and very ugly role in promoting genocide, but not in the 'scientific justification' Mein Kampf and other Nazi publications revel in.

There is not a single mention of either Charles Darwin or the theory of evolution in Mein Kampf, and there is no record of Hitler ever showing any knowledge of science or Darwin's theories.

223 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 10:58:17am

Charles, my comments you cite were related to Luther not to Darwin, whom I admire but on this count am profoundly ashamed of and deprecate. However as I've documented above I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest Darwinism had a profound effect on the Nazis and their progenitors.

224 Charles  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 11:04:08am

re: #223 ebed_melech

Charles, my comments you cite were related to Luther not to Darwin, whom I admire but on this count am profoundly ashamed of and deprecate. However as I've documented above I think there's plenty of evidence to suggest Darwinism had a profound effect on the Nazis and their progenitors.

No, there isn't. There is evidence that "Social Darwinism" had an influence on Hitler, but that discredited notion (promoted mainly by Herbert Spencer) had nothing to do with Darwin's theory of natural selection.

225 Charles  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 11:13:35am

There's no mystery why creationists want to tie the theory of evolution to Hitler and the Nazis -- what's worse than a Nazi? If the theory of evolution inspired Hitler, well then, all decent people must renounce it!

Just one problem; the theory of evolution did not inspire Hitler.

This is a blatant scare tactic, often used by creationists in an attempt to influence gullible people. You can see the cruder, Islamic version of it in the quote from Harun Yahya above.

226 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 11:15:10am

I accept that Hitler probably never read the 'Origin' in translation, and may not have been able to accurately describe speciation, variation, or the distinction between Darwin and Lamarck - my basic point is that Darwin's ideas facilitated an intellectual climate in which Nazism could thrive, and the quote from Descent above, or citations from Haeckel or the evolutionist commentators on Darwin ,Keith for example, strongly corroborate this.
How do you read this quote from Darwin?,

'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 . . . 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 [sic] or Australian and the gorilla

'

I'm sure you'll want to come back on this, as others will, but I want to post something else on abiogenesis in a moment for Sal.

227 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 11:17:57am

I've read Nick Matzke's article on abiogenesis or origin of life (OOL), Sal recommended.

[Link: pandasthumb.org...]
As usual it abounds both in confidence for a complex life out of a messy organic gunge and a prescribed dose of ad hominem scorn for creationists, but not much to persuade a sceptic.

His four incontrovertible lines of 'evidence' for abiogenesis.

1 A shared suite of protein and RNA genes, a DNA-RNA-protein system and a mostly standard genetic code

Hardly an earth shattering confirmation of evolution, essentially it reiterates homology arguments - it's no proof of ancestry, especially given the nature of the aa differences in proteins between species.

2 The last common ancestor (LCA) must have been simpler, because, for example, of a hexamer composed of two similar proteins with sequence similarity. Therefore the precursor must have had a hexameric complex with identical units. Evidence for this huge leap of speculative reasoning please!

Let me offer a mirror argument for a moment to show how dangerous this leap can be.

Myoglobin and haemoglobin are structural support molecules for haem an iron complex that allows light and reversible binding with oxygen. According to Stryer a standard text their complex 3 D structural is extremely similar. Therefore the two must come from a common ancestor. WRONG! They have almost completely different amino acid sequences (from memory of 146 aas less than 10 are the same in the same site) so it's exceedingly unlikely, they evolved similar tertiary structures via a common ancestor gene.

Their function dictates their configuration not a putative common ontogeny.

3 Lots of interesting RNA research demonstrates RNA must have been how early life began.

Two simple questions then, one where did the ribose come from - sugars are notoriously difficult to synthesise and to my knowledge early earth (Urey Miller) conditions have never come close to creating them. Two, one example of an RNA self replicator please? All example I know of parasitise other organisms' DNA.

4 Water, planets, amino acids in reducing circumstances, and phosphate polymers abound and we're working on nucleic acid precursors (but not ribose) so it's not all so impossible.

The last is hardly worthy of much comment - so how far do these take you out of a messy organic gunge toward a self replicating and repairing nano-device, Nick? Sounds a lot more like wishful thinking than hard science to me.

I've posted similar comments on his site - we'll see how substantial his responses are, since he's clearly very familiar with the field.

228 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 11:19:07am

On a slightly lighter note, I recommend Salamantis pretzel comment above as a quote of the week.

229 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 11:28:06am

re: #216 lostlakehiker

Talk about how the great flood killed all the trilobites and deposited their skeletons high on the slopes of Everest, and instantly petrified them, doesn't pass the laugh test. How does bone mineralize if there is no persistent liquid water to carry minerals into the bone? And up on Everest, it's, like, cold! And then, there's the riddle of how a flood would kill masses of sea life. .

It's a lot more difficult to understand how slow uniform processes result in massive dinosaur graveyards, or areas where literally trillions of fish are captured and buried instantaneously in agony. These events must have been cataclysmic. Given massive water pressures, large amounts of fast flowing sediments, volcanic and tsunami like activity - there's every reason to expect such deposits. A global cataclysm is the only reasonable explanation for such phenomena. Much much more could be written.

230 NomadOfNorad  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 11:49:43am

re: #13 The Other Les

PIMF!

Please do not insult the Neanderthals.

They were extinct long before The Big Moh' ever contaminated the Earth with his presence.

Besides, that guy in the Geico commercials will just get cross at you. :D :D :D :D

/"I'll be in the car."

231 Throbert McGee  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 12:03:05pm
areas where literally trillions of fish are captured and buried instantaneously in agony

"I felt a great fishturbance in the Force, as if trillions of gill-flaps suddenly fluttered in terror and were suddenly silenced."

(And by "silenced," I mean, um, "made even silent-er"...)

232 Sharmuta  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 12:05:10pm

re: #229 ebed_melech

You realize there is zero evidence to support a global flood. None whatsoever.

233 ebed_melech  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 12:16:11pm

re: #232 Sharmuta

Interesting Sharmuta, that's very similar to the line uniformatarian geologists took with Bretz about Missoula Flood - they would not see the massive scales he kept insisting on, even some very eminent geologists lampooned him- until the data became irresistible.
I am not claiming JH Bretz was a creationist but he knew the dangers of making statements without examining the evidence more carefully. (A danger I hasten to add we all, including myself, all too prone to.)

234 Basho  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 2:21:14pm

re: #229 ebed_melech

Man, you're neck-deep in creationist pseudoscientific crap aren't you?

235 Basho  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 2:33:18pm

re: #198 ebed_melech

OK, first there are significant discrepancies in rock dating - sometimes in the order of 100 million to billions of years. Some egregious examples are with recently occurring volcanic eruptions in Hawaii, NZ and of course Mt St Helen's showing dating in millions of scores of miliions of years, but there are more significant examples of massive discrepancies between isotope types. As I've said before, I am not saying this is not a problem for creationists - it is, but there are some very serious problems for uniformitarian thinkers too. Refs at request.

Second I don't think light was created in transit, I suspect there must have been some immediate acceleration, though I don't hold to a subsequent c decay view.

WOW... Dude, you realize your computer, connected to the internet, is functioning based on the very concepts that you express doubt over.

236 Nemesis6  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 3:18:42pm

There's really no reason to take on a Creationist. After you've made their quote mines collapse, debunked all their crap, and just for shits and giggles told them that you know that what they posted was a cut and paste from AnswersInGenesis, they will ultimately fall back on this: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and you'll realize that you just wasted so much time on nothing at all, because you cannot reason with that train of thought. It's akin to someone denying God's existance, and then having someone tell you that the burden of proof is on you because you deny the notion. Ugh...

237 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:46:16pm

re: #229 ebed_melech

It's a lot more difficult to understand how slow uniform processes result in massive dinosaur graveyards, or areas where literally trillions of fish are captured and buried instantaneously in agony. These events must have been cataclysmic. Given massive water pressures, large amounts of fast flowing sediments, volcanic and tsunami like activity - there's every reason to expect such deposits. A global cataclysm is the only reasonable explanation for such phenomena. Much much more could be written.

You do realize that the reason that the different local flood events to which creationists refer are only mentioned one at a time is because they happened thousands, and in most cases millions, of years apart, don't you? The same caveat applies to the (unnamed) fossil fields you mention, except that many such fossil fields themselves each encompass many millions of years of accumulated strata. In fact, slow uniform processes do indeed account for the vast majority of fossil accumulations, with the excepetion of the five well known extinction events, the last of which ended the Saurian reign and occurred 65 million years ago, as a result of a sizeable meteorite impacting the earth in the vicinity of the Gulf of Mexico, raising a massive dust cloud that precipitating a global winter and strangling off their plant food supply, which starved the herbivores, which in turn starved their predators. And if every glacier and ice cap melted down to the last crystal, that there would still be vast tracts of land above sea level...

A global flood event is in fact the most UNreasonable, in fact physically impossible, of historical scenarios.

238 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:54:26pm

re: #236 Nemesis6

There's really no reason to take on a Creationist. After you've made their quote mines collapse, debunked all their crap, and just for shits and giggles told them that you know that what they posted was a cut and paste from AnswersInGenesis, they will ultimately fall back on this: The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, and you'll realize that you just wasted so much time on nothing at all, because you cannot reason with that train of thought. It's akin to someone denying God's existance, and then having someone tell you that the burden of proof is on you because you deny the notion. Ugh...

The absence of the imperceptible is fully as impossible to detect as is its presence, and the shadow that a ghost casts upon an ancient page is a most insubstantial thing.

But the burden of proof falls upon the person who asserts the existence of such things as unicorns, dragons, and gods, not upon the person who questions such a contention.

239 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 8:57:56pm

re: #233 ebed_melech

Interesting Sharmuta, that's very similar to the line uniformatarian geologists took with Bretz about Missoula Flood - they would not see the massive scales he kept insisting on, even some very eminent geologists lampooned him- until the data became irresistible.
I am not claiming JH Bretz was a creationist but he knew the dangers of making statements without examining the evidence more carefully. (A danger I hasten to add we all, including myself, all too prone to.)

The Missoula Flood was intimately connected with geological conditions in its locality. It did not extend to Australia, or Antarctica, or Africa, or South America, or China, or India, or Europe. In fact, as large as it was, it was still limited to a section of the Pacific Northwest.

240 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 9:13:41pm

re: #227 ebed_melech

I've read Nick Matzke's article on abiogenesis or origin of life (OOL), Sal recommended.

[Link: pandasthumb.org...]
As usual it abounds both in confidence for a complex life out of a messy organic gunge and a prescribed dose of ad hominem scorn for creationists, but not much to persuade a sceptic.

His four incontrovertible lines of 'evidence' for abiogenesis.

1 A shared suite of protein and RNA genes, a DNA-RNA-protein system and a mostly standard genetic code

Hardly an earth shattering confirmation of evolution, essentially it reiterates homology arguments - it's no proof of ancestry, especially given the nature of the aa differences in proteins between species.

2 The last common ancestor (LCA) must have been simpler, because, for example, of a hexamer composed of two similar proteins with sequence similarity. Therefore the precursor must have had a hexameric complex with identical units. Evidence for this huge leap of speculative reasoning please!

Let me offer a mirror argument for a moment to show how dangerous this leap can be.

Myoglobin and haemoglobin are structural support molecules for haem an iron complex that allows light and reversible binding with oxygen. According to Stryer a standard text their complex 3 D structural is extremely similar. Therefore the two must come from a common ancestor. WRONG! They have almost completely different amino acid sequences (from memory of 146 aas less than 10 are the same in the same site) so it's exceedingly unlikely, they evolved similar tertiary structures via a common ancestor gene.

Their function dictates their configuration not a putative common ontogeny.

3 Lots of interesting RNA research demonstrates RNA must have been how early life began.

Two simple questions then, one where did the ribose come from - sugars are notoriously difficult to synthesise and to my knowledge early earth (Urey Miller) conditions have never come close to creating them. Two, one example of an RNA self replicator please? All example I know of parasitise other organisms' DNA.

4 Water, planets, amino acids in reducing circumstances, and phosphate polymers abound and we're working on nucleic acid precursors (but not ribose) so it's not all so impossible.

The last is hardly worthy of much comment - so how far do these take you out of a messy organic gunge toward a self replicating and repairing nano-device, Nick? Sounds a lot more like wishful thinking than hard science to me.

I've posted similar comments on his site - we'll see how substantial his responses are, since he's clearly very familiar with the field.

Correlation between A and B does not necessarily entail that either of them caused the other, but in the lion's share of cases, it DOES entail that both A and B share a common cause, C, which affected them both in similar ways, as can be readily seen in the DNA evidence for common ancestry of evolutionarily divergent species.

You confuse and conflate gross configurational structural similarities of form with vast different sequential dissimilarities of encoded content. It is the second of these that is particularly telling in DNA evidence.

When scientific modelers eventually DO succeed in producing the evolution of organic life constituents from chemicals and conditions present during early earth conditions, you will simply claim that it was intelligently designed by the experimenters. In other words, regardless of the success or failure of such investigations, you will, as you have, twist them to fit your prefab convictions. But billions of years and an entire planet are plenty time and room for abiogenesis to have naturally happened - and it only had to happen once.

You do realize that you are denying a whole bunch of different causalities in order to affirm the single one that you religiously prefer; right?

241 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 9:19:03pm

re: #226 ebed_melech

I accept that Hitler probably never read the 'Origin' in translation, and may not have been able to accurately describe speciation, variation, or the distinction between Darwin and Lamarck - my basic point is that Darwin's ideas facilitated an intellectual climate in which Nazism could thrive, and the quote from Descent above, or citations from Haeckel or the evolutionist commentators on Darwin, Keith for example, strongly corroborate this.

It is much more historically accurate to maintain that it was the published antisemitic ideas of the German UrProtestant Martin Luther that facilitated an intellectual climate in which Nazism could thrive:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

242 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 9:26:23pm

re: #221 ebed_melech

Mmmm, looks to me as though more than the natural extinction of apes was intended - he describes 'extermination' and as to your subtle distinction between subspecies and species - he seems to leap over both when he refers to some future more advanced race than Caucasians. His words could all too easily be used to justify genocide [even as I believe it was far from his intention].

All that Darwin was referring to in his 'future more advanced races' comment was that evolution is an ongoing process, for humans no less than for other species. And Darwin most likely meant that the future extermination to which he refers would be an inadvertant result of the territorial expansion of technologically advanced human civilization, which would both crowd the great apes out of the ecology necessary to their survival, and destroy primitive indigenous societies by means of the impartation of knowledge that would be inconsistent with their perpetration as they were. And indeed, we see both currently occurring.

243 Salamantis  Fri, Sep 26, 2008 9:41:33pm

re: #195 ebed_melech

Let's just focus on one thing at a time chaps.
I suggest we look at Darwin and Hitler.
Here are a few quotes from Mein Kampf
He criticized the Jews for bringing "Negroes into the Rhineland" with the aim of "ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization." He spoke of "Monstrosities halfway between man and ape" and lamented the fact of Christians going to "Central Africa" to set up "Negro missions," resulting in the turning of "healthy . . . human beings into a rotten brood of bastards." In his chapter entitled "Nation and Race," he said, "The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable." A few pages later, he said, "Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1943), pp. 286, 295, 325, 402, 403, 285, 289

Here are some quotes from writers on his thought:

Richard Weikart, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

“Hitler’s morality was not based on traditional Judeo-Christian ethics nor Kant’s categorical imperative, but was rather a complete repudiation of them. Instead, Hitler embraced an evolutionary ethic that made Darwinian fitness and health the only criteria for moral standards.”

“Darwinian terminology and rhetoric pervaded Hitler’s writings and speeches, and no one to my knowledge has ever even questioned the common assertion by scholars that Hitler was a social Darwinist. It is too obvious to deny.”

Sir Arthur Keith (an infamous and fanatical creationist [not])
“We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution produces the only real basis for a national policy. The means he adopted to secure the destiny of his race and people was organised slaughter, which has drenched Europe in blood … it is consistent with evolutionary morality. Germany reverted to the tribal past, and demonstrated to the world, in their naked ferocity, the methods of evolution.”

Richard Weikert is yet another shill for the Disco Institute, which funded the writing of the book to which you refer as one of the tactics they have employed in pursuit of their Wedge Strategy:

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

He is also approvingly cited by Creation Ministries International (known on the internet as Creation on the Web), formerly a part of young earth creationist Ken Ham's Answers In Genesis organization.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

244 Salamantis  Sat, Sep 27, 2008 5:01:10am

re: #183 ebed_melech

If He has brought all being into existence for His own pleasure and for displaying His own glorious Nature, how is that before any moral breach between God and man, there was death and misery on an appalling scale? How could omnipotent Benevolence be the immediate author of injustice, prior to sin?

How in a phrase could He have ever accurately have described such a tormented cosmos as 'very good'?

Soooo...you're actually attempting to refute vast masses of checkable empirical data by quoting, and accepting as literal gospel truth, a creation myth written by anonymous itinerants three millennia ago, who were not even born until many centuries after the recounted events, including, amazingly enough, direct deific quotes, purportedly took place? And who exactly would have heard and/or recorded those cosmic pronouncements before Adam supposedly got made, and to whom precisely was Yahweh supposedly talking? It most certainly wasn't the ancient authors of the myth.

245 Nemesis6  Sun, Sep 28, 2008 10:08:43am

re: #238 Salamantis

I jumbled that last sentence. Thanks for correcting it. Anyway, this twisting and turning of logic is what always happens when I try debating a Creationist or a die-hard Christian; The Creationist will stick to "Why's that wrong?" followed by "Oh yeah? Well if that's so, then what about this?". The die-hard Christian will say "God/Jesus is real because the bible says so", also known as circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works.

In either case, you give up on them and they leave thinking they won. Those two are really the most frustrating opponents to debate.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Confusion and paradox.


Barnes & Noble Home