Evolution vs. Creationism

[ProtestantDan]

micro evolution God said hecreated it in a week if this is a lie all he said is a lie.And it had to be a day because plants and animals dont survive any other way. other wise saying different cause you a lot more problems. it does assume thats how it begins, we assume this because of this and test it to prove it. Thats the great mystery and why God said we must have faith. Do you think if God told us how, we would truelly understand. and to try to think this it would go on forever. If a god created god who created that god so on so on. This is the whole issue with all this. why are we here? just to live and die. i think that is not a choice to live by. there would be no point in morals, we should be able to do as we wish. Like hitler and communism. Their seems to be a lot more to this issue than just science. Why do you think communism and Hitler and others taught it or believed it. so they could do what they wanted. Hitler just believed he was speeding up evolution getting rid of the inferior races.

Each number is a rebuttle of the sentence that appears above, in order.
I apologize in advance for not being able to understand some of the sentences.

1.) By saying he created everything in a week, it's not a lie if you do as I do, which is to take much of the Bible as symbolic and metaphorical.
2.) I believe most plants and animals live more than a day.
3.) Problems occur. Questions come up. Science addresses problems. Evolution addresses a question.
4.) I can't make sense of the second half of this sentence.
5.) Yes, we must have faith, but does that preclude us from trying to come up with some answers to things on our own? Maybe that's a reason He gave most of us such brilliant minds.
6.) From what I have gathered you contend He made all of creation in seven days, and that you understand what the Bible says on these matters. Are you now saying you haven't understood what you are defending?
7.) I can't make sense of this sentence.
8.) By saying that you are a Christian you are saying you are monotheistic and worship one God.
9.) You've lost me.
10/11/12?.) I believe it was the prophet Micah who said: "What is required of us is to love justice, do mercy, and walk humbly with God."
13.) Imagine this (Semi-intentional reference to John Lennon's song): If life had no meaning, people could still come together and promote harmony. This is the belief of secular humanists, and the ones I know are fine people. You don't need the promise of reward or the fear of punishment to live a good life. Moses Maimonides said "only the spiritually immature are motivated by the fear of punishment or the promise of reward." Some people even argue (i.e. Carl Jung, a giant in psychology) that some morals and concepts are universal among people, even imprinted in us at birth. "Natural Law" is often touted by people who oppose gay marriage and homosexuality. They state homosexuality is "unnatural" (though recent studies have found occurrences of homosexuality in animals, making it very natural indeed).
14.) Hitler and communism let people do whatever they wish? I strongly disagree, for many reasons. a.) Hitler's facism and communism are ideological opposites, so the link here is off the mark. b.) If I recall, in Hitler's fascist state (not communist) personal liberties were greatly reduced. Not enhanced, as you have proposed. You seem to have learned some parts of history incorrectly.
15.) There is more to every issue than just science.
16.) Again, let me stress, ideological opposites. Also, note that no major country in the world has practised true communism. States such as the USSR and China practice a totalitarianist state which the United States like to define at communist because they always need an enemy to justify their huge standing army. Anyone who has even the most elementary knowledge of what communism is would recognize this. You seem to have been well indoctrinated by the US government. Back to the point. I don't know if Hitler taught evolution or not, so I will do the smart thing and not comment on it. I know he did preach a perverted concept of eugenics, the effect of which has stained an otherwise noble field of study.
17.) What are you talking about?! See #14, specifically section B.
18.) Again, I cannot comment on this as I do not know entirely for sure about the evolutionary role in his rule.

Sorry for making such a long post, but much of the quoted post is either flat out historically inaccurate or is something I take great issue with.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

If life had no meaning, people could still come together and promote harmony. This is the belief of secular humanists, and the ones I know are fine people. You don't need the promise of reward or the fear of punishment to live a good life. Moses Maimonides said "only the spiritually immature are motivated by the fear of punishment or the promise of reward."

Spiritually destitute is more like it; it would seem that Natural Law, by definition, says it's man's Natural state to live by "the promise of reward or the fear of punishment".

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."-1 Corinthians 2:14

Some people even argue (i.e. Carl Jung, a giant in psychology) that some morals and concepts are universal among people, even imprinted in us at birth. "Natural Law" is often touted by people

Natural Law says man is born, he lives, he dies, it is something man is subject to and cannot change and carries with it the promise of reward or the fear of punishment with those morals inherently (imprinting?) integral.

If I recall, in Hitler's fascist state (not communist) personal liberties were greatly reduced.

To call purifying the world of "inferior" peoples and "weeding out" the human race by throwing millions into blast furnaces reduced personal liberties is, well. you just wouldn't be my first pick for judge of an international war crimes court. ;-)

Not enhanced, as you have proposed. You seem to have learned some parts of history incorrectly.

That was (and is) the goal of Hitler and others, many still alive and operating today; to purify the race and enhance it. Evolution. Man's ultimate goal, to live forever involves evolution, it involves enhancing, "improving" the human race.

Cloning extends to us the promise of living forever. Without God even. But without God's Breath of Life the dust of the earth and the goo in the test tube can never become a living soul. Where does following evolution's lead in this particular direction bring us? If cloning does prove possible but clones are not "living souls" then what are they?

I don't know if Hitler taught evolution or not,

His and his cohorts' intents as well as the roots themselves are so rooted in and so deep in history it is very easy to search out on the internet.

I know he did preach a perverted concept of eugenics,

The Master Race concept easily goes back about 4,500 years and is rooted in the beginning of the humanist religion and its early evolutionary belief.

the effect of which has stained an otherwise noble field of study.

Depends on what kind of frankensteins they end up making in the lab. Mankind has yet to conquer death and would play god creating man in his own image. From primordial slime to god. In another fifty jillion eons after mankind has finally attained godhood will our god be able to bring back to life all of us that lived and died since creation?

Jesus didn't come bringing "the promise of reward or the fear of punishment"; He came offering a means of life-everlasting-escape from death that evolution has always promised but will never deliver on.

 

[USincognito]

That was (and is) the goal of Hitler and others, many still alive and operating today; to purify the race and enhance it. Evolution. Man's ultimate goal, to live forever involves evolution, it involves enhancing, "improving" the human race.

That is not what evolution is. While the looser laymans term could be applied by calling genetic tinkering with humanity "guided evolution," that certainly is not what the Theory of Evolution is about at all.

Cloning extends to us the promise of living forever. Without God even. But without God's Breath of Life the dust of the earth and the goo in the test tube can never become a living soul. Where does following evolution's lead in this particular direction bring us? If cloning does prove possible but clones are not "living souls" then what are they?

Cloning has nothing to do with evolution - except to prevent it from happening. Evolution thrives on genetic diversity and the limiting of harmful mutations. Cloning is just the opposite of that. I don't really know how to respond to your "live forever" comment or issue of clone souls, but I wanted to quote your paragraph in it's entirety.

 

[UniversalAxis]

Cloning extends to us the promise of living forever. Without God even. But without God's Breath of Life the dust of the earth and the goo in the test tube can never become a living soul. Where does following evolution's lead in this particular direction bring us? If cloning does prove possible but clones are not "living souls" then what are they?

Cloning is not the same thing as BioEngineering, but I do see your point that it raises issues as to how far we can take it before it causes trouble for the way we think, and more, but that is the topic of another thread which should be devoted to the effects of BioEngineering.

As far as living souls are concerned:
I think that we can all agree that this mortal body is just a shell for a soul. By that logic it would stand to reason that any clone would be just as individual and human as any other human. The fact that Identical Twins are, indeed genetic clones should illustrate that point quite well; but, there are a great many plants that reproduce by way of asexual reproduction. (I.E. cloning) Any individuality in groups which reproduce asexually is strictly the result of 'errors', mutations, and viral infection.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

That is not what evolution is. While the looser laymans term could be applied by calling genetic tinkering with humanity "guided evolution," that certainly is not what the Theory of Evolution is about at all.

The term "evolution" was used. Evolution has various forms actively spreading in the world's society today. Evolution in thinking, as increasingly taught for the past fifty odd years plus, in the education system is another way evolution's parent, humanism, has advanced its cause.

Cloning has nothing to do with evolution - except to prevent it from happening.

Evolution looks two directions; proofs in the past and promises in the future.

Evolution thrives on genetic diversity and the limiting of harmful mutations.

Yesterday, Hitler's brand of evolution, the development of the Master Race, preferred Germans, particularly, with blonde hair. Of course, the "harmful mutations" were the sick, weakly, and Jew. Today it's the poor, and the unborn, the elderly, among others. Tomorrow, the Jews, once again, will be added (actually, the PLO did that about 50 years ago) to the currently growing list as will the Christians and anyone else that does not want to opt into the Beast's philosophy.

Cloning is just the opposite of that. I don't really know how to respond to your "live forever" comment or issue of clone souls, but I wanted to quote your paragraph in it's entirety.

Cloning ,while used here illustratively, still, maintains a potentially viable option for life "extension" as do life extending organ farms, memory recording and transferrence, and other developing means. Mankind IS evolving, just not in the way man needs or God wants. Ultimately, the result, including interbreeding, is neither man nor clone but something in between; just like the Nephilim of yesterday and tomorrow are neither man nor angel. In the end, The Lie of evolving to live forever, when finally revealed, results in catastrophic genocide.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I think that we can all agree that this mortal body is just a shell for a soul.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."-Genesis 2:7

The combination of the dust and the breath of life make a living soul. Without both we are nothing. When we die

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."-Ecclesiastes 12:7,

"His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish."-Psalms 146:4

 

[UniversalAxis]

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it."-Ecclesiastes 12:7,

I think the key lies here: If the 'dust' returns to the earth, and the soul to God, then the body and soul must be seperate. Besides, each body is a unique creation, a unique instance. Even if the body follows the same genetic rules (I.E. Cloning) the actual 'dust' or atoms which make up that body are inherently different. What about twins? Genetically identical but different people. Does the line of logic you stated above say that there is no immortal soul which would live on to heaven or hell depending on the destination?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

I think the key lies here: If the 'dust' returns to the earth, and the sould to God, then the body and soul must be seperate.

a man = a soul
a soul = dust + God's breath (spirit) of life

Does the line of logic you stated above say that there is no immortal soul which would live on to heaven or hell depending on the destination?

at death
the dust returns to earth and the breath of life returns to God.
the only thing left is the man's memory. which is forgotten.

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."-Ecclesiastes 9:5

for the memory of them is forgotten The word for tells us the reason they know nothing and have no further reward for they have no memory, their memory is gone, they have no mind, they have no sentience;

They have no body (it's turned back to dust), the breath (spark) of life has left and gone Home. What's left? A forgotten pile of dust. Will the archeologist that picks up a handful of dirt see it was so and so's brother's great aunt's mother's mother or will he see a handful of dirt?


(no) immortal soul

By definition that would mean immortal human bodies.

Eternal life is possible only through Jesus Christ, to Whom ALL power was given by God, and offered freely even to those that believe on the name of Jesus.

fwiw, That also kills the idea of a place of eternal fiery damnantion; a concept that goes against the very justice and mercy of God.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

............

 

[UniversalAxis]

That also kills the idea of a place of eternal fiery damnantion; a concept that goes against the very justice and mercy of God.

Good post! Very intregung interpretation of the Scripture!

One question, if the rest of the bible says what you say, then what about the chapters which mention Hell and Heaven?
If both heaven and hell are realms reserved for non-physical beings, then why does the bible speak of them?
Is it your interpretation that biblical heaven is the New Jerusalem, and that God's loyal followers will join him there instead of in an off-world, etherial heaven?

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Good post! Very intregung interpretation of the Scripture!

One question, if the rest of the bible says what you say, then what about the chapters which mention Hell and Heaven?
If both heaven and hell are realms reserved for non-physical beings, then why does the bible speak of them?
Is it your interpretation that biblical heaven is the New Jerusalem, and that God's loyal followers will join him there instead of in an off-world, etherial heaven?

It's interesting that all pagan religions had a place of punishment. But not the Jews, though there were Pagan influences. And not the Christians, which, also, sustained Pagan influences.

We must also keep in mind words frequently have more than one meaning in the Bible just as with languages today, and often not the same words and more words and definitions vary from, say, the English, then there is an array of figures of speech, customs, traditions, etc to take into account.

itmt, the word "hell' dates to sometime around the 1500's somewhere around just prior to King James's movie and kinda in keeping with Shakespearean lingo. How "the grave" (most places where the KJV uses the word "hell" it means "grave" or, "the pit", which seems to be a collective for all graves) got turned into a place of eternal torment, one theory is the early Christian (Catholic) fiction writers were trying to describe what a life without Christ would be like and crippled by a lack of Bible understanding (no available Written Word, common and uneducated misunderstandings, etc). I would add to that the early Catholic Church appears to have used it as a means for additionally ensuring its continued financial existence by coupling it with selling indulgences, etc.

As to the New Jerusalem question, we have something else to bear in mind. There are a lot of promises, prophecies, blessings and curses in the Bible. Most of them are for the Jews. Prooftexting Scripture is a mistake made by far too many Christians. In the process, the Christians "steal" all of the good stuff meant for the Jews and kindly leave all the curses for Israel and the Christians, by and large, end up one really confused bunch when it comes to promises, prophecy, end times, judgment, etc. The New Jerusalem is a Jewish issue (as is the book of Revelation), it is not Christian. Jews are God's promised earthly people to rule the Nations saved at the Judgment of Nations and in the new earth from NJ with The Messiah as their king Israel will rule those nations on the new earth.

otoh, Christians are God's promised heavenly people that lived by faith. Christians are promised to be "where" Jesus is and Jesus is in the Father and The Father in The Son and the Christians in the Son and The Holy Spirit in the Christians and in the New Jersualem there is no Temple for The Almighty and The Son ARE The Temple. go figger.

The Truth of God, the freely offered gift of living forever, is perverted in The Lie by Satan to deceive mankind they can do it all on their own over time by evolving from primordial slime (dust) into a lot of little gods. It's not hard to see How The Truth has been perverted into The Lie.

Take the second most powerful being in Creation (Satan). Add man, to whom God has promised (how) much (?). Satan, understandably, is a little more than perturbed at the thought that mere mortal man, living only by faith having never seen, is promised far greater than even he once possessed and we can understand why Christians are so hated by the devil and his minions and children.

 

[USincognito]

The term "evolution" was used. Evolution has various forms actively spreading in the world's society today. Evolution in thinking, as increasingly taught for the past fifty odd years plus, in the education system is another way evolution's parent, humanism, has advanced its cause.

I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong. The word evolution does have many contexts, much like many other words in the English language. That does not change the fact that the Theory of Evolution is referring to a specific scientific area of study, the misapplication of a laymans term to said scientific theory.

And again, you're wrong. Darwin first developed the scientific Theory of Evolution when he was a Christian. His quotes from while on the Beagle clearly evidence that. Humanism - a nice concept, but not something I adhere to - might have inculcated evolution, but that no more makes it the progenator of the scientific theory than SAC's use of nukes made them progenators to Atomic Theory.

Evolution looks two directions; proofs in the past and promises in the future.

Utterly incorrect. The Theory of Evolution looks to the past, and offers postulations on the future. But Eugenics and Genetic Manipulation fly totally in the face of Evolutionary theory so your assertion is baseless.

Yesterday, Hitler's brand of evolution, the development of the Master Race, preferred Germans, particularly, with blonde hair. Of course, the "harmful mutations" were the sick, weakly, and Jew. Today it's the poor, and the unborn, the elderly, among others. Tomorrow, the Jews, once again, will be added (actually, the PLO did that about 50 years ago) to the currently growing list as will the Christians and anyone else that does not want to opt into the Beast's philosophy.

Yeah... Not wishing to delve to deeply into your paranoia, I'm going to ask if you are unfamiliar with Martin Luther's writings about the Jews? About what influence the Catholic church's pre-Vatican II teaching might have had on Hitler? Do you get the basics of how Totalitarian governments work? And one last question on this subject... where exactly in the theory of Evolution does it address and support Eugenics?

Cloning ,while used here illustratively, still, maintains a potentially viable option for life "extension" as do life extending organ farms, memory recording and transferrence, and other developing means. Mankind IS evolving, just not in the way man needs or God wants. Ultimately, the result, including interbreeding, is neither man nor clone but something in between; just like the Nephilim of yesterday and tomorrow are neither man nor angel. In the end, The Lie of evolving to live forever, when finally revealed, results in catastrophic genocide.

You're confusing the Hindu/Buddhist concept of soul progression with the scientific Theory of Evolution. Either that or you're purposefully conflating them in order to - unsucessfully - bolster your position.

Again, your statements about genetic manipulation being part of the Theory of Evolution is so far off base you'd be tagged out by the left fielder. Humans aren't "evolving" via inbreeding or genetic manipulation. You really need to learn more about the theory before you offer such comments.

 

[william jay schroeder]

its nice to see a spiritual issue come up but how could an evolutionist accept the idea of a spirit. if we evolvoled than its not possible. as for evolution looking to the future, how is this possible without the temptation to hurry it along. What genitic code or DNA could have produced the morals we see, do evolutionist use this to show how the huminods became the dominate species. i mean if we just evolved then were animals period, just highly advanced animals. As for gay animals i think this is stupid, their is realy know way to compare it with humans. animals dont have morals. and how do they know why it is done. they may have a defect in there brains which makes them confused of how to interacte. i think this useage is kind of dangerous for homosexuals. It could be used against them by people who wish to do them harm. If any thing came out that they are defective(the animals). dont want to get into faith and theology here though. This site is hardly the place to get the best info on that subject.

 

[USincognito]

its nice to see a spiritual issue come up but how could an evolutionist accept the idea of a spirit. if we evolvoled than its not possible.

I'd note that TEs not only accept the idea of a spirit, but are moved by the Holy Spirit, as well as believe in the existance of an immortal soul and the need for the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus in order to save said soul from Hell.

There are many ways to inculcate the Eden narrative into one's understanding of Genesis. There could be an inherent sinful nature to man that only expressed itself upon God granted sentience. There could be a literal Adam and Eve. There are a myriad of interpretations inbetween. There is nothing in evolutionary theory that denies a soul or the need for Salvation.

 

[ProtestantDan]

Yesterday, Hitler's brand of evolution, the development of the Master Race, preferred Germans, particularly, with blonde hair.

It seems you have just mixed together three terms and choosen the one that best supports your stance without regards to their definitions.

Perverted Eugenics
Genocide
Evolution.

In defining the acts that you describe above, it would be best defined as genocide or perverted eugenics. Not evolution. Evolution by Means of Natural Selection (Darwin's concept) does not call for genocide. It states directly in the title Natural selection.

 

[ProtestantDan]

Spiritually destitute is more like it; it would seem that Natural Law, by definition, says it's man's Natural state to live by "the promise of reward or the fear of punishment".


At the bottom you state that Jesus preached the antithesis of this. Also, how do you explain secular humanists, clearly not motivated by the promise of reward or the fear of punishment" doing good things in life and seeking to do good willingly?


If I recall, in Hitler's fascist state (not communist) personal liberties were greatly reduced.


To call purifying the world of "inferior" peoples and "weeding out" the human race by throwing millions into blast furnaces reduced personal liberties is, well. you just wouldn't be my first pick for judge of an international war crimes court. ;-)


OK, you proposed that people in Hitler's state did whatever they wanted. The reduced personal liberties is referring to the citizens of Germany that were not taken to the death camps. Those that were had no personal liberties.

Not enhanced, as you have proposed. You seem to have learned some parts of history incorrectly.


That was (and is) the goal of Hitler and others, many still alive and operating today; to purify the race and enhance it. Evolution. Man's ultimate goal, to live forever involves evolution, it involves enhancing, "improving" the human race.


Cloning extends to us the promise of living forever. Without God even. But without God's Breath of Life the dust of the earth and the goo in the test tube can never become a living soul. Where does following evolution's lead in this particular direction bring us? If cloning does prove possible but clones are not "living souls" then what are they?


How does your response here in any way reply to my statement? You said that Hitler's state and totalitarian states were places in which people could do whatever they wanted. I expressed how this concept is the exact opposite and proposed that you apparently don't know what Hitler's state was. Then you say that I think that things were easy for people under his rule? You're blatantly contradicting yourself and using everything to blast me and not use logic.


I know he did preach a perverted concept of eugenics,


The Master Race concept easily goes back about 4,500 years and is rooted in the beginning of the humanist religion and its early evolutionary belief.


No! Evolution does not teach creating a "Master Race." That is principle concept you don't seem to understand no matter how many times we tell you. Evolution never covers the idea of creating master races. That is perverted eugenics. You apparently love substituting one for another whenever it suits you.

Due to time restraints I will need to pick up later.

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Spiritually destitute is more like it; it would seem that Natural Law, by definition, says it's man's Natural state to live by "the promise of reward or the fear of punishment".

At the bottom you state that Jesus preached the antithesis of this. Also, how do you explain secular humanists, clearly not motivated by the promise of reward or the fear of punishment" doing good things in life and seeking to do good willingly?

Judgment involves reward and punishment, blessings and curses, and creation and mankind in this have been cursed and the Natural Law says creation and mankind have been cursed and if we don't work we don't eat thus we die.

"the promise of reward or the fear of punishment"
"And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."-Genesis 3:17-19

Sweat (work) brings blessings (food) while idleness brings curses (hunger).

If I recall, in Hitler's fascist state (not communist) personal liberties were greatly reduced.

To call purifying the world of "inferior" peoples and "weeding out" the human race by throwing millions into blast furnaces reduced personal liberties is, well. you just wouldn't be my first pick for judge of an international war crimes court. ;-)

OK, you proposed that people in Hitler's state did whatever they wanted.

Definitely, I did not, you've apparently misunderstood whatever you think was said.

The reduced personal liberties is referring to the citizens of Germany that were not taken to the death camps. Those that were had no personal liberties.
Germany's citizens that were thrown into the furnaces had the greatest reduced personal liberties; the remainder of the German Fatherland of the Master Race fared far better.

Not enhanced, as you have proposed. You seem to have learned some parts of history incorrectly.

That was (and is) the goal of Hitler and others, many still alive and operating today; to purify the race and enhance it. Evolution. Man's ultimate goal, to live forever involves evolution, it involves enhancing, "improving" the human race.

Cloning extends to us the promise of living forever. Without God even. But without God's Breath of Life the dust of the earth and the goo in the test tube can never become a living soul. Where does following evolution's lead in this particular direction bring us? If cloning does prove possible but clones are not "living souls" then what are they?

How does your response here in any way reply to my statement?

Mankind's enhancing and improving itself; enhancing and improving it until, ultimately, man is able to live forever on his own and without God.

You said that Hitler's state and totalitarian states were places in which people could do whatever they wanted.

(That's the second time you've made this broadly sweeping and unfounded allegation. Please cease.)

I'm not sure to which comment you are referring; obviously, they could not do everything the wanted, they lost the war and fifty-odd years later their philosophic proponents are still trying to develop a Master Race by enhancing and improving mankind and they still haven't unlocked the secret of their ultimate goal, evolving into a state of living forever.

I expressed how this concept is the exact opposite and proposed that you apparently don't know what Hitler's state was.

It's entirely possible I've lived a few times longer than you and recall far better what actually took place than the butchered and altered views of history that have most recently in the past few years been force fed to you in the humanist school system.

Then you say that I think that things were easy for people under his rule?

For the third time you have taken illigitimate license and made unfounded and twisted accusations and persist in attempting to put words into my mouth. Kindly cease these improper acts.

You're blatantly contradicting yourself and using everything to blast me and not use logic.

"Your" (man's) logic cannot be used where understanding God is concerned, to wit:

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." -1 Corinthians 2:14,

I know he did preach a perverted concept of eugenics,

The Master Race concept easily goes back about 4,500 years and is rooted in the beginning of the humanist religion and its early evolutionary belief.

No! Evolution does not teach creating a "Master Race."

Evolution, and its predecessing views, has always, for thousands of years now, preached a Master Race philosophy; its relatively recent "subset", the theory of evolution, for it's own related and deceptive purposes and goals may not, indeed, cannot, openly, at this time, tout such, but it is still there, nonetheless, in plain sight for those who have eyes to see, to wit:

"Son of man, thou dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house."-Ezekiel 12:2

That is principle concept you don't seem to understand no matter how many times we tell you.

You are going to have to show me where God, in His Word, agrees with your "principle concept" before it has any merit at all which, at this time, is none.

Evolution never covers the idea of creating master races. That is perverted eugenics.

They are and always have been one and the same end purpose and goal.

You apparently love substituting one for another whenever it suits you.

One finger pointing outward always results in three more pointing back at yourself. For the fourth time, please desist. http://www3.christianforums.com/ima...ww3.christianforums.com/ima...t-bot-right.gif

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."-Colossians 2:8

 

[DJ_Ghost]

It seems you have just mixed together three terms and choosen the one that best supports your stance without regards to their definitions

This is no the first time that we have seen such dishonest and sickening attempts to conflate evolution, Eugenics and the holocaust here.

Ghost

 

[Pilgrim 33]

Yesterday, Hitler's brand of evolution, the development of the Master Race, preferred Germans, particularly, with blonde hair

It seems you have just mixed together three terms and choosen the one that best supports your stance without regards to their definitions.

Perverted Eugenics
Genocide
Evolution.

They all belong to the same whole, as does abortion, euthensaia, and others that ultimately "weed out" the human race.


Evolution by Means of Natural Selection (Darwin's concept) does not call for genocide.

Survival of the fittest. Whether it's a gradual physiologically evolutionary process or a more immediate and proactive "kill off all the inferiors" it's end result is still the same, mankind evolving to godhood on its own.

It states directly in the title Natural selection.

The Bible uses the word Natural, too;

"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."-1 Corinthians 2:14

Why do you put your life, your eternal existence, in the perverted writings of a dead man long and whose memory is long since forgotten?

"For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten."-Ecclesiastes 9:5

"The foolishness of man perverteth his way: and his heart fretteth against the LORD." Proverbs 19:3,

"...hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" 1 Corinthians 1:20c,

 

[DJ_Ghost]

It's entirely possible I've lived a few times longer than you and recall far better what actually took place than the butchered and altered views of history that have most recently in the past few years been force fed to you in the humanist school system.

Given that you were not born till the war was almost over that must be an incredible memory you have then. You must have been remarkable in many ways, since there are very few 1 year olds that have much of a grasp of world politics at all let alone a deep understanding of them as you claim to have had.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."-Colossians 2:8

Good advice. I shall indeed beware of a man vein enough to attempt to claim that at 1 year old he had a deep understanding of the politics of the period that surpasses that of scholars of history that have come since.Especialy one that then deceives me with psudo philosophy as you have attempted several times in this thread.

I shall point out to you as I pointed out to that last person who used the sickening lie that Evolution is responsible for racial supremacy, that it was evolutionists who argued most strenuously against such an argument, even in the latter part of the 19th century when the Church supported racial hierarchies and racism premised on taxonomic tables.

Ghost