I did not make the calim I asked the question.

Please point them out and I will answer them.

Sorry but that is a myth started by the anti-Christian movement to belittle and discredit people. The 6000 year thing comes from the bible, It is as far back as written history goes but no where does it say the Earth is 6,000 years old just the written history of man.

Your prejudice is clear, any questioning of evolution is creationist lies, no matter how much one protests this assumption. You keep going back to creationists rather than what is said. I have never quoted any crationist beliefs except when asked my own beliefs. And at that point I said it was my own belief not science taking it out of the discussion. While you keep bringing it back in and using it as justification that i must be telling lies.

This is the second time you have made this statement. The first time I wrote tha I only quoted pro evolutionists and have not misrepresented them as I quoted them in context.

I don' t follow your logic here, please explain where I was critical of the Big Bang in relation to evolution. I truly think you are trying to deflect the discussion into the absurd.

You do know that the Onion is a joke site right?

I do hope that my prejudice is clear.

But I also hoped that I made it perfectly clear which particular questioning of evolution is a Creationist lie. I gave lots of examples. I cannot understand how you could possibly have overread them. Should I quote them again?

So, just so you know what I am talking about. You seem to have missed accidentally the list the last time I posted it.

It's not "any questioning of evolution" that is a lie, but any questioning of evolution that refers to evolution as having anything to do with the seven points above is, indeed, a lie.

I would appreciate it if you would take back your statement and correct it:

"Your prejudice is clear, any questioning of evolution is creationist lies, no matter how much one protests this assumption."

I gave you a list, so you cannot be honest and claim that my prejudice is about "any" questioning of evolution.

So please correct your statement about my prejudices.

Thank you.

I still reject and will continue to reject ANY and ALL so-called criticism of evolution as long as the so-called criticism refers to an "evolution" that has to do with any of those seven points.

Criticism of fake evolution is fine, as long as you are honest about what it is you are criticising.

If I criticised, say, Christianity, based on the argument that Christianity's holy unicorn is too fat and that I simply don't believe in two dozen gods and 50 apostles and reject Jesus' teaching of hatred for all, any Christian (and indeed anybody else) could certainly make the claim that what I am criticising is not really Christianity but some sort of fake Christianity I made up.

And they would be right. And no amount of calling them "prejudiced" would make my criticism of Christianity more valid.

My criticism of Christianity would be as wrong as the fake Christianity I made up is different from real Christianity.

And the same applies to the fake evolution you are talking about.

You and the Vatican will just have to disagree about that.

At no point did the Vatican claim that "Evolution and Darwin's Evolution Theory" are two different beasts and all the press releases coming from the Catholic Church about evolution have been specifically about Darwin's theory.

I really am sick and tired of quoting statements and pointing to articles and then find you, a week later usually, denying that you ever heard of them.

I have quoted the Vatican and the Pope on evolutin here on JU so often, it's ridiculous that you keep coming back and pretend that you have no idea what they said about the subject.

I know you would. That's one of the reasons I agree with the Vatican but not you.

Leauki, what you're experiencing here is called the "Dunning-Kruger effect". Link

Then I wasn't calling you a liar.

PALADIN77 WRITES:

Exactly. We find that eugenics is indeed one of the social consequences to Darwin's theory of evolution.

 Quoting Dr.Walt Brown's logic...2 "ifs"....

If humans descended from animals, why shouldn't humans behave like animals?

and

If we evolved by "survival of the fittest", then getting rid of the unfit is desirable. To conquer and exploit weaker people, businesses and countries is just the law of the jungle from which we evolved. Mercy killings, forced sterilizations, and selective breeding of humans, while unpopular with some, would be beneficial, in the long run, and very logical....if we evolved.  

Yes, Darwin's ET has provided the main rationale for abortion.

Again, "If" quotes from Dr. Brown....

on Abortion....."we dispose of unwanted animals such as cats and dogs. If humans are just evolved animals, why not terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Isn't it the mother's right? Shoulnd't she have a choice in the matter? After all, the fetus ....is of lesser value than an adult. During the fetus' first three months, it's just a blog of tissue that's not any more important than a little pig or rabbit. Why shouldn't a fetus be terminated if adults or society would benefit? After all, we have a population problem. We must guide our destiny."

PALADIN77 WRITES:

yes, well stated....and it turns out that Darwin's Theory of Evolution provided the main rationale for racism.  

Racism, the twisted logic of Hitler to try to establish his super Aryan race. Again, from Dr. Brown...."If humans evolved up from some apelike creature, then some people must have advanced higher on the evolutionary ladder than others. Some classes of people should be inherently superior to others."

Taltimer,

That's not what I wrote...Agree, that these social problems, like abortion, did not originate with Darwin's ET, but they follow logically from it.

Now  to eliminate any confusion....definitions are in stort.....what part of Darwin's ET do they logically follow from? Yes, there are 2 parts to Darwin's ET...the one where Darwin noticed that a population of animals within kind (finches in this case) would, over time, change so that certain features ..the finches' bill in this case....become more pronounced, longer, more curved, etc. ...This theory is now universally accepted as true....it's called microevolution. (And from now on I'm going to try my best to identify what is true evolution as microevolution).

Darwin, (not having the benefit of scientic knowledge of DNA)  then went on to theorize that animals given eons of time could change that they became a totally different animal..in this case a monkey could become a man and he wrote a book describing this. This is what we call macroevolution and what Christians hotly contest mainly becasue this too is held out to school children as fact.  

No, they don't.  Not without some seriously bogus contortions.

I am wondering...

In today's world, looking at the countries of this world, do we notice that countries that teach evolution in their schools are particularly prone to committing all those terrible crimes evolution is blamed for, or do we notice that countries that do not teach evolution are in fact at the forefront of violence and crimes against humanity?

Can anybody make a list of the top five evolution-teaching countries that are the worst offenders?

LEAUKI POSTS: #2

Evolution as per the World Book Dictionary and 3 science book definitions are indeed the very same concept of Darwin's macroevolution theory which I call Darwinism Check history....the term "evolution" has since the days of Darwin and Wallace, been used in the scientific field to designate a natural, biological process through which some speck of inorganic matter after eons of time, transmuted into a simple celled organism, then from that into a more complex organism, from which passing from one species to another, all plant, animal and human life came about.  They claimed the process or mechanism for Darwin's macroevolution was by "Natural Selection" and "Survival of the Fittest".

As far as your assertion that animal species do not evolve into other species, Here it is from Charles Darwin himself......From his book "The Descent of Man" 2nd ed. Collier and Son. 1905. Darwin refutes your statement.

"In forming a judgment on this head with reference to man, we must glance at the classification of the Simiadae. This family is divided by almost all naturalists into the Catarrhine group, or Old World monkeys....and into the Platyrhine group or New World monkeys. .....Now, man unquestionably belongs in his dentitiion, in the structure of his nostrils, and some other respects, to the Catarrhine or Old World division.

.....There can, consequently, harldy  be a doubt that man is an offshoot from the Old World Simian stem; and that, under a genealogical point of view, he must be classified with the Catarrhine division. Vol.1, pg. 205.

"The early progenitors of man must have been once covered with hair, both sexes having beards; their ears were probably pointed and capable of movement; and their bodies were provided with a tail, having the proper muscles....The foot was then prehensile, judging from the great toe in the foetus; and our progeniters no doubt, were arboreal  in their habits, and frequented some warm forest-clad land." pg. 214.

"The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and the Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the universe proceeded." pg. 220.

 "Man, as I have attempted to show, is certainly descended from some ape-like creature." pg. 759.

"The main conclusion arrived at this work, namely that man is descended from some lowly organized form, will I regret to think, be highly distasteful to many. ...For my own part, I would as soon be descended from that heroic little monkey who braved his dreaded enemy in order to save the life of his keeper, or from that old baboon, who descending from the mountains, carried away in triumpth his young comrade from a crowd of astonished dogs----as from a savage who delights to torture his enemies, offers up bloody sacrifices...." pg. 796.   

Macroevolution is this fake evolution you've been writing about....it's pseudo-science masquerading as true science.