The cure for cults that want to deny others their freedom of speech is more freedom of speech -- Fredric Rice

Hitler certainly affirmed that he was a Christian:

The Fuhrer made it known to those entrusted with the Final Solution that the killings should be done as humanely as possible. This was in line with his conviction that he was observing God's injunction to cleanse the world of vermin.

Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy ("I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" [quoting Hitler]), he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God -- so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.

-- John Toland (Pulitzer Prize winner), from "Adolf Hitler", pp 507, talking about the Autumn of 1941.

The "I am now as before a Catholic..." quotation from Hitler was recorded in the diary of Gerhard Engel, an SS Adjutant, in October 1941. Hitler was speaking in private, not before a mass audience, and so it is difficult to dismiss the comment as propaganda lies. -- John Toland (Pulitzer Prize winner), from "Adolf Hitler", pp 507, talking about the Autumn of 1941.

"The teaching of the youth to appreciate the value ... of the community, derives its strongest inner power from the truths of Christianity. For this reason it will always be my special duty to safeguard the right and free development of the Christian school and the Christian fundamentals of all education." - Adolf Hitler

"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" (speech, Reichstag, 1936). Or: "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. . . . We need a believing people." (To Bishop Berning, cited in Free Inquiry, Summer 1985, p. 7a.)

> You don't even know what Christianity is.

I accept Christians' word on what Christianity is. Indeed, Christianity is what Christians say it is. Christianity is also what history shows it to be. (And yes, anyone who says they're a Christian are in fact Christian inasmuch as there's no other more accurate way to make the distinction than by asking the person. History teaches us this... well, most of us learn such lessons. If you know of a better, more accurate way to tell if someone's a Christian other than by asking them, do let me know, won't you? Thanks.)

That there are literally hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of different versions on the theme is not relevant; what remains is that Christianity is what Christians say it is and what history shows it to be. (It is understandable why contemporary followers of death-centric cults might wish to distance themselves from the history of their cults. Life affirming religions don't exist such behavior, you know.)

Fact is one determines what a cult's ideologies are by its actions, not its words. By their fruits you shall know them.

> You have seriously lost any shred of credibility you
> might have thought you had.

Translation: The poor dear hasn't been able to refute any of the sound debunkings he received at my hands and, when confronted with the history of Christianity in the guise of good old Mr. Hitler, thinks he's found a way out of conveniently ignoring his numerous -- and embarrassing -- debunkings.

Speaking of credibility, you'll note who's unable to address or even read the other's writings. There's a very good reason why you've not addressed a single one of the issues covering your debunking of what your cult leaders think evolution is. Credibility? Try addressing the _issues_ covering your cult master's debunkings.

> Here is a definition of Christianity, you obviously
> don't know what it is.

Correction: Here is the _version_ of Christianity that you feel closely reflects _your_ variety of Christianity:

> Christianity (from the World Book Encyclopedia) of Christ,
> His (sic) teachings,

Since the "Jesus Christ" left no known writings, it's impossible to know what "his teachings" were. Unless you have some hidden secret "teachings" only you know about.

If you can find some "teachings" from this mythological construct, don't you think you should share them with the rest of the world? It seems rather selfish of you to claim to have "teachings" which the rest of the world doesn't know anything about. One wonders why you don't share your secret knowledge with the world and win for yourself a number of Nobel Prizes.

> or the religion that bears His (sic) name.

There are hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of variations of Christianity that "bears his name." Since much of them are contradictory, it's rather silly to look at a subset and proclaim "that's Christianity" while pointing at another subset and glibly demanding it is not. How do you pick and choose? All those brand names of Christianity can't all be "what Christianity is." Well?

Right. Debunked.

In any event, Adolf Hitler was not only a Christian, he enjoyed the official sanction of the majority of Christian churches in Europe -- until after it was clear Hitler was going to lose the war, then Christian churches started bailing out of his support -- publicly, any way. Many continued to support the ideology of genocide even after Hitler was defeated.

The few Christian churches and Bishops which denounced Hitler's agenda of exterminating the mentally insane, the physically crippled, the politically unsavory, and Jews were at times executed by Hitler to serve as a warning to other Christian churches if they did likewise. The threat wasn't needed for the majority of Christianity since they were ideologically in full agreement -- at least at the start -- with the notion that the Christian gods wanted such people exterminated as a kindness to ease their suffering -- and/or "sinning."

The minority Christian clergy who were opposed faced being executed as being politically unsound themselves so it's hardly surprising that few ever spoke out, placing themselves in jepordy of the fireing squad. The majority, however, were okay with the "culling" and considered the dispoal of the mentally disabled and disposal of Jews to be a Christian kindness.

> Beleving in Christ:

Adolf Hitler believed in the Jesus Christ mythos. He also believed in a number of pagan religious notions and at times he also condemned his own religion. I seriously doubt whether sane people consider Hitler to have been sane.

In any event there have been -- and continue to be -- many thousands of Christs. There were thousands of Christs long before the Jesus mythos was collected into the classical set of mythologies which later became the set of myths -- with many revisions -- one finds available today. Many of the Mormon cult's males are also Christs, you know.

Or didn't you know what the title means?

> following his example of teaching.

Since there are no known records of any "teachings" of the mythos, one's left wondering what cultists think they are "following." (Contrast this to the known writings of other cult leaders such as the Scientology crime syndicate.)

What cultists usually do is whatever they want, then they go look through their paper idols to find some bizarre "jusification" for what they did or what they want to do.

Hatred of homosexuals, blacks, and women spring instantly to mind. A percentage of Christians harbor these bizarre prejudices and then look through their paper idols for pretend justifications for their bigotries.

> Showing a gentle, humble helpful spirit

Which contradicts the entirety of Christianity's bloody and tyrannical history -- which was well established long before Adolf Hitler joined the cult. Fortunately there are Constitutions that guarentee individuals their rights and as such the death-centric religions among us find their claws have been pulled -- though they remain un-defanged and as such still constitute a danger to the health and safety of their neighbors.

Shall we look inside of the latest version of the classical Christanic mythologies to see just how "gentle," "humble," and "helpful" the people are in the mythologies that Creationists worship?

What is the nature of the Jehovah God. Many times we like to see him as Spirit and Truth, other times as Love incarnate. Perhaps we could look at the not so nice God to get a little better look at his real, non-glossed over, raw character.

MASS KILLINGS AND CRUELTIES ORDERED, COMMITTED, APPROVED BY GOD

The entire population of the earth at the time of Noah, except for eight survivors, in a flood. "And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark." Gen 7:23 [Jehovah, the first mass-murderer, starts His bloody carrier.]

Every inhabitant of Sodom and Gammorrah, and the surrounding plain,

by "brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven." Gen 19:24 Lot and his family fled. [What about little innocent children in the city and around on the surrounding plain.]

All the first born of every family in Egypt, including children of those in dungeons and the successor to the throne of Egypt's Pharaoh, by God on the first Passover night. Ex 12:29 [Of those that are in prison and the first born of the cattle?]

All the hosts of Pharaoh, including the captains of 600 chariots, who drown in the Red Sea while pursuing the Israelites. "... and the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea." Ex 14:27-28 [The Christian God is so childish He has to murder instead of using His brain. He could have made them too sick to walk.]

Victims who perish in the conquest of seven nations in Canaan by the Jews under Gods guidance so that the Jews can occupy their lands as God had promised Abraham in Deut 7:1,2. The Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites were all destroyed, every man, woman and child and mercy was shown to none. [Would have made Adolph and Custer feel good.]

Amalek and his people, by the edge of the sword, because God wants to fight with Amalek from generation to generation (maybe just for fun). The Israelites win if Aaron helps Moses to hold up his hands.

[At times of crisis, God gets whimsical. People are dying everywhere and God wants to see Moses's palms.] Ex 17:11,16

3,000 Israelites die at the hands of their brothers, the Levites, every man, their brothers and their companions. Ex. 32:27 [These were the orders of God who would brook no disloyalty, a self styled "jealous" God.]

Rulers of Israel, eleven in number after spying for forty days that wouldn't invade the Promised Land are killed by a plague. Num. 14:37 [The first term limitation?]

250 Levite princes of the Jews who challenged the leadership of Moses. When Moses points out the injustice of killing the whole congregation God relents briefly, then swallows up two of the princes, "their wives, sons and little children", then sent a fire to consume the remaining princes. Num. 16:1-40 [The Christian God lies too.]

14,700 people die by plague who protest to Moses about the prior killing of the 250 princes. Aaron makes an atonement to stop the plague. Num 16:41-49 [The Christian God seems bent upon destroying helpless people.]

The Canaanites at Hormah, utterly destroyed, every man woman and child, by God at the request of the Jews. Num 21:3

The Amorites at Hesbon, Israel "took all these cities". Moses sums up the slaughter: "We... utterly destroyed the men and the women and the little ones." Num 21:25 and Deut 2:34

All the sons and subjects of Og, about whom the Lord said to Moses:

"Fear him (the king of Bashan) not, for I have delivered him into thy hand." None was left alive. Num 21:34-35

24,000 Israelites who cohabitated with Moabite women and worshiped Baal. "And the Lord said to Moses, take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the Lord against the sun..." Num 25:4,9 [Definitely a civil rights violation.]

All the males and the kings of the Middianites, because they worshiped idols, and all their wives and male children were sold into slavery. "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, vex the Midianites, and smite them." Num 25:16-17 and Num 31:7-8

The subjects of two kingdoms on the east side of the Jordan, in order that Reuben and Gad might seize the land for their own as a gift from God. Num 32

The Ammonites, decimated by the Lord so that Lot might possess their land. Deut 2:19-21

The Horims, slain by God in order that Esau might take their land. Deut 2:22

All the citizens of Jericho, except for a whore and her family. "And they utterly destroyed all in the city, man and woman, young and old, and ox... with the edge of the sword." Josh 6 "They" make a grizzly game of it , using the superstitious number 7 popular in the Bible. [Joshua competes with Moses, the leader he replaced, for the title of Gods number 1 hit man as he follows Gods orders.]

12,000 men, women and children die in a treacherous ambush conceived and directed by God. Joshua, with the usual mindless hocus-pocus, holds out his spear until all the inhabitants are dead. The city was then burned. Afterwards Joshua builds an altar and offers thanks to God. Josh 8:1-30 [A political monster worships a Murderous Monster of a Deity.]

All the people of Makkedah, and their king hanged, by Joshua. Joshua 10:28

All the people of Libnah. Not a soul remained. Joshua 10:29-30 [Joshua and God were agreed upon the finality of capital punishment.]

All the people of Gezer, with none remaining, are killed. Josh 10:33

All the people of Eglon, none remaining, are killed. Joshua 10:34-35

All the people of Hebron, "All the cities and souls that were in them". Joshua 10:36-37

All the inhabitants of the country of the hills, and the south of the vale, and the springs and their kings, he left none remaining but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the Lord God of Israel commanded. Joshua 10:40 [Joshua simply kills everyone else.]

The inhabitants of Gaza, Askerlon, and Ekron, killed by Judah and Caleb. Judges 1:18-19

10,000 Moabites, killed by the Israelites. Judges 3:29

10,000 Perizzites and Canaanites die at the hand of Judah and Simeon. Judges 1:4 [Isn't it nice how the body counts always come out as nice round numbers?]

120,000 Midianites die by the hands of Gideons three hundred men. Judges 8:10

50,070 people of Bethshemesh, struck dead by God because a few of them looked at/into the Ark carrying the stone tablets. 1st Samuel 6:19 [The murderous Christian God keeps the grave-diggers busy with overtime burying the innocents.]

70,000 victims (more round numbers?) die of a pestilence sent by God because David took a census. 11 Sam 24:15

Although Adam and Eve have no sense of right and wrong when they eat of the Tree of Knowledge, God accuses them of sinning and tosses them out of their home. Prejudging the human race he then decrees that all shall suffer for this "sin" by returning to the dust from which Adam was made. The Christian God curses women with painful birth. Gen 3

Cain kills Abel because God is partial to altar sacrifices, preferring animals to grain. Gen 4 [The Christian God plainly doesn't like vegetarians.]

At the time of the Flood, a disaster not uncommon to the tradition of other religions, Noah, an imbiber, and his family are the only persons deemed righteous enough to be saved from drowning. All others, including pregnant women and children, are given no opportunity to survive the rising waters. Gen 7,8

Again attributing sin to innocents God fails to find even 10 persons, or embryos in any stage of gestation, saintly enough to escape the fire and brimstone (Biblical napalm). God turns Lots wife into a pillar of salt when she looks back in horror at what is happening to her friends and neighbors. Gen 19 [Today many Christians oppose any abortion as a God forbidden murder. Where is the logical precedent here? The Omnipotent Christian God is the Abortionist to abort all abortionist.]

Abraham is certainly willing to do what ever the Lord demands of him, even when God orders him to kill his son. But all turns out Ok when an angel yells really loud to Abraham that it was just a test to see how much he loved God. Isaac is very lucky indeed. Abraham may have been near deaf at his age and the Angel was calling long distance from heaven. [Truly a miracle.] Gen 22

When Sarah gets jealous and insists, proven Abraham consigns Hagar and Ishmael to the deserts to die. Gen 21 [Does this qualify as domestic abuse or violence?]

Pharaoh orders all midwifes to strangle new born Jewish children. Of course they refused. Pharaoh then orders them to throw the babies into the river. Ex 1:18,22 [What's interesting to note here is that some Christian parents at the present time deny their children blood-curdling television and give them blood-curdling Bibles.]

Moses kills an Egyptian deliberately for beating an Israelite. Ex 2:12 He then becomes God's Lawgiver. One of his commandments straight from God is thou shalt not kill (murder). [Two wrongs don't make a right. Was Moses a murder even before he led the Israelite rebellion??]

God tries to kill Moses, because his son by a Middianite woman is not circumcised. His wife, angered, circumcises the boy with a sharp rock and throws the foreskin at Moses's feet. God then lets Moses off the hook. Ex 4:24-26 [God has priorities, including the horrible genital mutilation of young boys.]

After first purposely hardening Pharaoh's heart so that he will not see the Israelites free, God, through the black magic of Aarons rod, visits ten terrible plagues upon the unsuspecting Egyptians. Ex 7-11 [Even the innocent animals are victims of this truly evil black magic.]

The needless, brutal slaughter of the Passover night is the intended result of another hardening of Pharaohs heart by an egotistical maniacal God who wishes to parade his power. Ex 12:29 [Thus God continues his propensity for making the innocents suffer for the guilty which culminates in the crucifixion of His own innocent Son Jesus.]

More heart hardening by God causes Pharaoh to chase the Israelites into the Red Sea, where the soldiers die by drowning. Ex 14:28 [If God could harden pharaoh heart he could have caused pharaoh to let them go free. Nothing to it.]

For "offering strange fire before the Lord", two sons of Aaron, priests of the tabernacle, are struck dead. Lev 10:1-2 [Not to worry, replacements are on the way.]

A blasphemer curses the name of God in the wilderness camp, and God orders him stoned to death: "And he children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses. Lev 24:23 [The rocky terrain of Palestine broods ill for miscreants and protesters. (Again God could have changed his heart and not killed him.)]

Israelites who complain, with good reason, in the desert, are burned with fire by God in the uttermost parts of the camp. Num 11:1 [Evidently the Christian God loves the smell of roasting, poaching, baking, broiling or burning human flesh?]

Seeing that the Jews are dissatisfied on their journey to the Promised Land because they have no flesh to eat as they had in Egypt, God typically loses his temper again and in a childish way sends a vast excess of quail, enough to cover the ground a days travel in each direction and they stack up to a height of more than 3 feet. As the people started to eat the fruits of their labor "God smote them with a very great plague." Num 11:31-33 [I guess it was better to be a vegetarian after all. Remember Cain?]

The Israelites are forced to wander for 40 years in the desert so that the older people would die. Num 14 [The Christian God despises old people.]

A man caught picking up sticks on the Sabbath is ordered by God to be put to death, and the wandering tribes comply. Num15:35-36 [A novel approach to the homeless problem?]

Challenge of the authority of Moses (remember him murdering people in Egypt?) by anyone always brought out the worse in God, and he buries _alive_ the wives and children of the two princes who oppose Moses. Num 16:32-35

After striving to reach the Promised Land for forty years, Moses and Aaron are denied entry because Moses had struck a rock in anger to obtain water. Moses is allowed to look at it once though just before he dies. Num 20:11-12 and Deut 34 [The Christian God might have shown a little compassion for Moses who was probably at his wits end.]

God turns Miraim into a leper after she criticizes Moses for marring an Ethiopian woman. Such unions were contrary to Jewish custom and also disapproved of by God for everyone _except_ Moses. Num 12:10 [The Christian God is a two-faced, misogynist Dog.]

Numbers 31:17-18 "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."

After reviewing what the classical Christanic mythologies have to say about the Christian pantheon, I think we can put "paid" to the notion of "...showing a gentle, humble helpful spirit..."

> Hitler was CLEARLY NONE OF THIS

Adolf Hitler was all of the above and much more: Not only did he not do anything which Christians hadn't done to Jews and other "infidels" long before Hitler was born, but he was applauded and supported by the majority of Christian clergy during his rise to power. That included the known policies of killing the mentally insane, the politically unsavory, and the "sinners" of Judaism.

It was only after a thoughtful prognosis of Hitler's war yielded the likely fact of his defeat that Christians started to try to distance themselves from Hitler and his genocidal policies. But that's a common trait one can see in any religious grouping of individuals. Additionally as his defeat grew nearer, retribution and retaliation (that is, facing a fireing squad) for speaking out against his policies of genocide became less of a threat.

> (and you say creationists and christians are liars)

Almost all Christians are honest enough to accept the fact of evolution and other sciences. It's only a very small percentage that cling to their Creationist occultism and, in so doing, have no choice but to lie to themselves first and foremost, but then to anyone who bothers addressing the cultist's notions.

> from http://www.evolution-facts.org/c19b.htm (go to this
> website and actually read it,

You haven't bothered to read -- or try to respond -- to any of the debunking you've already been handed. As yet all you've done is unthinkingly -- and stupidly -- spouted lies and stupidities fed to you by your cult leaders like a busted shitpipe.

This is an admirable feat since you're sitting there with your severed head lying beside you. This lends further evidence to the suggestion that Creationists don't need their heads since they never have use for what's inside them.

I've read your cult leader's lies, and I've debunked them point-for-point. If you want me to read and debunk more of your cult leaders' lies, please post them in E-mail -- provided they're new and I've not debunked them yet. I would be glad to go through them and debunk them as well.

It would be my pleasure.

> especially the chapters on Evolution, Morality and
> Violence and the History of Evolutionary Thought)

Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "morality," "violence," or "histories of evolutionary thought." Ergo those are not part of any theory of evolution.

Why don't you go to your local library and find out what evolution is and what evolution is not? Could it be because you know that you and your cult leaders are by choice pathological liars?

You obviously know that evolution has nothing to do with politics, and you obviously know that evolution is a directly observed phenomena. What keeps you from going to your local library and confirming what your own senses tells you is true is your mistaken notion that the fact of evolution -- and other sciences -- some how adversely impacts the existance of your superstitious constructs. It doesn't: science has nothing to say either for or against untestable superstitions. Science addresses only that which is testable, starting with what is observed.

What we see in Creationists is what's known as "cognitive dissonance." The ability to believe in mutually contradictory things. I looks to me as though Creationists know internally that evolution happens and is observable yet at the same time they also believe that the fact some how threatens the existance of their invisible playmates. They see speciation, know that it takes place, then shuffle the truth back to the dusty shelves of their bifurcated brain, hoping that the truth they ovserved won't intrude upon their conscience thought least they go to Hell and don't get to play paddy-cake with their invisible friends. Bizarre, yes.

In rational, honest individuals the contradiction would be solved by divesting themselves of the unevidence notions of their invisible playmates in favor of what their own senses and reason tell them. In dishonest, pathologically stupid individuals the contradiction results in retaining an internalized acceptance of science while at the same time maintaining a mistaken belief that said science some how detracts from their own mythological constructs.

The cognitive dissonance which results causes an ever- increasing spiral of dysfunctional behavior to be exhibited by the Creationist and thus we observe what appears to be a subset of humanity which has divested itself of all reason, all honesty, all integrity, all thought, and all sanity.

This condition wouldn't motivate society to regulate their behavior and beliefs were it not for the fact that these unfortunate individuals seek to impose their pathology upon innocent children in the public schools. Were it not for the fact that these mentally damaged individuals threaten the health, safety, and quality education of our public school students, they would be ignored as further evidence of man's capacity for self delusion, gullibility, and willful ignorance.

Caught in the middle are honest Christians, the majority, who are greatly embarrassed by their Creationist brothers and sisters who purport to speak for all of Christianity.

> This is from that website: (so what that I copied
> and pasted, it's the message that is important)

Which I debunked totally and, in so doing, upset you badly, it seems.

It wasn't my intention to hurt your feelings with the truth. Nor was it my intention to drive you insensate with anger. My motivations were solely to debunk your cult leader's nonsense so that I might add it to the ICR Cult web site. Which I will do shortly.

The fact that you couldn't address any part of the sound debunkings you were handed is highly relevant to the total lack of validity your cult leader's claims hold, by the way.

> By the way, the people quoted here with a * by their
> name are not creationists.

And neither are they scientists speaking within the venue of biology. Let's see what tired old claims you're going to cut-and-paste once again from your insane cult leaders. What's expected is "more of the same," the cultist trying to equate political, economical, or military ideologies as some how being evolution. Let's see:

> *Adolf Hitler's famous Mein Kampf was based on evolutionary
> theory.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth.

Additionally within that book Hitler talks about his own Christianity. Don't you find it dishonest to quote from a book which supports your mistaken notions and "forget" to note that the very same book debunks them?

> The very title of his book was copied from a Darwinian
> expression; it means "My Struggle" [to survive and overcome].

Evolution doesn't have a concept of "my struggle" and as such does not constitute any of the theories of evolution.

What the set of theories which attempt to explain and describe the observed fact of evolution have to say is that a given species is observed to be more able to survive or less able to survive in a given ecological nitch than other given species being observed. Indeed, contemporary theories of evolution make predictions about environmental factors motivating the speciation events science observes and as such confirms the validity of those aspects of those theories.

> "One need not read far in Hitler's Mein Kampf to find
> that evolution likewise influenced him and his views
> on the master race, genocide, human breeding experiments,
> etc."-Robert Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1048), p. 115.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "master races," "genocide," "breeding experiments" or "etc" and as such doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

The set of theories which attempts to explain and describe the observed fact of evolution _does_ explain why breeding plants and animals for specific sets of alelle traits works and some times doesn't work. Before the advent of the discovery of genetics and the discovery of RNA and DNA, the physics and biology behind breeding were unknown yet still people were able to make use of the practice, using evolutionary theories to develope strains of grain staples which could survive in ecological nitches their ancestors could not.

Funny how knowledge about evolution -- how it works and why -- manages to feed a populace which would have starved out their numbers significantly without such knowledge, huh? The Earth herself isn't bountyful enough to support the population the world currently has and massive intervention by science -- evolution as well as many others -- is what's keeping the populace fed -- at least a percentage of the populace, any way.

Not only is the corn that you eat, the tomatoes that you eat, the beef that you eat, and the potatoes that you eat the result of genetic manipulations resulting from a good understanding of evolution, but the paper you may write on and the water that you may drink are the result of understanding the biological sciences of evolution -- due to the purification processes of reused potables, and the biological development of pulping organisms.

Creationists -- if left alone to wallow in their own self delusional, willful ignorance -- would starve to death. I would be in favor of such were it not for the fact that they would take their own children along with them and also threaten to drag their intellectual superiors down into self destruction with them.

> "[The position in Germany was that] Man must 'conform' to
> nature's processes, no matter how ruthless.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "must," "conformity," or "ruthless" and as such doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> The 'fittest' must never stand in the way of the law
> of evolutionary progress.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "progress" and as such doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

Also a species that's not "fit" in one environment will be "fit" in another environment. This is one of the many directly observed predictions made by the set of theories which attempts to describe and explain the observed fact of evolution.

> In its extreme form, that social view was used in Nazi
> Germany to justify sterilization and mass murder of the
> 'unfit,' 'incompetent,' 'inferior races.' "-*R. Milner,
> Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 412.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have any concepts of "social views," "fascism," "justification," "sterilization," or "mass murder," neither does it have the concepts of "incompetent" or "inferior." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> The undesirables had to be eliminated.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the notion of "undesirables" and as such doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> "During the 1930s, Adolf Hitler believed he was carrying
> Darwinism forward with his doctrine that undesirable
> individuals (and inferior races) must be eliminated in
> the creation of the New Order dominated by Germany's Master
> Race."-*R. Milner, Encylopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 119.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "doctrines," "undesirables," "individuals," "inferiority," "new orders," or "master faces." As such these concepts don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Specialists in Hitlerian studies note that *Hitler
> hated Christianity as fiercely as he loved Darwin's theory.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Adolf Hitler was a staunch Christian who enjoyed the official sanction of the majority of European Christianity. In any

> But that is understandable, for the two are as different
> as day and night.

Adolf Hitler didn't do anything that Christianity hadn't done over the long and bloody history of Christianity since it's inception. Indeed, the only reason why Christianity managed to survive was by being the single most bloody and tyrannical cult to ever come out of the Middle East bar none.

> "[Hitler] stressed and singled out the idea of biological
> evolution as the most forceful weapon against traditional
> religion and he repeatedly condemned Christianity for its
> opposition to the teaching of evolution . .

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth.

> For Hitler, evolution was the hallmark of modern science
> and culture, and he defended its veracity as tenaciously
> as Haeckel."-*Daniel Gasman, Scientific Origins of Modern
> Socialism: Social Darwinism in Ernst Haeckel and the
> German Monist League (1971), p. 188.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth.

> *Hitler said this:
> "I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive
> lie that has ever existed."-*Adolf Hitler, quoted in
> Larry Azar, Twentieth Century in Crisis (1990), p. 155.

Which doesn't detract from the fact that Adolf Hitler was a staunch Christian who enjoyed the official sanction of the majority of European Christianity.

> "This doctrine of racial supremacy Hitler took at
> face value . . He accepted evolution much as we today
> accept Einsteinian relativity."-*Larry Azar, Twentieth
> Century in Crisis (1990), p. 180.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "supremacy" and as such doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> "Sixty-three million people would be slaughtered in
> order to obey the evolutionary doctrine that perishing
> is a law of nature."-*Op. cit., p. 181.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the notion of "doctrines" and as such doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> A Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, writing
> for the Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists, said
> this:
> "I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the
> atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that
> made a holocaust possible."-*Edward Simon, "Another
> Side to the Evolution Problem," Jewish Press, January
> 7, 1983, p. 248.

Someone speaking outside his venue offering opinions that are unfounded -- and stupid. Most theists accept the fact of evolution. Additionally Christianity set the stage for allowing Adolf Hitler to do what he did knowing well in advance that Christianity would officially applaud the extermination of Jews given Christianity's history of slaughter.

> *Hitler's fascination with Darwinian thinking went
> back to his childhood.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Not only didn't Hitler know what evolution is and what it is not -- just as you don't know what it is -- Hitler's Christianity "went back to his birth" and continued until the day he died.

> "Adolf Hitler's mind was captivated by evolutionary
> thinking-probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary
> ideas, quite undisguised, lie at the basis of all that is
> worst in Main Kampf and in his public speeches. A few
> quotations, taken at random, will show how Hitler reasoned . .
> [*Hitler said:] 'He who would live must fight; he who does
> not wish to fight, in this world where permanent struggle
> is the law of life, has not the right to exist.' "-*Robert
> E.D. Clark, Darwin: Before and After (1948), p. 115.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution also doesn't have the concept of a "right to life" and as such doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Another article that I found to be interesting
> Darwin - Father of Racism by Russell Leitch
> Survival of the fittest" is a concept seized upon by
> Nazis in their drive to eliminate inferior races.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "inferior" and as such doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Where did they get such an idea?

Adolf Hitler observed the history of his Christian cult and employed the traditions that came before him. The endless slaughter of Jews and others by Christianity down through the centuries was the template which Hitler followed to justify his attempted genocide of all Jews from Europe.

> Several 17th, 18th and 19th century philosophers proposed
> the concept about the same time as initial research was
> developing among pioneer scientists. There was a tendency
> to develop theories among them based upon the scant
> information available. (Posing theories was useful in
> directing further avenues to explore.)

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "philosophies" and as such doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> However, some theories took public attention and
> lingered, being used by persons with axes to grind.
> Such was the case when Charles Darwin (not a scientist)
> produced Origin of the Species.

How utterly silly. Charles Darwin was himself a Creationist however he managed to apply the scientific method toward his studies of observed speciation. Ergo Charles Darwin was a scientist.

Additionally evolution doesn't have the concept of "axes to grind" and as such doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> The subtitle of this book was, "The Preservation of
> the Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "favored" and as such does not constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Its major theme was the development of superior races
> from inferior ones.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "superior" or "inferior." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> It suggested the natural path of eliminating inferior
> races.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "inferior." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Other scholars seized upon it to show the superiority
> of the white race.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "superiority." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> For example, the liberal Darwinist, Thomas Huxley, in
> "Mr. Darwin's Critics," said: "The answer is not far
> to seek. The lowest savages are as devoid of any such
> conception as the brutes themselves. What sort of
> conceptions of space and time, of form and number can
> be possessed by a savage who has not got so far as to
> be able to count beyond five or six?"

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "lowest." "savages," "devoid," or "brutes." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Huxley also wrote,"The savages are akin to the brutes."

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "savages," or "brutes." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Adolf Hitler became enamored of Darwinism. He was
> fired by "race contamination" of his "superior race."

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "contamination," or "superior." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> He tried to eliminate the "unfit," such as physically
> and mentally ill.

And Christianity applauded the practice as something that the Christian gods would want him to do.

> He tried breeding nests for superior types to steer
> evolution. All this is history.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "superiority." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> In the US, the white supremacy movement appeared in
> the form of the Ku Klux Klan, etc.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "superiority." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

Additionally the KKK is a _Christian_ organization which usually meets in Christian churches across the United States. The KKK, Aryan Nations, Church of Jesus Christ Christian, all the Identity versions of Christianity... they're all Christianity.

One wonders why this Creationist "forgot" to mention that.

> In the Tennessee Scopes' trial, Scopes' textbook, "A
> Civic Biology," was used to defend him. It flat out
> stated that Caucasians were "the highest type of all"
> races.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "highest." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> As the civil rights movement grew, organizations were
> formed to claim blacks were not fully evolved, inferior
> types, incapable of development.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "inferior." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Some of their "scientific" revelations are nasty,
> incorrect and laughable, all based on Darwin's survival
> of the fittest philosophy.

One wonders whether this cultist thinks that all social, political, or economical abuses are the result of people not understanding a science.

> As years passed, many scientists rebelled, resulting
> in the prestigious Creation Research Society, consisting
> of hundreds of scientists with advanced degrees who hold
> to the Creation account on scientific grounds as well as
> religious. LSI

<laughing> How utterly silly. No scientist speaking within his or her venue suggests that evolution doesn't happen some how. What we see are a lot of stupid people who think they're some how capable of commenting on biological sciences because they hold degrees in hydraulic engineering while also holding pathological notions about invisible super friends.

The reason why none of these cultists publish in scientific peer reviewed journals is because they can't: what these cultists do and say about biology isn't science.

> Another ariticle I "copied and pasted"

While at the same time ignoring the previous two debunkings I handed to you. That's typical of Creationist cultists who are too cowardly to even bother reading the truth about science.

> Racism Darwinism has provided scientific support to
> racism Darwin predicted that "the civilised races of
> man will...exterminate, and replace, the savage races
> throughout the world"

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "racism," "man's will," or "savage." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> "At some future period, not very distant as measured
> by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost
> certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races
> throughout the world.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "racism," "civilized," or "savage." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as
> Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt
> be exterminated.

And Christianity sure gave it a couple of good tries in the past, huh?

> The break between man and his nearest allies will then
> be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more
> civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian,
> and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now
> between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Darwin,
> Charles R. [English naturalist and founder of the modern
> theory of evolution], "The Descent of Man and Selection
> in Relation to Sex," [1871], John Murray: London, Second
> Edition, 1922, reprint, pp.241-242). [Top of page]

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "allies," or "civilized." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Darwin predicted that "...the lower races will have
> been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout
> the world"

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "lower," or "higher." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> "The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have
> beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "civilized." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Looking to the world at no very distant date, what
> an endless number of the lower races will have been
> eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout
> the world." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist
> and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The
> Life of Charles Darwin", [1902], Senate: London, 1995,
> reprint, p.64). [Top of page]

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "lower," or "higher." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> T.H. Huxley claimed that "no rational man...believes
> that the average negro is the equal, still less the
> superior, of the average white man"

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "equal," or "superior." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> "It may be quite true that some negroes are better
> than some white men; but no rational man, cognisant
> of the facts, believes that the average negro is
> the equal, still less the superior, of the average
> white man.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "better," or "equal," or "superior." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> And, if this be true, it is simply incredible that,
> when all his disabilities are removed, and our
> prognathous relative has a fair field and no favour,
> as well as no oppressor, he will be able to compete
> successfully with his bigger-brained and smallerjawed
> rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by
> thoughts and not by bites.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth.

> The highest places in the hierarchy of civilisation
> will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky
> cousins, though it is by no means necessary that they
> should be restricted to the lowest." (Huxley, Thomas
> Henry [Anatomist, Dean of the Royal College of Science,
> and "Darwin's Bulldog"], "Emancipation-Black and White,"
> in Rhys E., ed., "Lectures and Lay Sermons," [1871],
> Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Co: London, 1926,
> reprint, p.115). [Top of page]

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "highest," or "lowest," As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Eugenics Darwinism has provided scientific support
> for eugenics Darwin warned against allowing "the weak
> members of civilised societies [to] propagate their
> kind"

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "eugenics," or "weak members," or "civilization." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> "With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon
> eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit
> a vigorous state of health.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "savages." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost
> to check the process of elimination; we build asylums
> for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute
> poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill
> to save the life of every one to the last moment.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "civilized." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> There is reason to believe that vaccination has
> preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution
> would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the
> weak members of civilised societies propagate their
> kind.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "civilized." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic
> animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious
> to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want
> of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the
> degeneration of a domestic race;
> but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly
> any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals
> to breed." (Darwin, Charles R. [English naturalist
> and founder of the modern theory of evolution], "The
> Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex," [1871],
> John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint,
> pp.205-206) [Top of page]

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "degeneration." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Nazism "A direct line runs from Darwin...to the
> extermination camps of Nazi Europe"

Hitler's attempts to exterminate Jews was the direct consequences of Christianity's attempts previously described in the cult's bloody history. Hitler didn't do anything which Christianity hadn't done long before Hitler was born.

> "Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in
> Germany. ...

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "apostles." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> His evolutionary racism ... contributed to the rise
> of Nazism"

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "racism." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> "Since Darwin's death, all has not been rosy in the
> evolutionary garden. The theories of the Great Bearded
> One have been hijacked by cranks, politicians, social
> reformers-and scientists-to support racist and bigoted
> views.

Most of them Christian, amusingly enough.

> A direct line runs from Darwin, through the founder
> of the eugenics movement-Darwin's cousin, Francis
> Galton-to the extermination camps of Nazi Europe."
> (Brookes, Martin.,"Ripe old age," Review of "Of Flies,
> Mice and Men," by Francois Jacob, Harvard University
> Press, 1999, New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171, 30
> January 1998, p41, New Scientist, Vol. 161, No. 2171,
> 30 January 1998, p41). [Top of page]

Unfounded opinions offered by individuals speaking outside of their venue. Also ignores Christianity's bloody history.

> "Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany. ...

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "apostles." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> His evolutionary racism ... contributed to the rise of Nazism"

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "racism." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> "Haeckel was the chief apostle of evolution in Germany.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "apostles." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Nordenskiold (1929) argues that he was even more
> influential than Darwin in convincing the world of
> the truth of evolution. ...

And in fact evolution is a directly observed phenomena not subject to belief or disbelief.

> But, as Gasman argues, Haeckel's greatest influence
> was, ultimately, in another, tragic direction-national
> socialism.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "socialism." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> His evolutionary racism;

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "racism." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> his call to the German people for racial purity and
> unflinching devotion to a "just" state;

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concept of "racial purity." As such this notion doesn't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution
> ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring
> upon favored races the right to dominate others; the
> irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange
> communion with his brave words about objective science-all
> contributed to the rise of Nazism.

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "civilization," or "favored," "domination," "mysticism," "rights," or "Nazism." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> The Monist League that he had founded and led, though
> it included a wing of pacifists and leftists, made a
> comfortable transition to active support for Hitler."
> (Gould, Stephen J. [Professor of Zoology and Geology,
> Harvard University], "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap
> Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78). [Top of page]

Debunked soundly in my previous reply to you. Ignored utterly by you because you weren't interested in the truth. Evolution doesn't have the concepts of "pacifists," or "leftists." As such these notions don't constitute any of the theories of evolution.

> Golly, we hicks out here in the Ozarks do actually
> have a libr'y out here. I actually got into my
> Flintstone mobile (ya know, the car with rocks for wheels
> and a hole in the bottom so you can put your feet through)
> and went to the local libr'y and chekd me out sum reel
> gud books!

Your local library apparently didn't have any books on evolution. That's another traditional behavior from Creationist cultists: it's not that they don't know there are books widely available at their local library which will describe what evolution is and what evolution is not, it's that these Creationist cultists don't _want_ to know what evolution is and what it is not.

The reason why cultists cling to their superstitions in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is not because they're wholly insane -- appearances to the contrary -- but because they mistakenly think that the truth adversely impacts their comfortable superstitions some how.

Yes, your local library could teach you some things about science. No, your mental dysfunction precludes you making use of your local library when it comes to anything which you mistakenly think will exterminate your superstitions.

In fact the vast majority of theists accept the fact of evolution while at the same time continue to believe in their deity constructs with perfect comfort. It is -- fortunately -- only a small percentage of theists in the world that some how think science has anything to say one way or another about untestable notions.

Science and occult superstition are never in conflict when said superstitions are untestable. Granted, when an occult notion lends itself toward being tested, science always wins. When it comes to deity constructs, however, those remain outside the venue of science because they can't be tested.

Most theists are comfortable in their occult superstitions enough that they can also accept science. There may be good reason to suspect that the Creationists among us are weak in their faith and as such are unwilling to accept science.

> And this is what one of them sed: "Adolph (sic) Hitler
> applied the evolutionary ideas of the survival of the
> fittest in a distorted way to justify death camps" from
> Evolution The Great Debate by Blackmore and Page (page 156)

An unfounded opinion stated by someone speaking outside of his or her venue.

> Fine, if you want to put anything I said on your
> website, I would be proud to have this placed there.

I'm sure. That's another traditional trait of Creationist cultists: they don't seem to be able to be embarrassed by their own behavior.

> Perhaps someone seeing the truth would actually help someone.

That I seriously doubt since Creationist cultists don't want to admit the truth about sciences they mistakenly think some how exterminates their gods and goddesses. Those who don't employ reason can't be reasoned with and I seriously doubt whether any Creationist has ever been swayed by the truth of what their own senses tell them.

Most theists, of course, accept the observed fact of evolution. To do otherwise is to exhibit behavior that is remarkably akin of a profoundly disturbed mind; one that's incapable of separating fact from fiction, reality from fairy stories.

> I must end our conversation here. Please don't email
> me back. If you do I will just ignore it. I have better
> more productive things to do with my time.
> Bye!

You didn't spend any time since you had no intention to read the truth about what your cult leaders have been selling you. What you did was generally called the "Gish Gallup" -- unthinkingly spout off a lot of stupid lies in rapid order and then, when confronted with a sound debunking on all points, blink a few times and then rattle off another endless series of stupid lies.

It's hard to find another subset of humanity which exhibits all the unfavorable traits which Creationists exhibit as a matter of their unthinking programming. Running away from the truth to try to hold on to a knowingly false yet comforting superstition is, unfortunately, one of humanity's most unenviable genetic traits, a trait which is the result of humanity's evolutionary development.

Any text written by the creationist cult which may be quoted within this criticial examination of the creationist cult is provided according to U. S. Code Title 17 "Fair Use" dictates which may be reviewed at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html

"You can lie about ICR all you want." -- Jason Daniel Henderson

"Thank you for your permission however there's never any need to. Creationist propaganda is already self-debunking." -- Fredric L. Rice

This web site is not affiliated or associated with any creationist cult in any way and neither the web site host, the web site owner, or any of the authors which assisted in debunking creationist nonsense are in any way connected with any creationist cult.