[_ Old Earth _] The fallacy of evolution

[reznwerks]

Re: evidence

I think that those of you who believe in evolution should just read the following before judging:

History of evolution:

People who claim that evolution is a fairy tale from philosophy are right. In the 1st century B.C., a greek named Lucretius, an open opponent to Scripture, wrote "On the Nature of the Universe." In this he says that all animals descended from each other and that people today had enormous ancestors who lived in caves with strong sinews!
Imagine that! Even back then there was someone who could think. Lucretius was very insightful. Today we have the evidence to back the claim.

Unfortunately you fail to see the humor in that. I stated this example to show that the theory of evolution is a figment of people's imagination.
No what you have shown is the first step in scientific investigation and that was the idea or theory. Over the years the evidence and testing has gotten better which has now drawn a conclusion and that is evolution is a real process which has occurred and is occurring.


Evidence to back that claim? We all have the same evidence. We all have the same earth, we all have the same fossils, it's the interpretations that make the differences.
Interpretation has nothing to do with it. When you see what should be seen at certain stages that is called hard evidence.


The axiom of evolution is materialism, and the axiom of creationists is the Word of God. I suppose by stating that the theory of evolution is backed by evidence you mean to say that all of information theory is wrong?
Now you are trying to argue against evolution based on morality. Please stay on track. Evolution argues from evidence only and there is plenty.Remember before evolution there was religion and it had a captive audience and the facts turned the tables not the morality.

Also he claims that if people weren't concerned about what was right or wrong, and did what they desired, then they would develop "freely." His reasoning for denying scripture was that something couldn't have come from nothing and thus God couldn't have created the earth out of nothing. In those days they assumed the earth was infinite in time.
Your last statement makes no sense at all.

Darwin was not the Einstein of biology, most of his "findings" are derived from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin's book Zoonomia (1794) and Lamarck provided him with the millions of years he needed for evolution to work. (Note so far there is no evidence but the different species and Darwin's axiom).
Darwin wasn't a biologist and it makes no difference where his ideas came from. Ideas always come from a source .It was his grandfather , so what. No evidence at this point in time. Again Darwin was insightful too. We now have the evidence.

I never said Darwin was a biologist. I very well know that he was the naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle. Instead of proclaiming the diversity that our Creator made he decided to proclaim that the species all came from a common ancestor.
That is what he observed and over the years he has been proved correct. It still looks like we all came from a common ancestor. The bodily functions of all mammals work almost identical as with all reptiles etc and all living things share at least some bodily functions.

[quote:1d281]
The reason why evolution became shoved in our faces was because the church, not the scientists supported it.
Care to cite your source. Science only provides the evidence the reader then decides to make up his mind. Most people side with the overwhelming evidence.

Science provides evidence through objective experimentation. Evolution and darwinism can't be tested in the laboratories and any tries have failed such as the Miller experiment, and others have contradicted Darwin with actual experiments instead of imaginative postulates. Those people include Gregor Mendel and his pea experiments which was the founding of genetics as well as Louis Pasteur who showed spontaneous generation was also an illusion which brought tremendous difficulties upon Darwin's theory. Both Mendel and Pasteur believed in the doctrine of Special Creation.
Just because some tests failed doesn't mean the theories are incorrect . Look where we would be if Einstein walked away after failing the first couple of tests with the light bulb. He failed thousands of times before he got it right. I don't care what Pasteur or Mendels personal views of the universe were. Facts trump belief hands down.

[quote:1d281]
At the time, the church claimed that Darwin's theory was exactly what was written in Scripture. Scientists such as Gregor Mendel, Maxwell, Pasture and others rejected his theory.
At the time evolutionary theory was not well thought out and those scientists you mentioned were not skilled in evolutionary thought and more importantly were devout Christians and they knew the implications of the reality.

I suggest you research on this subject because real devout pastors proclaimed evolution as fitting with Scripture which is why it got the support.
I think you need to cite your source for one. Secondly IF they did this then it was OBVIOUS to them the evidence pointed to evolution and they were trying to walk a fine line and stay in business.

Mutations:

Most people think of evolution as a step by step process. It is not so. The very definition of evolution is random.
I don't know what dictionary you are using but the one I use says it is the exact opposite of what you claim. Would you care to cite your sources?

If you think that evolution is a process which has a mechanism that makes a 100% better thing every time it tries then obviously you have no understanding on this subject at all.
Who said anything about making things better with evolution? Evolution is what gives man most of his back problems and it is evolution that causes a whole lot of problems with women and childbearing, it is evolution that gives dentists the keys to the bank. If anyone has no understanding of evolution it is you.

Atheistic evolution, which is what I assume you believe in is when random mutations rearrange the genome into a better fit. Yet this only results in the loss of information and does not gain any kilobases as needed for the genome to progress. This is actually needed if nature is all that evolution is instead of a guiding hand which is theistic evolution or gap theory.
Atheistic evolution? No such animal exists. There is either evolution or there is not and I have shown many time where it has occurred and where it still occurs. The easiest example is the influenza virus which changes yearly.

Radio Carbon dating, & others.:

Most evolutionist folk claim that radio carbon dating is solid evidence for a million year old earth. Radio carbon dating, unfortunately can only give up to 50,000 year-old objects. In fact, it's a puzzle why some "prehistoric" coal still contains Carbon-14. Other methods include Argon, potassium and others. These methods were tested on a newly erupted lava from a volcano and the potassium one showed 45,000 year old crust, whereas the argon one showed 45 million.
At least one bright spot in this post and that is Protos will admit to the earth being at least 50000 years old.

??

The imaginary treeline of man:

Australopithecines, A.Robustus, Homo Habilis, Homo erectus, and friends are the imaginary treeline of man. Evolutionists claim that these are our ancestors, when in fact Australopithecines such as lucy and other species such as A.Robustus have been found to be extinct species of monkeys. There is no practical way of having a half hopping, half walking creature, because that results in the loss of excess energy making it a prey of natural selection. All of the homo's are different people, though there is some question about Homo habilis.

As a final nail in this treeline, all three skeletons have been found at the same spot dated at the same geological spot in Olduvai Gorge, Africa: Australopithecines, Homo Habilis and A.Robustus, not to mention that at the same place was found an 800,000 year old hut.
[/color=blue] It's getting better. Protos will now admit to the earth being at least 800,000 years old.[/color]

????Are you even reading or just looking up specific words. Again information... You have to keep in mind that if we use the timeframe of evolution we can show it's wrong, just as if you assume that an irrational number is a fraction and prove it's not so if you assume that evolution is true you can show it's inconsistencies. Just because you assume something is true does not make it so as you seem to think. I said it's 800,000 years within the context of the evolutionary timeframe. In fact those 800,000 year old objects are less than 4,000 years old but the methods of dating are flawed as is stated above.
I am assuming you are a YEC'r( young earth creationist) and if so your arguements don't support your position.

Misconceptions:

Aside from the evolutionist mass' misconception of the process of evolution itself, most evolutionist proponents claim that natural selection proves evolution. That's what Darwin thought, until Gregor Mendel came (with actual experimental evidence) and showed him wrong. Then in 1941, a committee of 3 scientists made neo-Darwinism. Natural selection is something accepted by creationists just as all types of dogs came from one dog and so all people came from Adam and Eve.
Your mixing politics and science and a lot of information has come alons since 1941 and if anything evolution is accepted more now than ever.


Mendel wasn't around in the late 90's to witness the influenza virus change on a yearly basis. This is evolution before your very eyes.

Influenza virus change and evolution before my very eyes? How do you figure that is evolution?
It is exactly what occurs when an organism confronts a challenge (change). Some organisms change in time and some do not which results in extinction.

Or are you again making an assumption? If you mean the current adaptation of bacteria resistant to penicillin then let me tell you this. The bacteria which have resistance to penicillin originally had a gene which controlled the amount of enzymes which counter-reacted penicillin. A genetic mutation RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF GENETIC INFORMATION caused a malfunction of this gene and through natural selection the bacteria which had this gene damaged survive currently penicillin injections.
Exactly , that is what evolution is. You are only proving my point. Basically you are arguing the survival of the fittest concept. This only occurs when an organism has the ability to survive the onslaught of something and is able to pass this ability on.

Atrocities committed in the name of evolution:

Many people claim that the Crusades and such events make the "Abrahamic religions," as put forth by Oxford chairman and atheist Richard Dawkins, are prone to be more violent due to belief in an afterlife.
In short it is believed that religion, by claiming an afterlife cheapens this life and so it is often callous in its call to war.

No, Dawkins was claiming that since we have a life after death, religious people are detrimental to society since they will have no respect for this life. This is wrong as murder and all the morals accepted by society today are based on the Bible (except gay marriage and such).

Aside from Darwin himself not believing in medicine because it helped the weak that "must" be eliminated, the 20th century, the bloodiest one killed more people because of the evolutionist ideal driven people such as Hitler, and Stalin. Hitler's regime was based on one of his early NDSAP party scientists which he admired.
Read Meinkampf. Hitlers quotes are abundant and clear and he fervently believed he was doing the work of the "LORD".

Hitler may have believed in God but he was nevertheless an evolutionist which was the driving force behind the murder of millions.
I don't think Hitler gave two squats about evolution and don't understand how you could even come to that conclusion. If anything Hitler believed the Aryans were the chosen people of God. That is hardly an evolutionary thougt. Here a link since you won't read the book.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

This scientist developed the concept of "living-space" or lebensraum which very much appealed to Hitler and his motives. By proclaiming that the Jews were an 'inferior' race he had the excuse to kill 6 million of them. Because of Hitler and his evolutionist theory 40 million people were killed. Communism alone killed about 90 million people. Mao Zedong and his regime killed tens of millions to gain power in China.
Does anyone but you believe that the above atrocities occurred because of evolution? Perhaps you overlooked the obvious, POLITICS and POWER.

Stalin did what he wanted to stay in power. As you know communists were atheists ("Religion is the opiate of the people" -Karl Marx).
Being atheist was not the motivation to have power.

According to communists evolution was fact which gave them the excuse to kill "unfit" people as they wanted.
I don't think you can provide one quote of those you used that referenced evolution in any way.

In all history at most 17 million people were killed in Christ, and by perfectly justifiable reasons committed by Muslims, such as burning of the Holy Sepulcher. Darwinism killed 150 million in just one century.
I think you need a history lesson.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5195/victims.html

Anybody can make a geocities biased site.
Well try going to a library and check the claims. It's the big building with a lot of books and now has electronic media.

I've read actual books, and even though they were anti-European they still mentioned the fact that in 1009 The Holy Sepulcher was burned by the Muslim Caliph, though it said he was mad and the muslims supposedly excused everyone, but my people know the truth about how Muslims convert people by the sword, and I doubt that people were allowed the religious freedom the book claimed.
You are again confusing politics and science. Religion of all types have been putting people to the sword for ages.


Nevertheless I doubt that a person as righteous as the Pope would call onto hundreds of thousands to their demise without a purpose. If you need more convincing I'd be glad to provide links in the near future for all that I've wrote.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The pope is human and religion likes power. I don't need any links to what you have posted sinced I have an overwhelming amount of links that will counter it . Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.






[/quote:1d281][/quote:1d281]

 

[Heidi]

Since you don't provide any documents or soruces for your assertions and if you do, they're all liars, nothing you say can be proven. It's all from your imagination, rezenwerks.

 

[reznwerks]

sorry

Since you don't provide any documents or soruces for your assertions and if you do, they're all liars, nothing you say can be proven. It's all from your imagination, rezenwerks.

Sorry to disagree with you again but everything I posted is easily proven by going to the local library.

 

[Heidi]

Re: sorry

Since you don't provide any documents or soruces for your assertions and if you do, they're all liars, nothing you say can be proven. It's all from your imagination, rezenwerks.

Sorry to disagree with you again but everything I posted is easily proven by going to the local library.

But earlier you said that nothing can be proven which contradicts this post of yours. So which is it? :o

 

[Frost Giant]

More lame tricks by Carico, er, I mean, Heidi. Why do accepters of evolution have to be 100% correct 100% of the time for evolution to be true? The correct answer is they don't. Please refrain from commenting on a specific poster and keep to the topic at hand.

 

[protos]

The Theory of Evolution doesn't give anyone the "right" to do anything. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes mechanisms found in nature and how they contribute to changes in lifeforms.

Morals do change. Slavery was thought to be ok centuries ago in the US, but now it is generally looked down upon. Morals are based on what a society deems to be bad or harmful to the functioning of that society.

This is not what Hitler thought whose actions were perfectly justified to his countrymen by the theory of evolution:

These Hitler Youth, wrote war correspondent Ralph Allen, were beardless killers whose highest aim was to die, whose only god was Hitler, who came rustling through through the spring wheat, a screaming curtain of mortars just ahead of them, the fearsome clanking of their tanks behind.(Voices from D-Day, Johnathan Bastable, p.207, paragraph 2)

Evolution eliminates the purposes for all morals because that is mercy to the 'weak' that 'deserve' to die. Evolution brought Hitler's anti-Semitism and mass-ethnic cleansing because of the theory of evolution. The japanese kamikazes did not believe in the soul, yet they more than willingly, in fact, zealously died.

Edit: As for you reznwks, you neither understand the principles of evolution, nor should you claim to.

A gene, which controls a function and is destroyed is not evolution, it is counter-evolution because of the loss of information. For evolution to work you need the gaining of information and kilobases in genomes which mutations unfortunately for you don't provide.

 

[protos]

Re: evidence

Unfortunately you fail to see the humor in that. I stated this example to show that the theory of evolution is a figment of people's imagination.
No what you have shown is the first step in scientific investigation and that was the idea or theory. Over the years the evidence and testing has gotten better which has now drawn a conclusion and that is evolution is a real process which has occurred and is occurring.

Science is objective, not philosophical.

Evidence to back that claim? We all have the same evidence. We all have the same earth, we all have the same fossils, it's the interpretations that make the differences.
Interpretation has nothing to do with it. When you see what should be seen at certain stages that is called hard evidence.

Again, you have no understanding in this area either. If you fail to recognize that both Creationists and evolutionists have the same earth and same fossils then we shouldn't even be discussing this.

The axiom of evolution is materialism, and the axiom of creationists is the Word of God. I suppose by stating that the theory of evolution is backed by evidence you mean to say that all of information theory is wrong?
Now you are trying to argue against evolution based on morality. Please stay on track. Evolution argues from evidence only and there is plenty.Remember before evolution there was religion and it had a captive audience and the facts turned the tables not the morality.

Really there's plenty of evidence for evolution? Name one specific piece of evidence that in some way propagates evolution.

Also he claims that if people weren't concerned about what was right or wrong, and did what they desired, then they would develop "freely." His reasoning for denying scripture was that something couldn't have come from nothing and thus God couldn't have created the earth out of nothing. In those days they assumed the earth was infinite in time.
Your last statement makes no sense at all.

Obviously you can't understand plain English so I find it hard how you try to understand a theory especially one as controversial as evolution. The Greeks thought that the universe had no beginning because it had infinitely existed.

Darwin was not the Einstein of biology, most of his "findings" are derived from his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin's book Zoonomia (1794) and Lamarck provided him with the millions of years he needed for evolution to work. (Note so far there is no evidence but the different species and Darwin's axiom).
Darwin wasn't a biologist and it makes no difference where his ideas came from. Ideas always come from a source .It was his grandfather , so what. No evidence at this point in time. Again Darwin was insightful too. We now have the evidence.

Yes I can get a number of axioms which undermine all of experimental science, chemistry, laws of chance, and pretty much everything else and claim that I have evidence. Where is this mighty evidence you speak of?

I never said Darwin was a biologist. I very well know that he was the naturalist aboard the HMS Beagle. Instead of proclaiming the diversity that our Creator made he decided to proclaim that the species all came from a common ancestor.
That is what he observed and over the years he has been proved correct. It still looks like we all came from a common ancestor. The bodily functions of all mammals work almost identical as with all reptiles etc and all living things share at least some bodily functions.

How has he been proven correct over the years? To date science hasn't observed a species 1)Gain information in its genome through natural mutations 2)Evolve. The excuse that Darwin gives is millions of years which is untestable.

The reason why evolution became shoved in our faces was because the church, not the scientists supported it.
Care to cite your source. Science only provides the evidence the reader then decides to make up his mind. Most people side with the overwhelming evidence.

Unfortunately you're not one of those people.

Science provides evidence through objective experimentation. Evolution and darwinism can't be tested in the laboratories and any tries have failed such as the Miller experiment, and others have contradicted Darwin with actual experiments instead of imaginative postulates. Those people include Gregor Mendel and his pea experiments which was the founding of genetics as well as Louis Pasteur who showed spontaneous generation was also an illusion which brought tremendous difficulties upon Darwin's theory. Both Mendel and Pasteur believed in the doctrine of Special Creation.
Just because some tests failed doesn't mean the theories are incorrect . Look where we would be if Einstein walked away after failing the first couple of tests with the light bulb. He failed thousands of times before he got it right. I don't care what Pasteur or Mendels personal views of the universe were. Facts trump belief hands down.

Tests that didn't come close to produce life even at the comfortable experiments Miller and others did in hopes to produce life. Einstein's theory is already proven in 1919 which is why he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1921. Then in the 1970's gravity was shown to slow down time. Darwin can't be proven because his hypotheses can't be tested.

At the time, the church claimed that Darwin's theory was exactly what was written in Scripture. Scientists such as Gregor Mendel, Maxwell, Pasture and others rejected his theory.
At the time evolutionary theory was not well thought out and those scientists you mentioned were not skilled in evolutionary thought and more importantly were devout Christians and they knew the implications of the reality.



I suggest you research on this subject because real devout pastors proclaimed evolution as fitting with Scripture which is why it got the support.
I think you need to cite your source for one. Secondly IF they did this then it was OBVIOUS to them the evidence pointed to evolution and they were trying to walk a fine line and stay in business.

Again this imaginary evidence for evolution you're speaking of comes to play. I can claim any evidence for anything.

Mutations:

Most people think of evolution as a step by step process. It is not so. The very definition of evolution is random.
I don't know what dictionary you are using but the one I use says it is the exact opposite of what you claim. Would you care to cite your sources?

If you think that evolution is a process which has a mechanism that makes a 100% better thing every time it tries then obviously you have no understanding on this subject at all.
Who said anything about making things better with evolution? Evolution is what gives man most of his back problems and it is evolution that causes a whole lot of problems with women and childbearing, it is evolution that gives dentists the keys to the bank. If anyone has no understanding of evolution it is you.

Evolution is supposed to make living things better and now I really think you should evaluate your knowledge and concepts about evolution because if evolution did produced people, then by your definition we're inferior to bacteria. Evolution is the gaining of information through random mutations, which is impossible.

Atheistic evolution, which is what I assume you believe in is when random mutations rearrange the genome into a better fit. Yet this only results in the loss of information and does not gain any kilobases as needed for the genome to progress. This is actually needed if nature is all that evolution is instead of a guiding hand which is theistic evolution or gap theory.
Atheistic evolution? No such animal exists. There is either evolution or there is not and I have shown many time where it has occurred and where it still occurs. The easiest example is the influenza virus which changes yearly.

Again influenza is the loss of information. It did not increase in either chromosomes, nor information. Again I'm explaining to you for the third time that in the early influenza viruses there was a gene which controlled, and held back the production of enzymes which counter-reacted penicillin. Through natural mutations this gene was damaged and an overproduction of the enzyme has today counterreacted successfully with penicillin. This has nothing to do with evolution, it is natural selection.

Radio Carbon dating, & others.:

Most evolutionist folk claim that radio carbon dating is solid evidence for a million year old earth. Radio carbon dating, unfortunately can only give up to 50,000 year-old objects. In fact, it's a puzzle why some "prehistoric" coal still contains Carbon-14. Other methods include Argon, potassium and others. These methods were tested on a newly erupted lava from a volcano and the potassium one showed 45,000 year old crust, whereas the argon one showed 45 million.
At least one bright spot in this post and that is Protos will admit to the earth being at least 50000 years old.

??

[quote:35c99]
The imaginary treeline of man:

Australopithecines, A.Robustus, Homo Habilis, Homo erectus, and friends are the imaginary treeline of man. Evolutionists claim that these are our ancestors, when in fact Australopithecines such as lucy and other species such as A.Robustus have been found to be extinct species of monkeys. There is no practical way of having a half hopping, half walking creature, because that results in the loss of excess energy making it a prey of natural selection. All of the homo's are different people, though there is some question about Homo habilis.

As a final nail in this treeline, all three skeletons have been found at the same spot dated at the same geological spot in Olduvai Gorge, Africa: Australopithecines, Homo Habilis and A.Robustus, not to mention that at the same place was found an 800,000 year old hut.
[/color=blue] It's getting better. Protos will now admit to the earth being at least 800,000 years old.[/color]

????Are you even reading or just looking up specific words. Again information... You have to keep in mind that if we use the timeframe of evolution we can show it's wrong, just as if you assume that an irrational number is a fraction and prove it's not so if you assume that evolution is true you can show it's inconsistencies. Just because you assume something is true does not make it so as you seem to think. I said it's 800,000 years within the context of the evolutionary timeframe. In fact those 800,000 year old objects are less than 4,000 years old but the methods of dating are flawed as is stated above.
I am assuming you are a YEC'r( young earth creationist) and if so your arguements don't support your position.

Another claim, one of many.

Misconceptions:

Aside from the evolutionist mass' misconception of the process of evolution itself, most evolutionist proponents claim that natural selection proves evolution. That's what Darwin thought, until Gregor Mendel came (with actual experimental evidence) and showed him wrong. Then in 1941, a committee of 3 scientists made neo-Darwinism. Natural selection is something accepted by creationists just as all types of dogs came from one dog and so all people came from Adam and Eve.
Your mixing politics and science and a lot of information has come alons since 1941 and if anything evolution is accepted more now than ever.

Evolution is increasingly being thrown out by more and more people and scientists every day. Even if most people believe in evolution today, keep in mind that the Geocentric Theory held for 2000 years despite lack of evidence and in fact proof of the opposite (Aristhenes 3rd Century A.D.). Today the geocentric theory is evolution, and the Heliocentric theory is Creationism.

Mendel wasn't around in the late 90's to witness the influenza virus change on a yearly basis. This is evolution before your very eyes.

Influenza virus change and evolution before my very eyes? How do you figure that is evolution?
It is exactly what occurs when an organism confronts a challenge (change). Some organisms change in time and some do not which results in extinction.

Or are you again making an assumption? If you mean the current adaptation of bacteria resistant to penicillin then let me tell you this. The bacteria which have resistance to penicillin originally had a gene which controlled the amount of enzymes which counter-reacted penicillin. A genetic mutation RESULTING IN THE LOSS OF GENETIC INFORMATION caused a malfunction of this gene and through natural selection the bacteria which had this gene damaged survive currently penicillin injections.
Exactly , that is what evolution is. You are only proving my point. Basically you are arguing the survival of the fittest concept. This only occurs when an organism has the ability to survive the onslaught of something and is able to pass this ability on.

If I have to repeat the following one more time I'll assume you're some middle schooler who either chooses to ignore what I wrote and persists with his dogma, or you can't understand my responses.[/quote:35c99]

Again loss of information which is in a deformed genes. Evolution is supposed to make better genes, not destroy already existing ones.

Atrocities committed in the name of evolution:

Many people claim that the Crusades and such events make the "Abrahamic religions," as put forth by Oxford chairman and atheist Richard Dawkins, are prone to be more violent due to belief in an afterlife.
In short it is believed that religion, by claiming an afterlife cheapens this life and so it is often callous in its call to war.

No, Dawkins was claiming that since we have a life after death, religious people are detrimental to society since they will have no respect for this life. This is wrong as murder and all the morals accepted by society today are based on the Bible (except gay marriage and such).

Aside from Darwin himself not believing in medicine because it helped the weak that "must" be eliminated, the 20th century, the bloodiest one killed more people because of the evolutionist ideal driven people such as Hitler, and Stalin. Hitler's regime was based on one of his early NDSAP party scientists which he admired.
Read Meinkampf. Hitlers quotes are abundant and clear and he fervently believed he was doing the work of the "LORD".

Hitler may have believed in God but he was nevertheless an evolutionist which was the driving force behind the murder of millions.
I don't think Hitler gave two squats about evolution and don't understand how you could even come to that conclusion. If anything Hitler believed the Aryans were the chosen people of God. That is hardly an evolutionary thougt. Here a link since you won't read the book.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

These Hitler Youth, wrote war correspondent Ralph Allen, were beardless killers whose highest aim was to die, whose only god was Hitler, who came rustling through the spring wheat, a screaming curtain of mortars just ahead of them, the fearsome clanking of their tanks behind.(Voices from D-Day, Johnathan Bastable, p.207, paragraph 2).

obviously he was an evolutionist, and this plain and simple fact which you are so ardently trying to contradict to no avail shows that what in fact you are doing is defending dogma, a.k.a. evolution, since you fail to show the ability to use logic. If you think Hitler wasn't an evolutionist and yet killed 6 million 'inferior' Jews, then you should save yourself the embarassment from further posting on this topic.

This scientist developed the concept of "living-space" or lebensraum which very much appealed to Hitler and his motives. By proclaiming that the Jews were an 'inferior' race he had the excuse to kill 6 million of them. Because of Hitler and his evolutionist theory 40 million people were killed. Communism alone killed about 90 million people. Mao Zedong and his regime killed tens of millions to gain power in China.
Does anyone but you believe that the above atrocities occurred because of evolution? Perhaps you overlooked the obvious, POLITICS and POWER.

Stalin did what he wanted to stay in power. As you know communists were atheists ("Religion is the opiate of the people" -Karl Marx).
Being atheist was not the motivation to have power.

According to communists evolution was fact which gave them the excuse to kill "unfit" people as they wanted.
I don't think you can provide one quote of those you used that referenced evolution in any way.

Obviously someone who thinks that religion is the opiate of the people is going to believe in evolution which is again a fact which you can ask anybody from the former Soviet Union. My dad lived during those times, and everyone except for maybe you, knows that the Soviets were evolutionists.

In all history at most 17 million people were killed in Christ, and by perfectly justifiable reasons committed by Muslims, such as burning of the Holy Sepulcher. Darwinism killed 150 million in just one century.
I think you need a history lesson.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5195/victims.html

Anybody can make a geocities biased site.
Well try going to a library and check the claims. It's the big building with a lot of books and now has electronic media.

I've read actual books, and even though they were anti-European they still mentioned the fact that in 1009 The Holy Sepulcher was burned by the Muslim Caliph, though it said he was mad and the muslims supposedly excused everyone, but my people know the truth about how Muslims convert people by the sword, and I doubt that people were allowed the religious freedom the book claimed.
You are again confusing politics and science. Religion of all types have been putting people to the sword for ages.

I was stating that the Crusades were in a small way justified, though not all the way. And once again your claim that religion has been putting people to the sword for ages, shows your disregard for the above, which means you use zero logic. 140 million were killed in one century in the name of evolution, whereas at most 17 million where killed in Christ.

Nevertheless I doubt that a person as righteous as the Pope would call onto hundreds of thousands to their demise without a purpose. If you need more convincing I'd be glad to provide links in the near future for all that I've wrote.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The pope is human and religion likes power. I don't need any links to what you have posted sinced I have an overwhelming amount of links that will counter it . Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts.

yes the pope is human, and you are have the arguing skills of a 7th grader.






[/quote][/quote]

 

[WillyGilligan]

Evolution eliminates the purposes for all morals because that is mercy to the 'weak' that 'deserve' to die. Evolution brought Hitler's anti-Semitism and mass-ethnic cleansing because of the theory of evolution. The japanese kamikazes did not believe in the soul, yet they more than willingly, in fact, zealously died.

An argument that I once heard put forward stated that black people bore the mark of Cain (dark skin), as they were all decended from the first murderer. Because of this, the argument went, slavery was perfectly justified and any attempt to treat black people as equals went against God's plan.

Now, abhorrent as that line of reasoning is, was Christianity the cause or the excuse in that belief?

As for

These Hitler Youth, wrote war correspondent Ralph Allen, were beardless killers whose highest aim was to die, whose only god was Hitler, who came rustling through through the spring wheat, a screaming curtain of mortars just ahead of them, the fearsome clanking of their tanks behind.(Voices from D-Day, Johnathan Bastable, p.207, paragraph 2)

I'm not sure where evolution enters into that at all. The correspondent said that their only god was Hitler. Rather than a sign of their obesiance to evolution, I think it's evidence of a statement attributed to Hitler. It went something along the lines of "Give me a child from a young age and he's mine forever." If you catch someone young enough, you can get them to believe all kinds of things.

 

[pfilmtech]

Give me a second here. Are you actually claiming that belief in evolutionary theory is what motivated Hitler? Yes all evolutionary scientists are really looking for an excuse to kill millions of people. You caught us.

 

[WillyGilligan]

Evolution is supposed to make living things better and now I really think you should evaluate your knowledge and concepts about evolution because if evolution did produced people, then by your definition we're inferior to bacteria. Evolution is the gaining of information through random mutations, which is impossible.

"Better" how? Is there an absolute standard by which we judge genetic composition? Or could it be that the definition of better would change depending on what factors you were looking at. As for us being inferior to bacteria, what criterion are we talking about? How would you like to measure us against bacteria? If it's population or biomass, they win. If it's capacity for the Holy Spirit, then I can't think of a way to measure it, so that's not a contest.

Evolution is the study of how organisms change over time. That change can involve gain or loss of information. Evolution explains why some animals have vestigial parts (like the little stub of a tail called our coccyx). Any given change would be good or bad depending on the environment involved. Even a gain of information could be bad if it occured in an environment for which it was unsuited.

 

[armed2010]

The Theory of Evolution doesn't give anyone the "right" to do anything. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes mechanisms found in nature and how they contribute to changes in lifeforms.

Morals do change. Slavery was thought to be ok centuries ago in the US, but now it is generally looked down upon. Morals are based on what a society deems to be bad or harmful to the functioning of that society.

This is not what Hitler thought whose actions were perfectly justified to his countrymen by the theory of evolution:

These Hitler Youth, wrote war correspondent Ralph Allen, were beardless killers whose highest aim was to die, whose only god was Hitler, who came rustling through through the spring wheat, a screaming curtain of mortars just ahead of them, the fearsome clanking of their tanks behind.(Voices from D-Day, Johnathan Bastable, p.207, paragraph 2)

Evolution eliminates the purposes for all morals because that is mercy to the 'weak' that 'deserve' to die. Evolution brought Hitler's anti-Semitism and mass-ethnic cleansing because of the theory of evolution. The japanese kamikazes did not believe in the soul, yet they more than willingly, in fact, zealously died.

Edit: As for you reznwks, you neither understand the principles of evolution, nor should you claim to.

A gene, which controls a function and is destroyed is not evolution, it is counter-evolution because of the loss of information. For evolution to work you need the gaining of information and kilobases in genomes which mutations unfortunately for you don't provide.

Evolution doesn't eliminate any "morals". Evolution doesn't "justify" anything. The Theory of Gravity does not justify me tossing you off a cliff. It only predicts that you will fall downward. The Theory of Evolution does not justify me killing you if I am stronger, it predicts that I will have a better chance at surviving and passing my genes.

 

[Heidi]

The Theory of Evolution doesn't give anyone the "right" to do anything. It is descriptive, not prescriptive. It describes mechanisms found in nature and how they contribute to changes in lifeforms.

Morals do change. Slavery was thought to be ok centuries ago in the US, but now it is generally looked down upon. Morals are based on what a society deems to be bad or harmful to the functioning of that society.

This is not what Hitler thought whose actions were perfectly justified to his countrymen by the theory of evolution:

These Hitler Youth, wrote war correspondent Ralph Allen, were beardless killers whose highest aim was to die, whose only god was Hitler, who came rustling through through the spring wheat, a screaming curtain of mortars just ahead of them, the fearsome clanking of their tanks behind.(Voices from D-Day, Johnathan Bastable, p.207, paragraph 2)

Evolution eliminates the purposes for all morals because that is mercy to the 'weak' that 'deserve' to die. Evolution brought Hitler's anti-Semitism and mass-ethnic cleansing because of the theory of evolution. The japanese kamikazes did not believe in the soul, yet they more than willingly, in fact, zealously died.

Edit: As for you reznwks, you neither understand the principles of evolution, nor should you claim to.

A gene, which controls a function and is destroyed is not evolution, it is counter-evolution because of the loss of information. For evolution to work you need the gaining of information and kilobases in genomes which mutations unfortunately for you don't provide.

Evolution doesn't eliminate any "morals". Evolution doesn't "justify" anything. The Theory of Gravity does not justify me tossing you off a cliff. It only predicts that you will fall downward. The Theory of Evolution does not justify me killing you if I am stronger, it predicts that I will have a better chance at surviving and passing my genes.

The problem is that the premise of evolution that animal genes can change into human genes on their own is faulty. Faulty premises always produce faulty conclusons. This is one of the first principles one learns in a class on logic.

And even if evolutionists claim that primates bred with humans or that a half-man, half-beast bred with humans, it still doesn't explain how the first genes of humans ever got into an ape in the first place, nor that primates were ever capable of breeding with humans! So every which way you look at the theory of evolution, it is faulty.

But the fact is, that the majority of people will believe scientists no matter what they say just like the majority of people in the 19th century believed scientists when they said that brain-size determines intelligence, which is now considered a ludicrous theory by scientists. So the majority can be just as easily deceived as the people in whom they put their trust.

 

[WillyGilligan]

Faulty premises reminds me of something. Specifically, it reminds me that you're having trouble with causality. If you are discussing how humans did or did not come to be on this planet, then saying that humans had to breed with apes to create humans is just silly. Once you have humans, there's no need for interbreeding with apes. Ape+Human=Human is like X+Y=X.

 

[Heidi]

Faulty premises reminds me of something. Specifically, it reminds me that you're having trouble with causality. If you are discussing how humans did or did not come to be on this planet, then saying that humans had to breed with apes to create humans is just silly. Once you have humans, there's no need for interbreeding with apes. Ape+Human=Human is like X+Y=X.

It appears that you are the one having trouble with causality, my friend, because you are contradicting the process of reproduction. So then you are claiming that the genes of animals turn into the genes of humans or other animals on their own. Is that correct? :o So why do animals mate and breed with each other and humans mate and breed with each other? Do you not know that mating and breeding are what propgates each species? :o Or do you know that but are simply lying about it in the case with apes and humans? So which is it? :o

 

[WillyGilligan]

Animals do mate and breed. That passes down specific genetic information, which is not always perfect. But you're saying that men would have to mate with monkeys, which is not accurate. The common ancestor is said to have given birth to offspring which was slightly different than itself, but not yet what we call a man. Each successive generation would have altered in subtle ways, but none of them would be what we'd call human. By the time we'd recognize them as human, the population would be reproducing within itself, not mating with monkeys.

You keep saying that humans and apes would have to breed as if the only way to create a human from an ape would be to already have a human in place who would then impregnate the ape with human genes and create the first humans. Do you seriously not see the problem with that line of thinking? If you have a human with which to impregnate the ape, then what's with the inbreeding? And where did the human come from to do the impregnating? You've sidestepped the question (where did humans come from) by positing that humans were already there and mated with apes (actually, it's what you're claiming that evolutionists say, but you're still stating the position. As a strawman at that.). That's why I say causality is not your friend.

If that's not what you mean to say, than would please re-phrase it so that it makes sense?

 

[Heidi]

Animals do mate and breed. That passes down specific genetic information, which is not always perfect. But you're saying that men would have to mate with monkeys, which is not accurate. The common ancestor is said to have given birth to offspring which was slightly different than itself, but not yet what we call a man. Each successive generation would have altered in subtle ways, but none of them would be what we'd call human. By the time we'd recognize them as human, the population would be reproducing within itself, not mating with monkeys.

You keep saying that humans and apes would have to breed as if the only way to create a human from an ape would be to already have a human in place who would then impregnate the ape with human genes and create the first humans. Do you seriously not see the problem with that line of thinking? If you have a human with which to impregnate the ape, then what's with the inbreeding? And where did the human come from to do the impregnating? You've sidestepped the question (where did humans come from) by positing that humans were already there and mated with apes (actually, it's what you're claiming that evolutionists say, but you're still stating the position. As a strawman at that.). That's why I say causality is not your friend.

If that's not what you mean to say, than would please re-phrase it so that it makes sense?

You still have not explained how animal genes turn into human genes without mating and breeding. Are you claiming that each animal turns into another animal without mating and breeding? :o If so, please explain how that happens and show me where it happens in reality. If not, then again, how did apes produce humans without mating and breeding and without changing into humans on their own? :o

And if you think my line of thinking which is; "animlas mate and breed to propogate their species" is flawed, then you not only have serious problems with basic biology, but also with the reality of why animals mate and breed. if you don't understand basic principles, then neither can you understand deeper matters.

 

[WillyGilligan]

Heidi, animals mate a breed. I have not denied that. I am actually pointing out that you take that point and misapply it in a such a way that it easily brushes aside what you claim evolutionary theory is. This is called a strawman.

The clarification I'm asking for is: Do you think that evolution requires for man to be created by the breeding of a man with a monkey? Many times over the course of these discussions, you've wandered over the map on this and I'd like to know for sure what you're trying to say. Part of that 'understanding the other sides actual arguments' thing that's all the rage these days.

 

[Heidi]

Heidi, animals mate a breed. I have not denied that. I am actually pointing out that you take that point and misapply it in a such a way that it easily brushes aside what you claim evolutionary theory is. This is called a strawman.

The clarification I'm asking for is: Do you think that evolution requires for man to be created by the breeding of a man with a monkey? Many times over the course of these discussions, you've wandered over the map on this and I'd like to know for sure what you're trying to say. Part of that 'understanding the other sides actual arguments' thing that's all the rage these days.

I don't know how evolution can occur because it's an impossiblity for a man to mate with a monkey or for animal genes to change into human genes on their own. So how to you explain how "evolution" happens? :o

 

[WillyGilligan]

These are two seperate points. One, that genes can change over enough generations to produce a new, distinct species. The second, that species interbreeding creates new species.

I'm addressing the second at this moment. Are you stating that evolution requires a man and an ape to breed to create men? Or what are you stating with all this talk of bestiality?

 

[armed2010]

Heidi, animals mate a breed. I have not denied that. I am actually pointing out that you take that point and misapply it in a such a way that it easily brushes aside what you claim evolutionary theory is. This is called a strawman.

The clarification I'm asking for is: Do you think that evolution requires for man to be created by the breeding of a man with a monkey? Many times over the course of these discussions, you've wandered over the map on this and I'd like to know for sure what you're trying to say. Part of that 'understanding the other sides actual arguments' thing that's all the rage these days.

I don't know how evolution can occur because it's an impossiblity for a man to mate with a monkey or for animal genes to change into human genes on their own. So how to you explain how "evolution" happens? :o

The population of Species A gives birth to offspring that are slightly different genetically. Those offspring give birth to offspring that are slightly different genetically. Repeat for millions of years, and the resulting population will be different from the original population millions of years ago.