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?

Yes, that's what ":-)" means.

The joke here is that the Onion's article reads exactly like articles about the so-called evolution "controversy". Anyone who understands evolution can see that the "arguments" against gravity in the Onion satire are as stupid as the "arguments" against evolution used by (real) Creationists.

The discussion was absurd when you started it. However, not everything I write is about you.

I don't know what a "pro evolutionist" is and I wasn't referring to what you quoteed but what you yourself said.

Your entire argument about evolution and eugenics was nonsense. Eugenics is the opposite of evolution. Eugenics is about designing a perfect (or better) humanity, evolution is about getting the best that develops on its own.

I don't know if you misrepresented "pro evolutionists", but in this and your last blog entry about evolution you misrepresented evolution in several ways.

You claimed evolution is the basis for eugenics, that evolution is a "religion", that it has been proven to be false by science, and that people "believe" in evolution. All of it is false.

Evolution is NOT the basis for eugenics, evolution is NOT a religion, evolution has NOT been proven false by "science", and people do NOT believe in evolution.

Like gravity evolution is something that happens in the physical world. It's not for us to believe or disbelieve, it is for to observe.

I _believe_ in G-d and my religion is Judaism. But I don't _know_ that G-d exists.

But I do NOT believe in evolution and my (or anybody's) religion is not evolution. I _know_, not believe, that evolution is happening and has happened.

You can continue to claim that evolution is a religious belief, but know that you are misrepresenting evolution if you do that.

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.

Paladin77...Congratulations and thank you for writing another great article. 

LEAUKI POSTS #20

I'm Catholic and believe me it depends upon how one defines the word "evolution" whether or not it contradicts the Catholic Faith.

I know what the Church's position is on Evolution and Darwin's Evolution Theory (two completely different things) as far as contradicting the Catholic Faith. Evolution as small change over time within kind doesn't contradict the Catholic Faith...as it is God's creation working through secondary causes and actually goes to enforce belief of Design in nature which also goes to affirm rather than disprove the existence of God. Also if you mean the "evolution" of an acorn into an oak tree, no objection whatsoever there for it's but an unfoldment of the design made by the Designer.

While the Chruch places no obstacle though as far as continued scientific investigation on Evolution Theory which theorizes change beyond kind as in apes to mankind, it does caution Catholics that we woould have to be intellectually lacking if we ever accepted ETheory as established fact, when there is no substantial scientific data to sustain it.  All Catholics have to keep in mind is that Adam never said "papa" to an apelike creature!  

Re: the highlighted.....You will have to provide proof of this for me to believe it. I personally question using the word "Creationism" and am glad to see that you put it in quotations.

The CC fully supports Special Creation, that man is a special creation and he differs greatly from other species in kind. Catholic teachings insist that man is something more than a physical body..he is a living rational soul, a direct creation of God. We believe in the literal interpretation of Genesis 1:27. Therefore, Catholics do not accept the theory that the human soul is an "evoluted" animal soul, insisted upon in the name of Darwin's Evolution Theory.

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.

And by the way, I would be most pleased to be called a Creationist.

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

Speak for yourself, not for Catholicism.

"Special creation" does not, according to the Vatican, contradict Darwin's theory.

And Darwin's theory, despite your lies about it, makes no statements whatsoever on whether souls exist and on how they are created if they do.

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

This is very interesting, thank you.

I suppose this would explain why people who don't understand evolution still think that they do, even when they are told where their misconceptions lie.

Then I wasn't calling you a liar.

http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/young_earth_evidence.htm

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism

Here are a few links I got (first 3/5 when I searched google for "young earth society"). It cannot be a "myth started by anti-christians" when there are a real people who beleive in jesus and the bible who lead an actual movements. Next you will say that the KKK is a myth started by anti christians to belittle them...

Of course I think (or rather, HOPE) the young earth society is as marginal as the KKK in christians, but doesn't mean it isn't there. and its certainly not an invention by the evil anti christian atheists.

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.  

Specious 'if' argument, Lula.  Also playing fast & loose with language.  Nothing about the theory of evolution says that man must, in order for the theory to be valid, make a conscious decision to 'cull his own herd' in order for the species to survive & thrive in its environment.  Eugenics is not a logical extension or 'social consequence' of the theory of evolution.  Any individual who is alive is 'fit' in evolutionary terms.  'Unfit' is a judgment, not a condition, in your context.  Eugenics is a 'social consequence' of psychopaths.

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."

eugenics is artifical evolution... unnatural evolution if you would.

No it hasn't, there are many rationales for abortion (which I, a staunch supporter of evolution DISAGREE WITH), none of the reasons for abortion come from evolution. If anything choosing abortion is a trait that reduces your chances of propegation and as such evolution would remove people who condone abortion from the genepool (as they have less children).

Your beleif that evolution supports abortion is actually just another proof that you completely misunderstand evolution... furthermore the quote you brough says evolution, but what it means is "atheism brought about by evolution", it is not the evolution in of itself, but the notion that humans don't have some devine right greater than that of an animal, aka, atheism. an argument which was disproved here but you keep on ignoring.

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."

ugh, please, spare us. Racism has been around LONG before evolution was ever postulated.

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.  

Almost correct.  Substitute 'different from' for 'superior to' and you're just about there.  Again - the concept of superiority involves a subjective value judgment by human beings.  Psychopaths make such value judgments in the practice of eugenics.  Evolution does not.

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

So you think social problems that existed long before evolution was postulated are all reinforced by evolution and therefore you point at evolution as the CAUSE of those social problems?

yet everyone who actually supports evolution tells you the opposite, that evolution either counters the points, or do not affect it.

I have many reasons stemming from evolution as to why eugenics, racism, and abortion are wrong. All the so called "reasons" why evolution supports those are logical fallacies.

EXACTLY

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?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33676_The_Moronic_Convergence_of_ID_Creationism_and_Islamic_Creationism

A new book by Harun Yahya, an apologist for fundamentalist Islam's and fundamentalist Christianity's favourite "science" speaks of more terrible philosophies associated with evolution (associated with evolution by THEM).

Apparently evolution is to blame for both the Nazis (and they have a picture of Hitler marching with his friends to prove it) and Israel.

How they always make that connection between Hitler and Israel I cannot tell, but they apparently require fake evolution to do it.

Why is (fake) evolution so important to those people?

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.