Wince, we’re having a discussion in comments about the environmentalists and Global warming, and leftists are coming out of the woodwork with their usual incomprehensible objections, I thought I’d do a post in part as a rebuttal. As usual, I refer to the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research. I am naturally ridiculed, as leftists start with their wailing using some communist’s words about Christianity being the opiate of the people, and that ICR’s PHDs can’t be considered scientists because they utter the word “God” and quote the Bible.
Romans 12:2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. - King James Version
How little people recall of history. I referred in three separate posts, back in 2004 when I first started blogging, to an article written by Joseph Wolverton II, called “the Founders and the Classics“. In part, Wolverton discusses the magnitude of what they learned; and the intensity of their studies, what was stressed that learned at a very young age, including the Bible, at the Ivy League Schools so many of them attended.
Alexander Hamilton’s alma mater, King’s College (now Columbia), had similarly stringent prerequisites for prospective students. Applicants were required to “give a rational account of the Greek and Latin grammars, read three orations of Cicero and three books of Virgil’s Aeneid, and translate the first 10 chapters of John from Greek into Latin.”
Can you imagine? Columbia University, in the 1700’s, taught the Bible.
Our founders’ curriculum was stunning in comparison to what students today carry in terms of a workload in the classroom, but let me point out a couple of things. First, the founders supported the use of the Bible in public schools as a text book.
The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [extinguishing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools. [T]he Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life. . . . [It] should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.
Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence
[Why] should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book? Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble. The reverence for the Sacred Book that is thus early impressed lasts long; and probably if not impressed in infancy, never takes firm hold of the mind.[56]
Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited…. What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be. I have examined all [religions]… and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more of my little philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.
John Adams
[T]he Bible…. [is] a book containing the history of all men and of all nations and… [is] a necessary part of a polite education.
Henry Laurens, President of the Continental Congress; U.S. Diplomat; Selected as Delegate to the Constitutional Convention
The Bible itself [is] the common inheritance, not merely of Christendom, but of the world.
Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Justice; Father of American Jurisprudence
To a man of liberal education, the study of history is not only useful, and important, but altogether indispensable, and with regard to the history contained in the Bible . . . “it is not so much praiseworthy to be acquainted with as it is shameful to be ignorant of it.”
John Quincy Adams
And secondly, they themselves studied the bible and could translate it back and forth between the original texts and English and back again, and in different tenses. The Bible, in fact, was used as a text book in public schools until the 60’s, and about 10 years later, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association took homosexuality off its list of emotional disorders. And it wasn’t because of newly discovered science to the contrary, it was because of lobbying gay activists.
Leftists, unfortunately, are not interested at all in facts or history, they’re just interested in their attacks on us as though that’s going to force us to shut up. We should send them some polish so they can shine up their jackboots.
This environmental bs began with the scare over nuclear weapons around the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In 1962, we were probably the closest ever to nuclear war between the superpowers, but a year later, the US and Soviet Union signed the Limited Test Ban prohibiting all nuclear tests in the atmosphere and oceans. This could be the first international law ever passed that prohibited environmental pollution.
During the ’60’s, the fusing of the civil rights and peace movements with environmental activism took place; it wasn’t just a ‘revolution’ because the Beatles sang about it. Victor Scheffer points out that there is a natural affinity between peace and civil rights activists and the environmental movement, because both movements appeal to people with strong egalitarian sympathies.
e·gal·i·tar·i·an /ɪˌgælɪˈtɛəriən/ Pronunciation[i-gal-i-tair-ee-uhn] –adjective
1. asserting, resulting from, or characterized by belief in the equality of all people, esp. in political, economic, or social life.
In other words, the egalitarians believe in artificially ‘evening’ the playing field through taxation ande other means in order to promote what George Soros would call an “open society”. We’ve seen what these ideas promote in other countries; Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and although they’ve miserably failed elsewhere, it doesn’t seem to stop these people from pushing this onto those who they think they can control and rule over. We conservatives, on the other hand, believe in equality in terms of hard work; if you put in your time, you’ll get the reward; unlike communism which takes the incentive for hard work away because you never see the fruits of your labor.
It drifted from ‘conservation’ to ‘environmentalism’: First, in the late 60’s and early 70’s, peace and civil rights movements and the second in the late 80’s and it continues into the present. Militant environmental lobbying groups including Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, were born in the 60’s, and old line conservation groups like the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Foundation and the Audubon Society fell in line with the radicalization. During the 70’s, environmentalists began to voice their interest in other issues when environmental issues waned.
The activism inspired by the real possibility of a nuclear holoaust served as the training ground for what we see now; the apocalyptic environmentalists who scream that the sky is falling with this crap over global warming.
“The politicization of science; the revolving doors between government agencies in charge of environmental affairs and environmental advocacy groups; the symbiotic relationship among activists, the press, and politicians, all of whom thrive on a crisis atmosphere; the massive propaganda campaigns involving public schools, church organizations and civic clubs, the call for massive government intervention and international control–all were policies and strategies developed and refined first by antinuclear and peace activists.
For instance, New Left peace activism and environmentalism were combined in the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The UCS emerged from a one-day research strike and teach-in at MIT in March 1969. During the MIT strike, faculty and students discussed the atomic bomb, the Vietnam War, and the world food crisis. The UCS’s founding ‘faculty document’ called on scientists and engineers to ‘devise means for turning research applications away from the present overemphasis on military technolgoy towards the solution of pressing environmental and social problems’.”
EcoScam, The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse, by Ronald Bailey, pages 34 and 35.
It just goes to show that what’s happening today is just an extension of what has been at work for a long time in engineering and science; which my dad, who is an MIT-educated engineer, is fully aware.
Hell, Michael Moore is a self-proclaimed GREEN activist, and he put together Fahrenheit 9/11, the shlockumentary about the Iraq war.
The “Greenhouse effect” is actually a misnomer; greenhouses keep warm by preventing outside breezes from cooling the air inside them, not by trapping and reradiating heat.
Ecoscam, page 143.
“Attempting to predict the behavior of the earth’s climate, some climatologists have created complicated computer models, called General Circulation Models (CCMs). Today, the leading climate models calculate that doubling carbon dioxide to 600 parts per million should increase average global temperatures between 1.5C and 4.5C degrees (2.2f and 8.1F degrees). Note that the higher figure is very close to the values calculated by Arrhenius a century earlier. However, recent projections made by German and British GGMs lowered predicted global warming to only 1.8 to 3.4 (1 to 1.9C) degrees.
The models are far from perfect-they must be ‘tuned’ in order to achieve global warming.
Ecoscam, page 145.
So there’s plenty of evidence from a lot of scientists that question the theory of global warming, and the impact it would make if we would stop contributing the evil ‘greenhouse gases’ they’re screaming about. It’s not only the ICR scientists, but it’s all scientists who are interested in science, and who aren’t being paid government grant money to skew results so they can get more government money. We’ve moved over into a time when people who know the right people or who do the right thing are rewarded with amazing sums of money and cars, and government-paid vacations. We have entered the time when honesty in politics is something that we don’t even expect. And unfortunately, we’ve also entered a time when the word ‘progressive’ in terms of taxes and other things, is commonplace, even though some of us know that communism and socialism can’t be sold by their brand names yet. Progressive is synonymous with socialism and/or communism. And please, don’t correct me, because as Marx and Engels pointed out, socialism is a predecessor to communism; that’s the plan. And what’s also the plan is that the democrats would work alongside them to accomplish their goals.
X posted at Cao’s blog
Said Cao @ 5:10 am | Permalink
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
environmentalists and the Global Warming Scare
At TWA, we’re having a discussion in comments about the environmentalists and Global warming, and as usual, I refer to the scientists at the Institute for Creation Research. I am naturally ridiculed, as leftists start with their wailing using so…
Trackback by Cao's Blog — 1/26/2007 @ 5:11 am
Yes indeed, we can now toss “science” to the wind, because it,too, has become politicized (the gay movement, and the food nazis, and the environmental types use it). Somewhere along the line, we turned “opinions” into facts.
I did read an interesting little book called “The Report from Iron Mountain” a few years back. The story behind the book was that McNamera put together a study group in the eary 60s to figure what would happen if peace broke out. The understanding was about 10% of the GDP had always been put into R&D work, most regularly associated with military related projects, so if the need to defend ourselves went away, the thought was the 10% would dry up….
The study group essentially proposed the “installation” of one of two threats to be ready in case we quit chopping off heads: UFOs would come and bring aliens wanting to eat us (ala X-Files) or….you guessed it…grand ecological disaters to our fragile planet.
I’m not one for conspiracies much, but the timing of this (early 60s) followed by the first Earth Day in 1970 (I think I have that right, may have been 71) and the upsurge of the “discovery” of UFOs everywhere seems to point to the fact that the supposed renegade in the study group, who leaked the report, may have presented a valid secert document to us…
Oh, and they also advocated the promoting of semi-violent sports to feed our need to get our aggression out vicariously….go figure….
I found it in the library locally. Small book, quick read. May be why these boneheads are freezing one decade and sweating the next….
Comment by Xformed — 1/26/2007 @ 6:10 am
From wikipedia:
“In his 1993 book, Ecoscam, and other works Bailey criticised claims that CFCs contributed to ozone depletion and that human activity was contributing to global warming. However, he has subsequently revised his views, stating in 2005 [1]
Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up.
Do you believe in a 6000 year old earth (and universe),
A great flood 4000 years ago that set humanity back to a single family?
Enquiring minds would like to know. I have no problem with people of faith at all, but ridiculous anti-scientific dogma is poor.
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 12:29 pm
and anti-scientific dogma is what exactly?
quoting the bible, perhaps? Maybe you ought to take a closer look at the work the phd’s at ICR are engaged in.
I don’t see how Ecoscam can be discounted, what’s contained in those pages is very well-documented.
Basically, the way I understand it, no matter what it is we say you don’t believe we have the right to say it, and you’re going to try and discount it in whatever way you can. This is kristallnacht all over again.
“Normally scientific research leads to scientific conclusions, not metaphysical manifestos, prophetic outbursts, utopian reorganizations of society, and political positions, let alone to a set of international positions on the redistribution of wealth from rich to poor nations, which are clearly identifiable as positions taken by the far left portion of the political spectrum,” observed Edith Efron in her ground-breaking “The Apocalyptics“.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 1:33 pm
Well, I guess you’d have to understand
(1) The modern scientific method
and
(2) Dogma
to see the dichotomy. Do you need help?
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 1:42 pm
There are more than 450 national organizations, and countless others at the local level, promoting environmentalism. Not all of them are radical, but they all share an institutional imperative to find and publicize an endless series of crises and disasters, since without these dire urgent apocalyptic scenarios to combat, there is no reason for them to exist. So as a result, many have become very skilled at mass-marketing doom.
Organizations like I’ve already mentioned here; Sierra Club, Greenpeace, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources Defense Council; pulled in more than $400 million in 1990. $400 million is ten times the amount that Republican and Democrats raised together in 1990.
“”Ecology” is now a political category, like socialism or conservatism,” says historian Anna Bramwell.
Just like what happened in Nazi Germany under Hitler, when they clamored for people to stop smoking and declared the Black Forest ‘protected’.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 1:48 pm
Sorry, I don’t trust wikipedia.
Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming Paperback by Patrick J. Michaels
Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn’t Worry about Global Warming Paperback by Thomas Moore
The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World Paperback by Bjorn Lomborg
Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media Hardcover by Patrick J. Michaels
Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense against Health Scares and Scams Hardcover by Steven J. Milloy
Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Environmentalists A Conservative Manifesto Paperback by Peter Huber
Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy Hardcover by Peter Schweizer
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 1:54 pm
And you’re going to tell me that they didn’t have propaganda films to promote euthansia too, I suppose.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 1:55 pm
huh. I can’t leave a comment on my own blog.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 1:55 pm
Wow..
“since without these dire urgent apocalyptic scenarios to combat, there is no reason for them to exist.”
As we have food on our shelves, there’s no point breeding livestock. Quantum stupid.
“Just like what happened in Nazi Germany …”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 1:56 pm
Oh you’re a little quick with the typing and I missed myself! Well good luck with all that, lefty, you’re not going to be able to convince me; my dad’s been talking about this science versus environmentalism since he missed the love fest with the environmentalists and left MIT in 1957.
Fascist Ecology: The “Green Wing” of the Nazi Party and its Historical Antecedents by Peter Staudenmaier
“We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought.” 1
1. Ernst Lehmann, Biologischer Wille. Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, München, 1934, pp. 10-11. Lehmann was a professor of botany who characterized National Socialism as “politically applied biology.”
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 2:00 pm
Bah.. every other comment doesn’t make it through. I don’t think your personal story pertains to modern science, no offense.
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 2:16 pm
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34079.html
The new, greener Ron Bailey!
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 2:18 pm
Green Nazis and Green Commies
Fred Costa - Contributor
11202000
Would you vote for the Communist Party? Would you vote for the Nazi Party? If you voted for the Green Party, you voted for both. The Green Party Platform, what the Greens call the “Green Program”, is the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf printed on recycled paper. The Green Party has recycled and repackaged the ideas of Lenin, Hitler, and Marx.
The Green Communists don’t like the American primary system, where voters decides who will be the candidate. They want to eliminate our primary elections and install the communist model where the party decides who will be the candidate and the voter simply rubber-stamps the party’s choice. The Green Communists don’t like the U.S. Congress. They want to eliminate our bi-cameral, U.S. Congress and install a single chamber modeled after the Soviet Duma.
What does statehood for the District of Columbia have to do with the environment? What does an inheritance tax, equities trading tax, currencies trading tax, and a 100% income tax have to do with the environment? What does the mandatory break up of the 500 largest American Corporation, and 200 largest American banks have to do with the environment? What does the unilateral disarmament of the United States, gun confiscation have to do with the environment? What does universal health care, jobs for all, and lifelong public education have to do with the environment? Nothing – which is exactly what the Green Party has to do with the environment. These points are all part of the Green program. The Green Party is not interested in the preserving the environment. The Green Party’s interest is installing a Socialist model of government in the United States, be it of the Soviet or Third Reich variety.
The Green Party has recycle the Nazi political program and called it Green. Hitler’s political program included these points:
• The first duty of a citizen is to work for the common good.
• We demand that the State take over large businesses.
• We demand profit sharing in large concerns.
• We demand land reform.
• We demand a ruthless struggle against profiteers.
• We demand our whole system of education be revised.
• State must provide for the improvement of public health.
The Green Party’s symbol, a sunflower, is not original. The Nazis used sunflowers as a symbol of honor. Nazis planted sunflowers on soldiers’ graves as a memorial to their fallen dead.
Hitler gave the German people a new god – the soil of the mother country.
“I address myself to all those, who detached from their mother country…now, with poignant emotion, long for the hour which will permit them to return to the heart of their faithful mother.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.
The Greens new god is the earth, a living organism, Gaia. They simply enlarged Hitler’s god from the nation to the planet.
“No compromise in defense of Mother Earth” – Green slogan.
Hitler blamed the Jewish people for Germany’s problems. The Greens blame Americans, corporations and capitalism for environmental problems. Hitler and his band of Nazis lied to the German people in order to get the nation to try out his socialist ideas. In so doing, they destroyed Germany and left their exalted mother in ruins. The German people did not have the historical example of the Holocaust to refer to as we do. Hitler lied to the German people and the Greens are lying to the American people. In their arrogance, the Greens are betting that Americans are gullible enough to surrender their liberty in order to protect the environment.
A German monk named Martin Luther sparked the Protestant reformation when posted his 95 theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg on October 31, 1517. In 1520, Luther authored “Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation.” The German people were not ignorant of God’s Commandments and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. America was founded as a Christian nation, upon Christian principles. Reading the Mayflower Compact, the Declaration of Independence, the Northwest Ordinance and any of the Founding Father’s personal writings, would dispel any doubt. Both countries have a rich Christian history. Why did Hitler succeed in Germany? An apathetic church stood by and let him.
The Creator of Heaven and Earth has already given the answer, it is up to Americans to take a stand.
“What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” - Ecclesiastes 1:9.
“We don’t get fooled again.” – The Who.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 2:32 pm
Your conflating ‘global warming’ with ‘the green party’ which is either dishonest or stupid.
and you love your Adnaziums.
You never answered my age of the earth / global flood questions, BTW.
Do you believe in evolution?
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 2:36 pm
No, I’m not ‘conflating’ global warming with the ‘green party’. The ‘green party’ are part and parcel of what we’re discussing here, so don’t change the subject. The green party, in addition to all of those organizations cited above support the global warming theory in order to increase the size of government. You obviously are either in denial or can’t see the big picture, and neither of those are my problem.
Do you need me to spell it out for you? The greens are the ideological brethren to the nazis, as a matter of fact, there is an interesting nazi/green website that says as much right on its face. Why deny it? What’s it going to get you?
The ideology is leftist, the fact that conservatives who are branded as nazis by leftists don’t like that very much, but I don’t particularly care.
Radical ideas have taken hold among average Americans, and it’s time people woke up and smelled the coffee.
George Mitchell warned us in “World on Fire: Saving an Endangered Earth” of an impending ecological holocaust in which we ‘risk turning our world into a lifeless desert in the coming century, and bringing to pass the grim final judgment of a world on fire’.
Al Gore wants us to ‘become partners in a bold effort to change the very foundation of our civilization’.
And you don’t think we should be concerned about this? And we should just close our eyes and ignore the fact that the Green movement here in the U.S. is based in the Nazi movement of the ’30’s. I think you’re daft.
Yes, the earth is young, not ancient, according to the particles floating in the atmosphere and the depth of the particles that were found on the moon.
And of course I don’t believe in evolution.
what am I, a new bacteria in a petri dish?
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 2:59 pm
Rich,
I do not believe in a 6000 year old earth or a flood that killed everything except 1 family, I believe the earth is warming, but I do not lay the blame on man, and I think (know) it is a natural cycle that will repeat itself over and over again so our great great great grand children can have this same arguement.
Comment by Richard Nixon — 1/26/2007 @ 3:48 pm
Actually, Hitler used Darwinism to justify the holocaust.
I wish people (including those on the conservative side) would stop making those who believe in what the bible says -out to be crazy people. We’re not.
CATASTROPHIC PLATE TECTONICS: A GLOBAL FLOOD MODEL OF EARTH HISTORY by (in alphabetical order)
STEVEN A. AUSTIN, Ph.D.
Institute for Creation Research
PO Box 2667
El Cajon, CA 92021.
JOHN R. BAUMGARDNER, Ph.D.
1965 Camino Redondo
Los Alamos, NM 87544.
D. RUSSELL HUMPHREYS, Ph.D.
9301 Gutierrez N.E.
Albuquerque, NM 87111.
Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
Creation Science Foundation
PO Box 6302
Acacia Ridge D.C., Qld
4110. AUSTRALIA.
LARRY VARDIMAN, Ph.D.
Institute for Creation Research
PO Box 2667
El Cajon, Ca 92021.
KURT P. WISE, Ph.D.
Bryan College, PO Box 7585
Dayton, TN 37321-7000.
That is just one paper, written by six phd’s on the flood subject. And honestly, I think we need to give them some credit for intelligence.
At Answers in Genesis Young Age of the Earth
See this two-part lecture based on Dr. Terry Mortensen’s Ph.D. research: The Origin of Old-Earth Geology and Christian Compromise, I & II.
John Morris’s book (The Young Earth) gives a good layman’s summary (with documentation and plenty of pictures to illustrate) of the some of the strongest evidences for a young-earth and global Flood. For more in-depth arguments see John Woodmorappe’s book (Studies in Flood Geology). Excellent DVDs illustrating some of these points are on Mt. St. Helens (Mount St. Helens: Explosive Evidence for Catastrophe) and Grand Canyon (The Grand Canyon: Monument to the Flood). Creationist scientists (or any scientists, for that matter) don’t have answers to everything and so are continuing to do research (and the number of qualified creationist geologists is increasing), but following is some of the evidence brought out in these resources:
The almost complete absence of evidence of erosion or soil layers or the activity of living things (plant roots, burrow marks, etc.) at the upper surface of the various strata (showing that the stratum did not lay there for thousands or millions of years before the next layer was deposited).
Polystrate fossils (usually trees) that cut through more than one layer of rock (even different kinds of rock supposedly deposited over thousands if not millions of years). The trees would have rotted and left no fossil evidence if the deposition rate was that slow.
Soft-sediment deformation—that thousands of feet of sedimentary rocks (of various layers) are bent (like a stack of thin pancakes over the edge of a plate), as we see at the mile-deep Kaibab Upwarp in the Grand Canyon. Clearly the whole, mile-deep deposit of various kinds of sediment was still relatively soft and probably wet (not like it is today) when the earthquake occurred that uplifted one part of the series of strata.
Many fossils that show (require) very rapid burial and fossilization. For example, soft parts (jellyfish, animal feces, scales and fins of fish) or whole, large, fully-articulated skeletons (e.g., whales or large dinosaurs such as T-Rex) are preserved. Or we find many creatures’ bodies contorted. All this evidence shows that these creatures were buried rapidly (in many cases even buried alive) and fossilized before scavengers, micro-decay organisms and erosional processes could erase the evidence. These are found all over the world and all through the various strata.
Creationists still have many challenges regarding the scientific evidence for a young universe, but distant starlight is no more of a problem for young-earth creationists than it is for big bang proponents, as this DVD by Dr. Jason Lisle (Ph.D. in astrophysics) shows: Distant Starlight.
The rock record screaming “Noah’s Flood” and “young earth.” The secular geologists can’t hear or see the message because of their academic indoctrination in anti-biblical, naturalistic, uniformitarian assumptions. The reason that most Christian geologists can’t see it is the same, plus the fact that they have believed the scientific establishment more than the Bible that they claim to believe is the inspired, inerrant Word of God. There are also thoroughly researched scientific refutations of skeptical objections to Noah’s Ark and the Flood here, which strengthen one’s faith in the biblical account of the Flood.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 4:25 pm
Richard Nixon: thanks for giving your take - and you may be right, the world has gone through hot cold cycles before. Sadly, they changes cause mass extinction events, and this change could well be accelerated far beyond historical norms.
Cao: I’m sorry you don’t believe in evolution and am even more sorry you said “what am I, a new bacteria in a petri dish?” because it’s stupid on so many levels.
You seem to be having understanding / causality issues with “the green party” and “global warming”. My concern is only with global warming from a scientific, apolitical viewpoint.
“Yes, the earth is young, not ancient, according to the particles floating in the atmosphere and the depth of the particles that were found on the moon.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE101.html
“Claim CE101:
Based on measured rates of planetary dust accumulation, there is too little moon dust for an old moon. Before the moon landings, there was considerable fear that astronauts would sink in the dust.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 152.
Response:
The high number for dust accumulation (14 million tons per year on earth) comes from the high end of a single preliminary measurement that has long been obsolete. Other higher estimates come from even more obsolete sources, although they are sometimes incorrectly cited as being more recent. The actual influx is about 22,000 to 44,000 tons per year on earth and around 840 tons per year on the moon.
The story that scientists worried about astronauts sinking in moon dust is a total fabrication. As early as 1965, scientists were confident, based on optical properties of the moon’s surface, that dust was not extensive. Surveyor I, in May 1966, confirmed this.
Links:
Thompson, Tim, 1996. Meteorite dust and the age of the earth. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html
Matson, Dave E., 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea.html#proof2
Further Reading:
Thompson, Tim, n.d. Is the Earth young?, http://www.tim-thompson.com/young-earth.html “
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 4:34 pm
Oh, now you’re calling me ’stupid’ after you’ve been harangueing me with annoying questions and I ask you why you’re examining me like some kind of strange new species of bird in a terrarium?
You’re starting to make me laugh.
Actually, Darwin admitted that his theory was false, on his deathbed, as I recall. I’m sorry that you’ve fallen for that evolutionary commie drivel.
Why Evolution breeds monsters like Hitler, Trotsky and Stalin
Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race.
The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton. The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.
The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the “fit” and the “unfit.” Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure that the “fit” had children and the “unfit” did not. In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got monstrous laws enacted that allowed sterilization of people regarded as “unfit,” and restriction of immigrants who were supposedly “biologically inferior.” (The United States and other countries enacted similar laws, but the Nazis took it to the extreme when Jews, blacks, and others were ruthlessly murdered to prop up the theory.)
The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the “master race” by exterminating the “unfit.” If evolution was right, they reasoned, and “survival of the fittest” was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the “unfit”?
Eugenics could only become popular because the theory of evolution seemed to have quashed the need for the sovereign Creator, God, who had given humankind absolute moral laws. When you do away with moral laws, outrageous racism and crimes like compulsory sterilization, Hitler’s death camps, and mass murder on a maniacal scale, can no longer be said to be evil.
Trotsky … another monster brainwashed by evolution
Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky (1879–1940) was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism. In the Russian Civil War of 1918–20, he used the force of the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided were enemies of the Soviet State. He confiscated food from peasants, brutalized the Ukrainian army of insurgent peasants, and killed its guerrilla leader, N. I. Makhno. He inflicted torture and violence against Christians, mercilessly trashed churches, and led the Society of the Godless to get rid of religion.
Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species. He said: “Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.” He said that Darwin’s ideas “intoxicated” him. And he could not understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin’s ideas.
Like Hitler, Trotsky was a tyrant who saw Darwin’s theory of evolution as scientific justification for dismissing God’s moral laws. He clearly saw that the two ideas, God and evolution, were totally incompatible. His atrocities were consistent with this belief, for when you do away with the idea of the God who created you and who has given instructions for the right way to live, there is no longer a reason to avoid despicably violent crimes. Even if this means murdering everyone who disagrees with you.
As a result, Trotsky’s Marxist Red Army ruthlessly murdered 0ver 100,000,000 Christians during the period 1917-1945.
World’s worst mass-murderer was influenced by Darwin at 19
Soviet tyrants and mass murderers Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky were strongly influenced by Charles Darwin.
Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin (1879–1953), was studying at Tiflis Theological Seminary when he started to read the works of Charles Darwin. One of his friends later said in a book that when Stalin read Darwin he became an atheist. At the age of 19, Stalin was expelled from the theological seminary because of his revolutionary connections.
Stalin is regarded as the worst mass-murderer the world has ever seen. With God out of his way after embracing Darwin’s evolutionary ideas, Stalin had no restrictions of conscience or morals. He set up a terrorist police State, persecuted and murdered innocent communists, and instituted trials in which most surviving Bolshevik leaders were found guilty of treachery and were executed. He encouraged “Stalinist adoration,” which included naming cities after him (such as Stalingrad, Staliniri, and Stalinogorsk), and advocated homage given to him in virtually all public speeches and in print. He even murdered Leon Trotsky.
Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” ideas powerfully shaped Stalin’s approach to society. Oppression, atheism, self-glorification, and the blood of his many innocent victims flowed from Stalin’s rejection of his Creator after reading and believing Darwin’s evolutionary theories.
And the most tragic aspect of all this? That while Stalin, Trotsky, and Hitler were turning their backs on their Creator, they were building their racist and murderous philosophies on a lie.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 4:46 pm
But it’s reasonable to say that we have experienced a moral decline in America over the last few decades. Certainly we have had recent improvements in this country–in, say, technology and some civil rights. But if we look at statistics such as drug use, teen suicide, and divorce, we see indications that the USA is declining. What happened at Columbine High School would have been unthinkable in the ’50’s when nobody dreamed that weapons detectors would ever be needed at school entrances to protect schools from students.
So what’s cause America’s moral decline? Many would say, “Well, we’ve lost our respect for traditional values.” OK, where did “traditional values” come from? They came mostly from the Bible, which for centuries was Western culture’s central guiding document.
Why have we lost respect for the Bible? It was due, in part, to the widespread teaching of Darwin’s theory of evolution as “fact”. As Huxley said, evolution removed God “from the sphere of rational discussion.” Once you’ve made God irrelevant, the Bible becomes irrelevant, and the moral values in the Bible become irrelevant.
Religion traditionally played a strong role in American social life, and evolution tended to negate that role.
Evolution was not heavily underscored in American public schools before the ’60’s. In 1959, the 100th anniversary of the publication of “The Origin of the Species”, the National Science Foundation, a government agency, granted $7 million to the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, which began producing high school biology textbooks with a strong evolutionary slant. In the meantime, the Supreme court ruled that school prayer was unconstitutional (after having been constitutional for more than a century and a half). From then on, students in public schools heard the evolutionist viewpoint ONLY–man is just an animal–exclusively.(1)
1. The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined, James Perloff, December, 2002, Refuge Books
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 4:48 pm
It doesn’t make sense that two different species would evolve from one solitary cell. And where did THAT CELL come from, do you suppose? Darwin’s theory says fish evolved, through many intermediate steps, into human beings. The question then arises; How did fish acquire the genes to become humans? A creature cannot be anything physically its genes won’t allow. A zebra can’t give birth to a baby kangaroo–it only has zebra genes. A woman can’t even be born blonde without genes for blonde hair–otherwise she has to use Miss Clairol.
Genetics was not developed as a science in Darwin’s day, and he assumed animals essentially had an unlimited capacity to adapt to environments.
He wrote:
In other words, Darwin believed you could take, say, donkeys, and if you put them in the right environment, they could, given enough time, become giraffes. This simply is not true. Even millions of years in the jungle, donkeys would still be donkeys, because they only have donkey genes.
But modern evolutionists, to resolve this “dilemma”, assert that fish’s genes must have mutated into human genes over eons–mutations, of course, are abrupt alterations in genes. They generally occur only very rarely. According to evolutionary theory, an organism develops some new positive characteristic through a mutation, better adapting to the environment. The creature then passes this mutated trait on to the next generation, and eventually, it spreads through the whole species. Organisms without the trait, being weaker, die out (survival of the “fittest”). Through this process, fish gradually evolved into men.
But this hypothesis no longer holds up. Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for a decade at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman Institute, spent years studying mutations. He has a book out called “Not by Chance: Shattering The Modern Theory of Evolution“. In it, he writes:
Mutations DELETE information from the genetic code. They NEVER create higher, more complex information. What are they actually observed to cause in human beings? Death. Sterility. Down’s syndrome. Sickle Cell Anemia. Cystic Fybrosis. Hemophilia. And over 4,000 diseases. The genetic code is designed to run an organism perfectly–mutations delete information from the code, causing birth defects.
If the theory of evolution is true, it would follow that species would not be going extinct because the environment is changing, they’d simply mutate and change with the environment.
References:
1. The Case Against Darwin, Why the Evidence Should be Examined, James Perloff, December, 2002, Refuge Books
2. E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1940, p. 8 (quoted in Davidheiser).
3. Better Answers: The Case for Judeo-Christian Values, Part VII, by Dennis Prager Frontpage Magazine, March 1, 2005
Tornado in the Junkyard, James Perloff
Nietzsche: A Precursor to Hitler?, by Philip D. Collins
Charles Darwin: Life and Letters, I, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881, p. 316; cited in Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution, by Gertrude Himmelfarb (London, Chatto and Windus, 1959), p. 343.
The Case Against Darwin, by James Perloff, Worldnet Daily, 2001
Thomas Huxley: Lay Sermons, Addresses and Reviews (New York, Appleton, 1871), p. 20.
Whistleblower: Censoring God, August 2005
Darwin: Descent of Man
Darwin: The Origin of the Species
ID The Future
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 4:50 pm
The middle Cambrian grades conformably into the upper Cambrian, which somewhere grades into lower Ordovician then middle Ordovician and so on. From the Cambrian upwards the geologic strata are a record of continuous, catastrophic, rapid deposition under flood waters. This is what we would expect based on the Biblical account of the great Flood.Cambrian rock is the low geologic layer containing most of the oldest known invertebrate fossils. In it, we find literally billions of fossils of invertebrates: clams, snails, worms, sponges, jellyfish, sea urchins, swimming crustaceans, etc., but there are no fossils demonstrating how these creatures evolved, or that they developed from a common ancestor. (For this reason, we hear of the Cambrian “explosion”). The late Stephen Jay Gould of Harvard acknowledged that “our more extensive labor has still failed to identify any creature tha might serve as a plausible immediate ancestor for the Cambrian faunas (animals).” In other words, the bottom of Darwin’s great “tree of life” is merely a speculation unsupported by fossil evidence.
Darwin stated that
He admitted these creatures’ fossils had not been found in his day, but hoped future excavations would turn them up.
They haven’t.
So what’s the problem with pointing this out? This has nothing to do with religion, theology, creationism, or anything else–this has to do with a victorian-age theory that has been proven with the advance of science to be antiquated and no longer relevant. Why is it such a problem for people to at least acknowledge the facts?
We shouldn’t have found handfuls of objectionable fossils, but billions of intermediates validating the theory. Instead, the fossil record shows–animals complete–not in developmental stages–the very first time they’re seen. This would lead a reasonable person to conclude that they were created, and didn’t evolve.
Oops, there it is. That darned “creation” word. That’s the reason evolutionists don’t acknowledge the evidence and keep insisting on the “missing link” myth.
This is not inventing science to back up a biblical claim; this is researching a biblical claim and finding science is true and can back it up. The Cambrian Explosion is very compelling evidence (and isn’t the only evidence) that every single creature came into being as we see them today–and didn’t evolve or mutate from a single cell.
Now an example of evolutionists inventing science to back up their claims is the skull of Piltdown man; the skull of a human being, the jaw of an orangutan, with its teeth filed down to appear human; both pieces carefully dyed to appear as though they came from the same animal. DEBUNKED.
FALSIFIED CASTS, Ales Hrdlicka, Smithsonian (Re: Java Man) “None of the published illustrations or casts now in various institutions is accurate.” Science, 8/17/1923
Modern evolutionists, like Darwin himself, use breeding experiments as evidence of the theory of evolution. We are reminded that dog breeders have developed new breeds of dog; that racehorse owners have bred faster horses; that horticulturists have developed new plant varieties, etc. This is said to show living things change over time. Therefore, lots of time, lots of changes would occur, and over unlimited time, unlimited change would occur–i.e., fish to human-since nature conducts its own form of “breeding” by allowing only the fittest creatures to survive.
This argument is flawed. Here’s why.
Let’s talk dog breeding. Were the dog breeders of past centuries genetic scientists? Did they sit in labs inserting new genes into these dogs? No. They found dogs that already had characteristsics they liked, mated them with similar dogs, and bred them in a certain direction. In other words, they worked with pre-existing genetic information.
A species is normally endowed with a rich, diverse gene pool. Take man himself. There are over six billion human beings on earth, yet no two are exactly aliked (if one wants to get technical, it could be argued that identical twins are alike). The human race has a vast gene pool that permits all the variations we see.
It certainly is possible to change the general appearance of a species over time, by selecting out creatures with particular genes. But the change is confined to the limits of the gene pool. Horse breeders can generate fast horses by choosing the best, but they can’t convert the horse into a cow.
In nature’s parallel, if a group of frogs flee a forest fire, perhaps only the fastest hoppers escape. This could leave us with a strain of fast frogs. It’s a perfect example of “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest”. But this doesn’t mean that frogs could evolve into people. Nothing new has been created. All that has happened is that slower frogs have been eliminated–this is, in fact, a loss of genetic information, not a gain. We would not contest Darwin on the existence of natural selection or survival of the fittest in nature. But we would argue that the change possible does have limits.
One comic pointed out:
Shifts can and do occur within types of animals. These changes, based on diverse, preexisting genetic information, are called by some “microevolution”. But this is not evidence for unlimited transformation (macroevolution).
The thesis “if we get a little change over a little time, then we get a lot of change over a lot of time” does not hold up. Suppose a girl, dreaming of Olympic glory, learned to ice skate. The first week, she finds she can jump to a height of one foot and land on her skates. The second week, she finds she can leap two feet. The third week, she can jump three feet. Can we conclude from this that after 100 weeks, she will be able to jump 100 feet? No, the law of gravity will strictly limit how high she can get. Likewise, animals are also restricted in how much change they can make–by the limits of their gene pool.
Luther Burbank, the famed American plant breeder, said:
Simple bacteria can produce another generation in a matter of minutes. Yet Alan H. Linton, emeritus professor of bacteriology at the University of Bristol, noted in 2001:
To change a bacterium into a fish into a frog into a reptile into a mammal into a man, would require that each type of creature largely rewrite its gene pool and replace it with a new one. Evolutionists contend that “beneficial mutations” would allow an animal to exceed the boundaries of its genetic makeup. But as we have seen, mutations do not introduce new genetic information; the changes they cause involve informational losses.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 4:57 pm
More ad nazium, and poor, already debunked creationist screed. Hitler was a theist:
http://www.scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/08/hitler_the_creationist.php
But I don’t blame Christianity: Hitler was JUST A BAD PERSON.
People do bad things but I doubt anyone has generated a world view and philosophy based on Darwinism. This is a typical creationist straw-man, and an argument to consequences to boot. I don’t like that donuts can make me fat. Does this reduce their calorific load? Of course not.
“I don’t like it so it can’t be true” is stinking thinking..!
With regard to “moral decline” that’s just handwaving / naked assertion.
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 4:58 pm
What is this creationist quotemine day?
This is all debunked a long time ago:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 5:00 pm
Hitler actually admired Islam, he wasn’t a theist. The modern day Islamofascists want to paint him as a Christian, which is a joke. He was more of a Green proponent of the environment, and was also an ardent admirer of Darwin’s theory of evolution:
The social fallout from evolution has not been limited to Hitler. Eugenics, the idea that social engineers should monitor and manage choices to marry and have children, is the intellectual offspring of evolution. Darwin’s own cousin, Francis Galton, coined the term and campaigned for using human genetics as a means to breed a superior breed of humanity.
Eugenics took root in America in the early twentieth century—some 33 states adopted forced sterilization programs to prevent the “feeble-minded” and other “defectives” from reproducing. Planned Parenthood is a direct result of the eugenics movement in America. Its founder, Margaret Sanger, believed in removing what she called “the dead weight of human waste.” “Eugenics is applied Darwinism,” said Coulter. “And it sticks out like a sore thumb that all of these German eugenicists preceding the Nazi regime were enthusiastic Darwinists.”
Evolution is taught in every public school in America, and not without consequences, as Darwin’s Deadly Legacy documents. Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 people and themselves in the worst school shooting in U.S. history. Their goal was to bring death to more than 500. Harris wrote on his website, “YOU KNOW WHAT I LOVE??? Natural SELECTION! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms.”
The autopsy report for Harris revealed that on the day of the attack, he wore a T-shirt emblazoned with the words “Natural Selection.” Harris and Klebold, who planned their rampage for a year, paid homage to their hero, Adolf Hitler by carrying out their killing spree on April 20, Hitler’s birthday.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 5:04 pm
Actually, I don’t particularly care that you ridicule me for my creationist belief system, except that you’re looking more like a nazi than I’d ever dreamed when we first began this discussion.
What was it that I said earlier about kristillnacht? Since you virtually burned the book Ecoscam here in comments to claim the passages I quoted are not relevant because supposedly the author has turned around on his opinion of global warming, I don’t see how that turnaround negates the other facts as stated.
But, you’re not about facts, are you. You’re not willing to look at all the evidence, instead, you’re willing to call out the slogans and phrases and sit there and point and laugh.
In the meantime, I’m going to point and laugh at you as a nazi green who’s not willing to look at anything but his narrow view of the world; a view that we’ve seen before; and a view that miserably failed but cost millions of lives.
So you’re all about the destruction of judeo christian values, regardless as to what societies your ideology breeds.
By the way, earlier scientists were bible believers, I bet you didn’t know that.
As an active Christian, Fleming also wrote a major book opposing evolution, and led what was then called the Evolution Protest Movement in Britain. The London Times reported in February 1935:
Alexander MacAlister (1844-1919), professor of anatomy at Cambridge, authored many leading textbooks on zoology and physiology. He wrote:
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 5:12 pm
Natural selection / NDE is a fact.
Again, fallacious reasoning:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html
You’re talking past me know. read “Mein Kampf” count the references to God and to Darwin(ism) - and get back to me.
here’s some from his own lips:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.
-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
“MY FEELINGS AS A CHRISTIAN… ”
QED.
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 5:15 pm
“Actually, I don’t particularly care that you ridicule me for my creationist belief system, except that you’re looking more like a nazi than I’d ever dreamed when we first began this discussion.”
Nazi..nazi..Zzzzzzzz
Actually, you’re free to believe whatever you want, and to ignore logic, fact and evidence all day long. I’d fight for your right to choose ignorance. I’m not trying to convert you, either. I just take umbrage when people misrepresent science, and are dishonest.
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 5:18 pm
Sorry, Hitler destroyed the Christian churches while they tried like hell to save their own necks. Appeasing him landed them, one by one, into ruin. The last was the catholic church. Hitler had the Grand Mufti and a sect of muslims in the SS, while sending Christians and Jews to concentration camps.
From the Straight Dope:
You are right that Hitler did mention Christianity many times in his writings. He paid Christianity a lot of lip service in Mein Kampf, and he claimed to be a Christian. But Hitler’s secretary, Martin Bormann, also declared that “National Socialism [Nazism] and Christianity are irreconcilable” and Hitler didn’t squawk too much about it. Similarly, Hermann Rauschning, a Hitler associate, said, “One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both.” In addition, Hitler declared Nazism the state religion and the Bible was replaced by Mein Kampf in the schools. You really want confusion? Randy Alley, one of my best WWII history sources, noted that the SS were supposedly forbidden to believe in God–yet the military’s belt buckles said “Gott mit uns” (”God is with us”)!
Hitler was a neo-pagan terrorist whose conscience was not informed by Christianity, but by pseudo-scientific racist philosophies. Which, by the way, is in perfect union with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is about ‘natural selection’, and with God out of the way, they had no problem speeding up the process of “natural selection”!
Hitler hated the Catholic Church, made plans to kill the Pope, authorized the murder of thousands of priests and nuns, and did everything he could to suppress the influence of the Church. In 1933, Hitler said, ‘It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood.’” The Catholic League also quoted Hitler, in a 4/23/99 Op-Ed ad in the New York Times, as saying, “Antiquity was better than modern times, because it didn’t know Christianity and syphilis.”
Jehuda Bauer, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describes the real “god” of Hitler and the Nazis in his article, “The Trauma of the Holocaust: Some Historical Perspectives,” by saying: “”They wanted to go back to a pagan world, beautiful, naturalistic, where natural hierarchies based on the supremacy of the strong would be established, because strong equaled good, powerful equaled civilized. The world did have a kind of God, the merciless God of nature, the brutal God of races, the oppressive God of hierarchies.” In other words, definitely non-Christian.
Hitler actually saw Christianity as a branch of Judaism
“The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian; he views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race.”—Joseph Goebbels, in his diary, December 28, 1939.
“Christianity is the prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining society.” —Hitler 1941
“The German people, especially the youth, have learned once again to value people racially-they have once again turned away from Christian theories, from Christian teaching which has ruled Germany for more than a thousand years and caused the racial decay of the German people, and almost its racial death.” —Heinrich Himmler May 22, 1936 at a speech in Brocken, Germany.
Sir Arthur Keith wrote: “The leader of Germany is an evolutionist, not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him, the ‘national front’ of Europe is also the ‘evolutionary front;’ he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people.”
“Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher,” Sept/Oct 2001, Family Voice, Concerned Women for America, Washington, DC. Also on the web
and “Christianity makes no distinction of race or of color; it seeks to break down all racial barriers. In this respect the hand of Christianity is against that of Nature, for are not the races of mankind the evolutionary harvest which Nature has toiled through long ages to produce?”
“Darwinism, Evolution, and Racism,” Dr. Jerry Bergman
33 “All They That Hate Me Love Death,” Sermon Transcript by Dr. D. James Kennedy, Coral Ridge Ministries, Fort Lauderdale, FL
In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the German word for evolution (Entwicklung) many times, citing “lower human types.” He criticized the Jews for bringing “Negroes into the Rhineland” with the aim of “ruining the white race by the necessarily resulting ization.” 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 s.” 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.”59
The success in breeding cattle, dogs and other animals with certain desired characteristics gave empirical support to the concept of racial breeding as advocated by eugenicists and later Hitler and others.19
Hitler exterminated over 273,000 people even before the Holocaust! “The first to be killed were the aged [those who are an economic burden, who detract from the happiness of society as a whole], the infirm, the senile, the mentally retarded, and defective children [that included epileptics]. Then there were WW I veterans - amputees - still in hospitals. Their reward for giving an arm or leg for Germany was extermination as ‘undesirable.’ Even bed wetters and children with badly modeled ears were put to death - all part of the euthanasia project of Germany.”33
Instead of letting chance factors dominate reproduction decisions, Hitler proposed that the scientists use the power of the state to influence these decisions so that the gene pool would shift to what “informed conclusions” concluded was the desired direction. Consequently, Hitler encouraged those individuals that he perceived as having Aryan traits to mate, and discouraged “interbreeding,” supposing that this policy would gradually cause the Aryan race to evolve “upward”. He believed that the Nazi race programs would further evolution by intelligently deciding which traits were not beneficial, and preventing those with them from reproducing.19
Where’s your history, my dear man.
One of the PRIMARY PURPOSES of Darwin’s theory was to reject God. He rejected God, then looked for a way to explain it.
The biggest problem that I see with your arguments as that they’re not supported by scientific evidence. You’re only responding with your own religious beliefs; if I question any part of evolution, you respond with ridicule, name-calling and diverting the attention to something else.
I can continue with this, but I don’t think you’re reading my responses; and there is a lot of information up there.
So for now, I bid you adieu.
And…did you know…increased suicide is due to…global warming.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 5:19 pm
I’m attacking your misuse of logic, I’m sure your a charming young lady.
Another Hitler factiod:
Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration
Not that I’m saying christianity made him bad, because that would be fallacious and I’m smarter than that.
“One of the PRIMARY PURPOSES of Darwin’s theory was to reject God. He rejected God, then looked for a way to explain it.”
It was his daughters death in 1851 which made Darwin renounce his faith, but you can’t attribute motivation for “Origin of species.” I think observing nature on his trip was the motivation. Being unencumbered by theism may have helped.
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 5:51 pm
“The biggest problem that I see with your arguments as that they’re not supported by scientific evidence.”
It has massive, “Real science” support:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
and as for evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 5:55 pm
An important argument that Hitler used to support his programs of racial genocide of the Jews, Blacks and other groups was that they were genetically “inferior” and that their interbreeding with the superior Aryan race would adversely affect the latter’s gene pool, polluting it, and lowering the overall quality of the “pure race.”
“Darwinism, Evolution, and Racism,” Dr. Jerry Bergman
“From the ‘Preservation of favored races in the struggle for life’ [that is, Darwin ’s subtitle to Origin of Species] it was a short step to the preservation of favored individuals, classes or nations - and from their preservation to their glorification . . . Thus, it has become a portmunteau of nationalism, imperialism, militarism, and dictatorship, of the cults of the hero, the superman, and the master race . . . recent expressions of this philosophy, such as Mein Kampf are, unhappily, too familiar to require exposition here.” - Gertrude Himmelfarb, Social Darwinism in American Thought, 1962
In stark contrast, the Bible does not even use the word “race” in reference to people, but does describe all human beings as being of “one blood” (Acts 17:26)15
Scientists found that if any two people from anywhere in the world were compared, the basic genetic differences between these two would typically be around 0.2 percent - even if they came from the same people group.
But this is why leftists like democrats, who work with the socialists, and environmentalists, who also are for all intents and purposes socialists, like to point out the descrepancies in our society and say that it’s ‘racist’. And affirmative action is inherently a racist concept, to supposedly even the playing field based solely on race.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 5:55 pm
That’s third party conjecture.
ADOLF: “MY FEELINGS AS A CHRISTIAN… ”
And again, they’re BOTH arguments to consequences, which is fallacious reasoning.
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 5:57 pm
Sorry, if that’s all you’ve got to say about what I’ve said I think I have your nose pulled a little bit out of joint.
There are no arguments to consequences; you mean argument FROM consequences? Sorry, that’s not what it is. I’m illustrating for you how I drew my conclusions based on facts and quotes and not FEELINGS.
I’m sorry you can’t keep up. Actually, your argument is from a position of ad hominem and ridicule, all things considered, I haven’t sunk to your level, so I’m doing ok.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 5:58 pm
I’m sorry you’ve lost and I’m the winner!
Yeah, its a poor rhetorical trick that doesn’t really fool anyone. I wouldn’t try it, even in desperation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
not bad for non existent. You do it all the time. I’ve shown you that you’re doing it. I’ve even pointed out where I do it.
ad hominem is against them man, I’m sure I’ve attacked the ideas. You can wave your hand, or you can take up the points.
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 6:04 pm
Oh, now I’m playing ‘rhetorical tricks’. No, I’m sorry, you can claim yourself the victor with your games of semantics, but you haven’t proven anything with facts and science.
What does ‘not bad for non existent’ mean? Are you tripping up on your english, or is english not your first language?
You’re tired and having nothing left, your comments are left to two or three sentences of linguistics!
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 6:14 pm
When a lefty quibbles over semantics, and that’s the only argument he has left, I would say the opposite is true; but that’s just my opinion.
And I’m a non existent…
bwahahahahahahaha!
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 6:21 pm
Comment by Carolyn Hileman — 1/26/2007 @ 6:40 pm
“I’m sorry you’ve lost and I’m the winner!” was ironic..designed to highlight the naked assertions you were making:
“Sorry, if that’s all you’ve got to say about what I’ve said I think I have your nose pulled a little bit out of joint.
There are no arguments to consequences; you mean argument FROM consequences? Sorry, that’s not what it is. I’m illustrating for you how I drew my conclusions based on facts and quotes and not FEELINGS.
I’m sorry you can’t keep up. Actually, your argument is from a position of ad hominem and ridicule, all things considered, I haven’t sunk to your level, so I’m doing ok.”
I’m sorry this was lost on you, despite being highlighted by “Yeah, its a poor rhetorical trick that doesn’t really fool anyone. I wouldn’t try it, even in desperation”
“Are you tripping up on your english, or is english not your first language?”
Oh, the hypocrisy! I’d probably capitalize ‘English’.
“There are no arguments to consequences”
argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin: argument to the consequences)
Ergo, “not bad for non existent”.
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 7:04 pm
I think you’re finished here. If all you can do is chase your tail, be gone.
Your ‘designs’ are lost on me, as are your nonexistent points.
There is an appeal to consequences, and there is an argument for consequences, that is proper english, even if it’s derived from the original latin. But these nuances are lost on you, obviously…argumentum ad consequentiam is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.
Show me where I did that. You can’t.
I just illustrated the common sense reasoning as to why the theory of evolution is not only leads to disastrous consequences, but showed you that Lenin, Stalin, Trostky and Hitler were all evolutionists; and how the theory of evolution helped to rid them of God, and Christianity in society. Not only that, but I also quoted some old scientists of note, Fleming and McAlister, who were Christians and who lead their Christian lives in their pursuit of answers in science! Not unlike the scientists at ICR.
Which is one reason why we should not be following the evolutionists here in America; there were disastrous consequences as a result of that ideology in the past; you’d think that someone as bright as you would be able to draw lessons from history. Not to mention the mere fact that the Islamofascist ideology we’re fighting today is the same as the fascist ideology of the Germans in the ’30’s, and is being supported by the same leftists as supported the nazis!
But we’ve been all over several different subjects in this thread because you have attention deficit disorder and can’t stick to one subject because you have no points that are coherent to make, I guess. You want to divert attention from one thing to another, because you have no response! Not very smart, but you were supposed to be the smart one, I thought.
What I see you’re doing is flinging around words that have nothing to do with the content of the discussion. So if you’d rather change the subject to something that is incoherent, go right ahead, but you’ve just proven my point. Ad hominem, semantics, linguistics, etc.-nothing having to do with the subject matter. AND, change the subject, because you’ve exhausted your limited knowledge on the subject. But me? I could keep going.
What’s nonexistent is your point.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 7:16 pm
First off, anyone who uses Wikipedia, infected as it is with the societal rejects from Democratic Underground (Fister aka BenBurch ) and his ilk is a complete moron.
Go right ahead, quote wiki to your hearts content.Its biased, its slanted, its infected by loonies,conspiracy theorists and other nutcases, and it’s WRONG.
Secondly
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
Who says it is warming catastrophically? Humans have only been trying to measure the temperature fairly consistently since about 1880, during which time we think the world may have warmed by about +0.6 °C ± 0.2 °C. As we’ve already pointed out, the estimate of warming is less than the error margin on our ability to take the Earth’s temperature, generally given as 14 °C ± 0.7 °C for the average 1961-1990 while the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) suggest 13.9 °C for their average 1880-2004. We are pretty sure it was cold before the 1880 commencement of record and we would probably not handle the situation too well if such conditions returned but there has been no demonstrable catastrophic warming while people have been trying to measure the planet’s temperature. If we have really been measuring a warming episode as we think we have, then setting new records for “hottest ever in recorded history” should happen just about every year — although half a degree over a century is hardly something to write home about — so there’s really nothing exciting about scoring the highest number when looking at such a short history.
http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm
Oops…looks like the Democrats didnt like Kyoto either
http://www.energyadvocate.com/nontreat.htm
Fortunately, the Senate has refused to ratify the Kyoto treaty, one that would subject U.S. energy production to the whims of third-world dictators (TEA, January, 1998). The reason for the refusal has more to do with economics than with the inept science behind the screams of global warmers, but it is a refusal nonetheless
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba494/
As companies flee high fuel prices in the Northeastern states, employment in the rest of the United States would increase by more than 117,000 in 2010 and by an additional 59,000 in 2020. However, over time the Northeast’s economic decline would have a modest though significant negative impact on the nation as a whole. For instance, by 2020, even those states not party to the CCAP would see their GSP decline by 0.2 percent and their citizens would see their household consumption spending fall $98.00 annually.
All Pain, No Gain: Greenhouse Gases Continue to Rise. Neither S.139 nor the CCAP would have any appreciable effect on human caused global warming. Indeed, according to the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even if all of the signatories to the more stringent Kyoto protocol met their greenhouse gas reduction targets, the earth would be only .07 to 0.19 degrees Celsius cooler than it would be absent Kyoto. Greenhouse gas concentrations would continue to increase because fast growing countries that are exempt from emissions cuts — such as China, India, South Korea, Brazil and Indonesia — will account for as much as 85 percent of the projected increase in the next two decades.
Conclusion. The Kyoto Protocol will be costly and do nothing to prevent global warming — even if humans are causing it. Proposed domestic actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would cost only slightly less than Kyoto and would do even less to prevent global warming. Therefore, they merit even less consideration.
http://www.jasonpye.com/blog/2006/06/clinton_blame_global_warming_o.html
1960’s: Paul Ehrlich warned the US that a coming disaster was going to happen in 1980. The global population boom would leave 60 million US citizens to starve to death. Did not happen. The UN actually has reduced their population every decade since 1970.
1970’s: Scientist proclaim “change in climate” points to coming ice age. Did not happen.
1980’s: Scientist claim power lines cause cancer…1990’s cell phone etc cause cancer. All because of electro magnetic currents. Not true…today people wear magnectic bracelets and sleep on magnetico pads for the benefits of the current.
Michael Mann is the scientist who many at the UN and other global warming alarmist point to with his study on climate changes from 1000 - 1980. His results appeared to show a spike in recent temps. But his study had many flaws…one the fact that he did not even take into consideration the medievel warm period where temps were higher than they are today.
Earth is an active planet. There are 1.5 million earthquakes every year. There are 1,500 electrical storms on the planet right now. There are 90 huricanes a year…one every four days. The number of huricanes has actually decreased over the last 10 years. The average temp has increased over the last 100 years .6 degrees C. Wow…call the press.
The polar ice caps have actually gotten thicker at their core. Why all the fuss? Does it have anything to do with cold hard cash? YES…it is easier to get book deal or government grant for a study with coming doom.
With that being said, I am a conservationist and believe we should protect our environment as much as possible. Knee jerk reactions without sound scientific evidence does more harm than good. Case and point…banning DDT. There are no known links to DDT and cancer. But our government and the UN banned the use of DDT. Millions have died of maleria in Africa due to this ill-fated decision. Take the politics out of the discussion. Allow real research to be discussed and proceed with caution.
Comment by Sonnabend — 1/26/2007 @ 7:49 pm
Science is science, and REAL science is not about manipulating results so you can get or keep government funding.
Comment by Cao — 1/26/2007 @ 8:36 pm
Nazi!!!!!
There. Conversation over.
Comment by Ogre — 1/26/2007 @ 8:41 pm
“Your ‘designs’ are lost on me, as are your nonexistent points.”
That’s just personal incredulity.
“argumentum ad consequentiam is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences.
“Show me where I did that. You can’t.”
Erm, you arguing about the correctness of Evolution / Darwinism based on its perceived social consequences is *exactly* that.
Nature on Wikipedia:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
but then again, nature is probably a liberal moonbat rag, right.
Shame the bible has nothing on it. Of course it’s a collaborative work, made by anyone - but if liberals were more literate and educated, that may be a source of bias… 
“What I see you’re doing is flinging around words that have nothing to do with the content of the discussion. So if you’d rather change the subject to something that is incoherent, go right ahead, but you’ve just proven my point. Ad hominem, semantics, linguistics, etc.-nothing having to do with the subject matter. AND, change the subject, because you’ve exhausted your limited knowledge on the subject. But me? I could keep going.”
WORD SALAD. Every time you proffer a fallacious argument, I point it out. The above diatribe is just one vacuous naked assertion. I don’t know if you’re intellectually dishonest, or just don’t know how to debate.
So far we have learned, Hitler is a self admitted christian, the vast majority of scientists subscribe to global warming being a reality and you get your ‘facts’ from a book written by men a couple of thousand years ago, or those trying to reconcile that text with reality.
Comment by Rich — 1/26/2007 @ 9:05 pm
(Nature on Wikipedia)
Any group or “information database” that has BenBurch (who is known as Fister for his abnormal practices) (and who was banned from DU for being a total retard) as an editor, is therefore suspect and slanted.
Use wiki again and it will be ignored.
Find other sources
Comment by Sonnabend — 1/26/2007 @ 11:53 pm
….the vast majority of scientists subscribe to global warming being a reality
…
No, they don’t.
Another lie.
Comment by Sonnabend — 1/26/2007 @ 11:54 pm
You can ignore wikipedia if you like. As ii falls within the subset of ‘factual’, I’d expect no less from you. Please note that it is cited, so is more of a metarescource. You can always look up the origional. It also has a peer review process the help reduce bias.
Does BenChurch review 1.6 million articles himself? Not bad for a “total retard”…
Comment by Rich — 1/27/2007 @ 12:08 am
Brace yourself, kids..
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/01/23/climate.report.ap/index.html
Comment by Rich — 1/27/2007 @ 12:15 am
Actually all the sources that support the idea are not relevant; they’re paid hacks of the government or leftist greens.
Show me the science. I’ve been talking science, why can’t Rich?
Comment by Cao — 1/27/2007 @ 6:26 am
Let’s talk about two-winged fruit flies or Piltdown Man, vestigial organs, and other lies. It’s all made up, and the fact that Rich is determined to push it on us makes me wonder if he’s not the Global Warming Nazi.
If global warming is such a reality, why aren’t all nations–instead of developed ones only–required to comply with the ridiculous restrictions?
The temperates in Greenland and Iceland have been falling at 2.2 degrees Celcius since 1987. There’s been no effect on the ice there melting; it’s actually been accumulating, not melting. The same is happening in Antarctica. The ridiculous restrictions that McCain and Lieberman introduced called “The Climate Stewardship Act” (S.139) would have capped CO2 emissions and cost the American economy $106 billion. Why should we accept this sort of thing when there is no reliable science to back it up?
In Global Warming: Understanding the Debate by Kenneth Green, a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute whose article Clouds of Global-Warming Hysteria in the National Review endorsed Michael Crichton’s view of global warming, called supporters of climate change action “One-worlders and other socialist sorts.”
So if we don’t fall into the category of ‘One-worlders and other socialist sorts’, I guess we’re out of the ballpark and shouldn’t enter into the discussion because we’re not the type to support the growth of big government on the basis of junk science.
From Real Climate; Climate science from climate scientists:
Wouldn’t you think that with rising CO2, the heavens will part and let the excess energy out? Here’s a Lindzenesque mechanism to nullify global warming. Measured change in heat fluxes in the equatorial Pacific is comparable to the radiative effect of doubling CO2 but the CO2 number is a global average, while the equatorial Pacific is just one region. These measurements would indicate a regional rearrangement of cloud cover or ocean temperature, a decadal variation with no clear implication at all for the global mean heat budget of the Earth. The global heat imbalance has been inferred (Hansen et al, Science, 2005), and it is consistent with rising greenhouse gas concentrations and transient heating of the ocean.
A word about models in science (as opposed to in think-tank economics [where a lot of this global warming hysteria comes from]). Models would have little use if they were so easy to bent into any answer we thought we knew about in advance. One can always be critical of models, but there is no model that avoids global warming by parting the heavens, or that is exquisitely sensitive to solar variability but insensitive to CO2, the worlds that the global warming enthusiasts wish for.
Why not dust off many of the good old good ones, like the cosmic-ray / cloud connection, the temperature lead of CO2 through the deglaciation, the Antarctic warming, the cooling during the period 1940-1970, the now-resolved satellite temperature discrepancy from ground temperatures, and even the ancient CO2 band saturation myth?
Comment by Cao — 1/27/2007 @ 6:33 am
How about we agree that global warming exists, but to a degree much less than that touted by the likes of say….Gore. Can we agree on that Rich?
Comment by Richard Nixon — 1/27/2007 @ 9:04 am
I’m not giving him an inch. Global warming occurred in the middle ages, and it’s cyclical so it’s happening again. Not too long ago these nuts were claiming we were about to enter another ice age. Didn’t happen.
Comment by Cao — 1/27/2007 @ 10:41 am
Here’s some thoughts from a government website.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/newsandeventsScienceandPolicyNews.html
Bushy seemed quite concerned about global warming in his ’state of the union’ speech, maybe you should write and tell him it’s not real?
Comment by Rich — 1/27/2007 @ 11:22 am
Cao has now tried to block my IP.
What\’s with rebuplicans and censorship, eh?
Comment by Rich — 1/27/2007 @ 4:29 pm
Cry, cry cry little baby. I see that it didn’t work, so what’s your point?
The point I see you’re making is that I pay for this space, but you have the right to do whatever you want here, and that is simply not the case. You time is over here. I am done with you; and so is everyone else. The consensus here agrees with what Carolyn Hilleman wrote, several comments above.
You don’t tell me what to do here; I tell you what is acceptable to ME. I will not shut you down, I’ll hear you out, and I have. I’ve given you much more time than you deserve. But when you don’t return the favor, you get booted out like a dog that shits on the carpet. And that’s pretty much the end of the discussion.
Contrary to your position; in the end, I am entitled to my opinion. We can agree to disagree and leave it at that. And thank God we live in a country where that’s possible. But I’m beginning to think that you’re not in agreement with that assessment; that you’d like to see people like me jailed for my beliefs, or for worshipping God, for being a creationist, and that disturbs me greatly.
Your trying to ramrod the antiquated myth of Evolution down my throat is just one example. Your reluctance to accept that the discussion is over is another. Your resistance to accept that the global warming people are radical environmentalists who began their radical agenda back in the 60’s is another. Your denial of what my 70-something father pointed out about the politicization of science is another. So really, it’s a stalemate and I wish you well, although I hope you can accept that I don’t appreciate the approach you’ve taken here and the methods you’ve used to take it.
Biology demonstrates, in very simple terms, an increase in complexity. The evolution myth hopes to promulgate the false notion that mutations evolve into other species. Mutations, in fact, delete or simplify the genetic code, and in humans, it causes birth defects like spina bifida and Downs Syndrome. So to jump to the conclusion that after even millions of years a donkey can change into a giraffe is ridiculous.
Comment by Cao — 1/27/2007 @ 6:41 pm
If Rich could acknowledge that we can agree to disagree like Goshdarnit and I did on an equally contentious subject a few months ago then fine, but I would remind everyone that this is Cao’s site and she has the right to do as she pleases as a property owner (albeit this is not property in and of itself but I hope we don’t need to delve into that subject right now).
Rich I tried to throw out an olive branch using information obtained from scientists that live and breath the weather, and got nothing for it. If a handful of PhD’s at the National Hurricane Center say that global warming is happening but it is a natural cycle, and they have data to prove it, I beleive them. You do not have to, your choice, free country and all those other buzz phrases, but to tell us we are wrong because we do not agree with you is proving OUR point about liberals, socialism, and the inevitable push towards losing our freedoms under the rule of those who think like you….the old my way or the highway routine. We on the other hand allow for and accept differing opinions, but our view is this acceptance must be recipricated.
Comment by Richard Nixon — 1/28/2007 @ 8:35 am
I should point you to how I’m being harrassed by this individual and his minions at Cao’s blog. They’ve completely worn out their welcome mat with me.
I began moderating comments when it became unruly. They never seem to take responsibility for their reprehensible behavior; it’s always ‘our’ fault, which I will not accept. This has been going on ever since I first started blogging with the french and European communists at the frog blog. It’s not like I haven’t seen it before; it’s completely UNORIGINAL!
They all act like cookie cutter replicas of the previous. The names may change, but the spew that emanates from them is precisely the same.
The unpublished comments may in fact become a post because they’re so completely representative of the ideology.
Comment by Cao — 1/28/2007 @ 10:16 am