sonykroket Says:

Nov 14, 2008 - I hate it when reli-nuggets compare "evolutionists" with Hitler. It makes you look stupid and uninformed.

AronRa Says:

Nov 14, 2008 - "Why would he need to say "I believe in the theory that Charles Darwin proposed" Because you claimed Hitler based his belief in his races' superiority on evolution. Unless you find a citation from him where he renounces his earlier declaration to the contrary, then you're wrong. Of course, you also contradicted yourself when you said evolution teaches no difference between the races, but you think the human race should be treated as so far superior to everyone else. Make up your mind.

AronRa Says:

Nov 14, 2008 - "what does that passage say about killing anyone or eugenics at all?" Exactly what you said eugenics teaches. "You don't understand theology." What do you base THAT assumption on? I would think that with all my training, I HAVE to understand theology a great deal better than you do.

AronRa Says:

Nov 14, 2008 - "regardless of Hitler's affiliation, mainstream Christianity and Neo-Darwinism completely denounce his actions." You mean creationists don't denounce Hitler the way mainstream Christians do? What is neo-Darwinism? "I just love having fun wasting time in directionless debates of trite issues." Then admit when you're wrong -and move on. "My only point is that Hitler seems to have used Darwinism to rationalize his views," And my only point is that he obviously didn't, being a creationist.

AronRa Says:

Nov 14, 2008 - "Quotes dont define a person" They do when you're talking posthumously about what some did or did not "believe". In that case, there's no other way to know. You and I both know Hitler said evolution was impossible and a sin against God who's will [he said] created man. So there we have conclusive testament that he did NOT accept evolution, and I know of nothing to imply that he ever did accept it. So it is up to you to show where he later said he'd changed his mind about that.

goLettermanweed Says:

Nov 14, 2008 - AronRa, you're the man. Keep up the good work, man. i subscribed...to non-ignorance=AronRa.

Sorastor Says:

Nov 15, 2008 - I didn't know Hitler was a creationist. I understand there were several letters in which, although publicly he was a practising Christian, he was highly critical of both the church and the basic religion. I know this doesn't preclude creationism, though.

AronRa Says:

Nov 15, 2008 - "I understand there were several letters in which, although publicly he was a practising Christian, he was highly critical of both the church and the basic religion." I know of many creationists who are so critical of religion, that they'll go so far as to say that Christianity isn't a religion and Jesus has nothing to do with religion. Some of those people post on these boards.

Sorastor Says:

Nov 15, 2008 - Now, see, to ME, and this is just me, that's pretty damn weird.

GabrielGZNH Says:

Nov 16, 2008 - haha 9:19 "Once of Scottish descent, always of Scottish descent" I love that...

middlekk Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - Hitler wanted to organize a German state church, like the church of England. I think he was pretty frustrated when that didn't happen. Of course the question is, why not? The German people were pretty much on board for everything he threw at them, right up until the very end (and sometime after for the hard-liners). A state religion was the one thing he couldn't push through. Odd, huh?

middlekk Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - The only thing worse is then they compare "evilutionists" with Hitler.

Sorastor Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - That makes sense. He was determined to nationalise everything else, but it seems a German Church didn't quite take in the end, eh?

Sorastor Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - Godwin's Law's Amendment: ...once the conversation HAS reached the point of inevitability and Hitler is mentioned, the conversation has become so asinine, it is unnecessary and in fact detrimental to continue.

damianpoirier Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - I do not think this is a useful amendment at all. I hope you were being facetious.

Sorastor Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - Well, it's only useless if the conversation was ABOUT Hitler to begin with, but, honestly, when's the last time you were involved in a conversation that, when someone FINALLY got compared to Hitler or the Nazis, it was actually beneficial to continue? lol

damianpoirier Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - comparing someone to hitler is godwin's law. mentioning hitler is distinct and it's useful when historically accurate(or when specifically considering alternate histories).

Sorastor Says:

Nov 17, 2008 - Godwin's Law: As a conversation progresses, the probability of Hitler being mentioned approaches 1. Basically, Godwin's ACTUAL Law tells us nothing but 'When people talk, the more they talk, the more likely it is they'll mention something specific.' Godwin's Law as it applies on the internet is a lot funnier, and therefor more legitimate based alone on its humour value.

TheAgnosticAspie Says:

Nov 25, 2008 - This is one of the topics of evolution I've always been sceptical about. The macro-evolution of species and speciation. How do scientists truly know that the fossil record truly proves macro-evolution?

GRVDA Says:

Nov 25, 2008 - ehh macro evolution is micro evolution over a longer timespan, ergo there is no differance between marco and micro accept for it takes much much longer. You have seen all the vids?

TheAgnosticAspie Says:

Nov 25, 2008 - Yes I have seen all of AronRa's vids on evolution, its just that this is the particualar area of evolution I have always been sceptical off! And its also the area of evolutionary theory that so many creationists hark on that "their are no transitional forms" and also "Their has never been an observation of a species turning into another species" and stuff like that.

SexyMelon Says:

Nov 27, 2008 - "How do scientists truly know that the fossil record truly proves macro-evolution?" Actually, it doesn't. Fossil record is used in conjecture with the fact of evolution to determine the historical progression of variation of a few species that lived on Earth some time ago. Although that is, too, called "Evolution". I guess it could be used to prove speciation though, but, we can observe speciation directly nowadays, so what's the point.

r00tcause Says:

Nov 29, 2008 - Microevolution describes small changes within a species. Even creationists admit this is real. Macroevolution is what happens when enough changes accumulate over time to create a new species, meaning a species that can no longer breed with its original parent species. The problem with the creationist argument, is that macroevoluton occurs simply as *microevolution over a greater time and with a seperation (no interbreeding) of one population from another". The point: They are the SAME theory.

r00tcause Says:

Nov 29, 2008 - As for your actual question about the fossil record. The theory came about before the fossil record. It was PREDICTED in the theory that we would find transitional forms, the fact that we DID find them was a validation of the theory. The fossils came AFTER the idea. However, that does not mean it is PROOF they were not all just created that way but its by far the best explanation for such as if they were, they would have had have been created by god to make it APPEAR they evolved.

pienipaha Says:

Dec 1, 2008 - Some fundie has been picking on me on one of my videos all day (JOL-human life). I don't have enough room to explain my points in detail let alone provide proof so instead I mentioned some literature he could grab and study for himself. But then he says he doesn't want to hear it from a "sci-fi" writer! Then why would he take my word for it? Why start poking the beehive in the first place if it's so easy he can just ignore it? That goes for me too in this case, I shouldn't have answered at all.