Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in "Re: Confederate Creationists"
in message news:<erooe0dqurgu2elas50jr9ebehqmfkvtcf@4ax.com>...

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<60oge0pf5qc4lbnj9rl9f56rihg2f3loli@4ax.com>...
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio):

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in "Re: Confederate Creationists"
in message news:<erooe0dqurgu2elas50jr9ebehqmfkvtcf@4ax.com>...

dford3@gl.umbc.edu (david ford):

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<60oge0pf5qc4lbnj9rl9f56rihg2f3loli@4ax.com>...
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio):

<snip>

As you seek to demonize
Creationists, keep side-stepping Hitler while you work your way back to Bull
Run.

Why would anyone try to sidestep Hitler, an avowed Christian
(like most of the individuals on *both* sides at Bull Run)
who claimed his genocidal policies were "the Lord's work"?

[BC]"Hitler, an avowed Christian" Definition of [BC]"Christian"?

If I understand your question, you're asking how I came to
define Hitler as an "avowed Christian"? That's a fairly easy
one; someone is an "avowed [insert group]" if that person
states clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a member of
that group.

So if someone states [BC]"clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a
member of" the group known as "atheists," then that person is an
atheist?

And if someone states [BC]"clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a
member of" the Central Intelligence Agency, then that person is an
employee of the CIA?

Hitler was quite clear in his statements,
written and oral, regarding doing "the work of the Lord" by
implementing his "Final Solution".

So if anyone says that he or she does "the work of the Lord," then
that person is a Christian?

Even if that person at the same time goes about taking innocent human
life on a massive scale, frequently in extremely cruel and vicious
ways?

[BC]"Hitler was quite clear in his statements"
What are some of the statements you have in mind?

Did Hitler always tell the truth?

Did Hitler ever make statements that he knew to be incorrect and that
he hoped would get others to accept a proposed course of action of
his?

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in "Re: Confederate Creationists"
in message news:<erooe0dqurgu2elas50jr9ebehqmfkvtcf@4ax.com>...

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<60oge0pf5qc4lbnj9rl9f56rihg2f3loli@4ax.com>...
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio):

<snip>

As you seek to demonize
Creationists, keep side-stepping Hitler while you work your way back to Bull
Run.

Why would anyone try to sidestep Hitler, an avowed Christian
(like most of the individuals on *both* sides at Bull Run)
who claimed his genocidal policies were "the Lord's work"?

[BC]"Hitler, an avowed Christian" Definition of [BC]"Christian"?

If I understand your question, you're asking how I came to
define Hitler as an "avowed Christian"? That's a fairly easy
one; someone is an "avowed [insert group]" if that person
states clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a member of
that group.

So if someone states [BC]"clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a
member of" the group known as "atheists," then that person is an
atheist?
And if someone states [BC]"clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a
member of" the Central Intelligence Agency, then that person is an
employee of the CIA?

Hitler was quite clear in his statements,
written and oral, regarding doing "the work of the Lord" by
implementing his "Final Solution".

So if anyone says that he or she does "the work of the Lord," then
that person is a Christian?
Even if that person at the same time goes about taking innocent human
life on a massive scale, frequently in extremely cruel and vicious
ways?

[BC]"Hitler was quite clear in his statements"
What are some of the statements you have in mind?
Did Hitler always tell the truth?
Did Hitler ever make statements that he knew to be incorrect and that
he hoped would get others to accept a proposed course of action of
his?

Anything else?

Yes.

So if anyone says that he or she does "the work of the Lord," then
that person is a Christian?
Even if that person at the same time goes about taking innocent human
life on a massive scale, frequently in extremely cruel and vicious
ways?
[BC]"Hitler was quite clear in his statements"
What are some of the statements you have in mind?
Did Hitler always tell the truth?
Did Hitler ever make statements that he knew to be incorrect and that
he hoped would get others to accept a proposed course of action of
his?

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in "Re: Confederate Creationists"
in message news:<erooe0dqurgu2elas50jr9ebehqmfkvtcf@4ax.com>...

Bob Casanova <nospam@buzz.off> wrote in message news:<60oge0pf5qc4lbnj9rl9f56rihg2f3loli@4ax.com>...
murphyinohio@wmconnect.com (MurphyInOhio):

<snip>

As you seek to demonize
Creationists, keep side-stepping Hitler while you work your way back to Bull
Run.

Why would anyone try to sidestep Hitler, an avowed Christian
(like most of the individuals on *both* sides at Bull Run)
who claimed his genocidal policies were "the Lord's work"?

[BC]"Hitler, an avowed Christian" Definition of [BC]"Christian"?

If I understand your question, you're asking how I came to
define Hitler as an "avowed Christian"? That's a fairly easy
one; someone is an "avowed [insert group]" if that person
states clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a member of
that group.

So if someone states [BC]"clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a
member of" the group known as "atheists," then that person is an
atheist?

And if someone states [BC]"clearly and repeatedly that he or she is a
member of" the Central Intelligence Agency, then that person is an
employee of the CIA?

Hitler was quite clear in his statements,
written and oral, regarding doing "the work of the Lord" by
implementing his "Final Solution".

So if anyone says that he or she does "the work of the Lord," then
that person is a Christian?

Even if that person at the same time goes about taking innocent human
life on a massive scale, frequently in extremely cruel and vicious
ways?

[BC]"Hitler was quite clear in his statements"
What are some of the statements you have in mind?

Did Hitler always tell the truth?

Did Hitler ever make statements that he knew to be incorrect and that
he hoped would get others to accept a proposed course of action of
his?

Anything else?

Yes.

She also withheld pain-killing medications from unfortunate patients
so that they could "...feel the pain that Jesus felt on the cross."

If you have a strong stomach, read Christopher Hitchins "Missionary
Position".

earle
*

"Steven J." <sjt1957NOSPAM@nts.link.net.INVALID> wrote in message news:<10ein2amn821h12@corp.supernews.com>...
"david ford" <

The mere fact that everything in Darwin's own writings contradicts Nazi
ideology counts for nothing against the facts that [a] the Nazis from time
to time interspersed Darwinian phrases among the Christian, nationalist, and
socialist phrases in their diatribes, and [b] the fact that you've found a
book that manages to blame the Holocaust on "Darwinism."

[SJ]"everything in Darwin's own writings contradicts Nazi ideology"
Does this [SJ]"everything" include Darwin's _Descent of Man_?
Do you think Nazi ideology would have approved of Charles Darwin's
view that:
[CD]"the civilised races of man"-- e.g. [CD]"the Caucasian"--
[CD]"will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the
world the savage races"-- e.g. [CD]"the negro or Australian," as in
Australian aborigine-- with the end result being [CD]"man in a more
civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian"?

Darwin, Charles. 1871. _The Descent of Man, and Selection in
Relation to Sex_ (1981 Princeton University Press reprint of the 1871
edition), volume one, Chapter VI "Affinities and Genealogy,"
subsection "On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man," the last 3
paragraphs of the subsection, on 200-201:
At the period and place, whenever and wherever it may
have been, when man first lost his hairy covering, he
probably inhabited a hot country; and this would have been
favourable for a frugiferous [fruit eating] diet, on which,
judging from analogy, he subsisted. We are far from knowing
how long ago it was when man first diverged from the Catarhine
stock; but this may have occurred at an epoch as remote as
the Eocene period; for the higher apes had diverged from
the lower apes as early as the Upper Miocene period, as
shewn by the existence of the Dryopithecus. We are also
quite ignorant at how rapid a rate organisms, whether high
or low in the scale, may under favourable circumstances be
modified: we know, however, that some have retained the
same form during an enormous lapse of time. From what
we see going on under domestication, we learn that within
the same period some of the co-descendants of the same
species may be not at all changed, some a little, and some
greatly changed. Thus it may have been with man, who has
undergone a great amount of modification in certain
characters in comparison with the higher apes.
The great break in the organic chain between man and his
nearest allies [i.e. "the gorilla and chimpanzee"-199],
which cannot be bridged over by any extinct
or living species, has often been advanced as a grave
objection to the belief that man is descended from some
lower form; but this objection will not appear of much
weight to those who, convinced by general reasons, believe
in the general principle of evolution. Breaks incessantly
occur in all parts of the series, some being wide, sharp and
defined, others less so in various degrees; as between the
orang and its nearest allies-- between the Tarsius and the
other Lemuridie-- between the elephant and in a more
striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or
Echidna, and other mammals. But all these breaks depend
merely on the number of related forms which have become
extinct. At some future period, not very distant as measured
by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost
certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the
savage races. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes,
as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,^16 will no doubt
be exterminated. The break will then, be rendered wider,
for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state,
as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low
as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or
Australian and the gorilla.
With respect to the absence of fossil remains, serving to
connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay
much stress on this fact, who will read Sir C. Lyell's
discussion,^17 in which he shews that in all the vertebrate
classes the discovery of fossil remains has been an
extremely slow and fortuitous process. Nor should it be
forgotten that those regions which are the most likely to
afford remains connecting man with some extinct ape-like
creature, have not as yet been searched by geologists.

would
that make common descent or natural selection false?

No.

[SJ]"the social consequences of a scientific theory"
The theory of natural selection has been falsified. Ref:
Synthetic Euphoria URLs
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0406291601.455e9ae%40posting.google.com

I found, here, a long list of URLs to earlier posts of yours, no doubt
regaling the reader with assorted mined quotes. Nothing really seemed, on
the basis of your descriptions of these quote-mining expeditions, to be
worth actually reading.

Ah, well. For me, it is the journey and not so much the destination
that makes for enjoyment.

Essay on Problems with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.10A.B3.10005310900310.17702-100000%40jabba.gl.umbc.edu