• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why do you feel a NEED for theistic evolution?

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,305
13,085
78
✟435,739.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Let's see what we can find in Part 1:

Some in the scientific community question the theory of evolution; others believe it is fact.

As we discovered, about 0.3% of people with PhDs in biology or a related field question Darwinian theory.

What is the truth behind the evidence?

As you just learned, evolution is directly observed daily. What you're confusing with evolution (remember, its a change in allele frequency in a population over time) is actually a consequence of evolution, i.e. common descent.

As you learned, even many creationist organizations admit some common descent, usually species, genera, and families.

The origin of life has for several generations been a hotly contested and unnecessarily complicated issue.

As you also learned, the origin of life is not part of evolutionary theory. Do you remember when I showed you that Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things? I think you probably need to re-write your opus here, to reflect what you've learned recently.

Why is evolution cemented in the minds of many as fact, when it is nothing more than theory?

Usually, because laymen don't know what "theory" means in science. A theory is a well-tested idea or group of ideas that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Facts are the things that make theories true. Do you remember when I showed you the differences between facts, hypotheses, laws, and theories? You need to update your article to reflect what you learned then.

One theme flows throughout all fallacies: They are false!

No, you're very wrong about that. It's very possible to commit a logical fallacy, and still get a true answer. Try this:
All presidents have been men.
Donald Trump is a man.
Therefore, Donald Trump is president.

It's a fallacy, because the reasoning is faulty, but it's true. Donald Trump is president.

Your fallacy presentation needs some work, some real examples would be useful.

The theory of evolution states that a more “evolved” life-form (the effect) stems from a simpler one (the cause)

No, that's false. It's not a logical fallacy, this time, you just don't know what evolutionary theory says. It does not say that a more evolved life form will be more complex than the form from which it evolved. For example, the skeletons of mammals are in many ways, more simple than those of reptiles from which mammals evolved. This goes back to my observation that you would do well to learn what evolutionary theory actually says, before telling us about it.

Perhaps the easiest way to cut to the chase is for you to list for us, the processes, required for evolution that are prohibited by any law of thermodynamics. What have you got?

—in violation of both cause and effect and the second law of thermodynamics.

So then, according to your reasoning, a tree can't grow from a seed. Something wrong here, too. Can you think of what it is?
 
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
64
LOS ANGELES
✟19,372.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Evolutionism is Not Science!!

There are several fundamental characteristics that identify a field of study as being "scientific".

Genuine science is objective and invites scrutiny and investigation. It does not ridicule the critics of its conclusions, but instead silences their criticisms by setting forth the evidence from which those conclusions are drawn.
Genuine science seeks the truth that explains the observed evidence. It does not prejudice the investigation by ruling out, from the start, hypotheses that may very well provide the best explanation for the observed evidence.
Genuine science rejects any hypothesis that consistently fails to fit observed scientific evidence. It does not persistently assume that the fault lies in the evidence rather than in the hypothesis itself.

On all three counts, the commonly-accepted "Theory of Evolution" fails the test of being scientific. With the passing years, proponents of this failed theory are behaving more and more like religious dogmatists in their unwillingness to submit the foundations of their theory to open inquiry and discussion. Instead, they heap scorn and ridicule on their critics, insisting that anyone who has the audacity to question it as stupid or ignorant..

At the heart of the problem is the fact that Evolution, disguised as a viable scientific theory, is actually a tool of religious propaganda and cultural domination, used by those who hold to the religion of Metaphysical Naturalism. Metaphysical Naturalism is the belief that all things, including the origin of life, can be explained purely in terms of natural phenomena, without the intervention of a supernatural being or deity. Ironically, many of the dogmatic proponents of Evolution may not even be aware that this is the religion they hold. Most seem unable to distinguish their religion from their "science", and thus pursue their opposition to a Creator on what they suppose are purely "scientific" grounds.
However, their "science" rules out the possibility of an intelligent Creator from the very outset. This consideration is not demanded by scientific evidence, but by prevailing philosophical ideas about what science ought to be. The problem with this position is that, if God really did create the universe, scientists are forbidden to acknowledge the evidence of it, and must substitute a false, naturalistic explanation in its place. This philosophical bias is neither objective nor scientific, but amounts to religious prejudice. We should never forget that any statement about God is inherently religious, whether it be the theist's affirmation or the atheist's denial.
When the Evolutionist says that life originated without the intervention of a supernatural Being, he is making a religious assertion, not a scientific one. The fact that he may be a scientist by profession, or that he conducts his science in light of this presuppostion does not change the fact that it is a religious claim. It is no more "scientific" than the Creationist's assertion of an intervening Creator.
Evolution is a doctrine which, (1) from its unproven philosophical underpinnings, denies any possibility that God created the living world with purpose and design, (2) whitewashes this philosophical/religious dogma with spurious claims of supporting scientific evidence, and then (3) markets this lie to the world as though it were a proven fact, accepted by all "reputable scientists", and which must be taught to impressionable schoolchildren lest our society fall into collapse and ruin.
This is clearly a recipe for deceiving the masses into denying God, or marginalizing those who continue to believe in a Creator, and this is one of the greatest challenges of our day for those who love the truth.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,305
13,085
78
✟435,739.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
“And this poses something of a problem,: If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?”

I showed you, some time ago, that physicists were able to accurately date rocks by radioactive decay. And we know that works, since such methods were able to accurately date the volcanic flow that buried Pompeii (for which the actual date is known from written records)

And regardless of age, we can accurately know the relative dates of rocks by the fact of the geologic column. As we discussed earlier, it exist intact in a number of places in the Earth.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
64
LOS ANGELES
✟19,372.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Evolutionists claim to believe in the "Law of Monophyly"!!

HOWEVER..

According to the fairytale of Evolutionism, the SAME microbe ... ..S L O W L Y ....evolved into....Apples ants, aardvarka antelopes asparagus apes, anteaters bees bats butterflies badgers buffalo Bristlecones beetles Barracuda bugambilia bears Bobcats beavers boas bison billygoats bass boars cows crocodile crayfish corn crickets dogs dolphins dandelions ducks elephants earthworms eagles Finches fireflies fawns gorillas geese hens horses humans iguanas jackals kangaroos koalas lemons lilacs lilies ladybugs leopards manta rays moreys monkeys mangos mongooses maples mice nuts otters ostriches Oranges olives Porcupines pears porpoises pigs plums rats roses ravens radishes rhubarb rabbits rice starfish scorpions skunks salamanders tadpoles ...
ALL FROM THE SAME LIVING ORGANISM!!! ......

BUT ACCORDING TO YOU EVOLUTIONISTS.... NO CREATURE EVER GAVE BIRTH TO SOMETHING THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS.. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
64
LOS ANGELES
✟19,372.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"TONS OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT UCA"

You have proof and evidence to support Darwin's MYO Mindless Mud to Man Myth? LOL... Sure... That's what they all say... Tons and tons of evidence.. Mountains of evidence.. So MUCH Evidence.. Then I ask them for some and then they start to spittle and spew, spurt and choke.. most just go away.. others attack me as a "Science Denier" Which one will you be? www.evolutionfairytale.com
 
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
64
LOS ANGELES
✟19,372.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
HEY ATHEISTS!! ARENT YOU AT LEAST A LITTLE BIT CURIOUS AS TO WHY NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER MY QUESTION ASKING FOR A PLAUSIBLE EVOLUTIONARY ORDER OF THE 10 VITAL ORGANS FROM MICROBE TO MICROBIOLOGIST THAT PASSES THE LAUGH TEST???? RIP DARWINISM 1851 - 2017 (BY JIM THINNSEN) > > MY QUESTION HERE PUTS THE KNIFE INTO THE HEART OF THE DYING DOG OF DARWIN.. > . > I have a REASONABLE question that I would like answered if you wish ANYONE to take Evolution seriously.. > . > Man has 10 INTERDEPENDENT VITAL Organs and support systems. FACT > . > Man NEEDS all 10 of his VITAL Organs or he dies. FACT > . > Either those 10 VITAL Organs came together ALL AT ONCE .. OR... they Evolved separately.. FACT > . > If they "Evolved" Separately, they must have had an order of Evolution from 1 through 10..FACT > . > For "Evolution" to be even considered to qualify as a hypothetical hypothesis There MUST BE a PLAUSIBLE or FEASABLE Explanation as to an evolutionary ORDER that would be possible. > For Example.. What Vital organ comes First? Second? Third? Man is Irreducibly Complex (BY DEFINITION) > . > Stomach? Skin? Heart? Lungs? Brain? Upper Intestine? Liver? Lower Intestine? Pancreas? Kidneys? Remove just ONE and Man Dies.. And Bye Bye Evolution. > . > So which one do we start with..? Here, let me help you out.. 1 Skin? 2 Stomach? 3 Brain? 4 Heart? You see... Whatever way you start you cause more problems for the myth.. Because ALL 10 NEED TO BE THERE.. TOGETHER, WORKING IN TANDEM, AT THE SAME TIME.. (Please provide an order that passes the laugh test!) > . > Atheists like to point out Lungfish or Nematodes that don't have all ten organs as if that helps their case. IT DOES NOT... Lungfish and Nematodes are ALSO IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX!!! So unless you can show a FEASIBLE OR PLAUSIBLE Pathway for them to turn into a Human, they are a NON SEQUITUR... > . > THEREFORE > . > If UCA for all flora and fauna were to somehow be true, and If we slowly go back in time, Our "Ancestor(s)" would, at some point, have 9 Interdependent vital organs, then 8, then 7, then 6 5 4 3 2... > . > THE MATH IS NOT HARD HERE!. > . > Allow me to give you a BIG head start.. I will allow you to start out with Abiogenesis (Quite generous don't you think?) AND a bag of skin.... Now you have 1 billion years to turn it into a Man... What are the next "Steps" in the Evolutionary ladder? Come on.. Just give me something!!! Let us analyze it together using logic and critical thinking.... You guys are starting to make me think this really isn't about "Science" Anymore, Rather a Religious belief in godless Metaphysical Naturalism,.. > . > A Microbe has ZERO interdependent interlocked VITAL Organs and their support systems. A Microbiologist has TEN interdependent. interlocked. VITAL Organs and their support systems. > . > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 THE MATH IS SIMPLE HERE. Please Provide an Order for VITAL Organs for Microbe to Microbiologist from 1 through 10 that passes the LAUGH TEST!!) > . > On the billion year journey from Organless Microbes to Organ Dependent (10!) Microbiologists there had to be an ORDER (Unless you believe that ALL TEN "Evolved" at the EXACT SAME MOMENT) AKA Creationism.. STOMACH- SKIN- HEART- LUNGS- BRAIN- UPPER / LOWER INTESTINE LIVER PANCREAS - KIDNEYS > . > The inability to answer this simple question is what reduces the Microbes to Microbiologists fairytale to the joke that it is... > . > THE PROBLEM IS.. All of the Observable Creatures that we see are fully formed, complete, and complex that merely Vary or Adapt.... For example.. there are 5000 "Species" of Ladybugs. 2000 "Species" of Cichlids" 9000 "Species" of Birds, 6000 "Species" of Lizards..Where is the Evolution? Nowhere...(I could go on all day) But here is the catch... By going back into the Nebulousphere of "Long ago and far away" they are trying to use slow minute changes to account for a Microbe turning into a Microbiologist.. What good is a barely or partially formed VITAL organ?? My unanswerable question puts everything in perspective... As of now.. NO ONE has even TRIED to answer it....
 
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
64
LOS ANGELES
✟19,372.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ben Carson: Big Bang A Fairy Tale, Theory Of Evolution Encouraged By The Devil

"I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary, and it has become what is scientifically, politically correct."


In a speech delivered in 2012, Ben Carson said the big bang theory was part of the "fairy tales" pushed by "highfalutin scientists" as a story of creation.

Similarly, Carson, a noted creationist, said he believed the theory of evolution was encouraged by the devil.

"Now what about the big bang theory," said Carson at speech to fellow Seventh-day Adventists titled "Celebration of Creation," about the theory for the origin of the universe
"I find the big bang, really quite fascinating. I mean, here you have all these highfalutin scientists and they're saying it was this gigantic explosion and everything came into perfect order. Now these are the same scientists that go around touting the second law of thermodynamics, which is entropy, which says that things move toward a state of disorganization.

"So now you're gonna have this big explosion and everything becomes perfectly organized and when you ask them about it they say, 'Well we can explain this, based on probability theory because if there's enough big explosions, over a long period of time, billions and billions of years, one of them will be the perfect explosion," continued Carson. "So I say what you're telling me is if I blow a hurricane through a junkyard enough times over billions and billions of years, eventually after one of those hurricanes there will be a 747 fully loaded and ready to fly."

Carson added that he believed the big bang was "even more ridiculous" because there is order to the universe.

"Well, I mean, it's even more ridiculous than that 'cause our solar system, not to mention the universe outside of that, is extraordinarily well organized, to the point where we can predict 70 years away when a comet is coming," he said. "Now that type of organization to just come out of an explosion? I mean, you want to talk about fairy tales, that is amazing."

Later, Carson said he personally believed Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was encouraged by the devil.

"I personally believe that this theory that Darwin came up with was something that was encouraged by the adversary, and it has become what is scientifically, politically correct," said Carson.


"Amazingly, there are a significant number of scientists who do not believe it but they're afraid to say anything," Carson added, saying he would be writing a book, "The Organ of Species," that shows how the organs of the body refute evolution
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,305
13,085
78
✟435,739.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
According to the fairytale of Evolutionism, the SAME microbe ... ..S L O W L Y ....evolved into....Apples ants, aardvarka antelopes asparagus apes, anteaters bees bats butterflies badgers buffalo Bristlecones beetles Barracuda bugambilia bears Bobcats beavers boas bison billygoats bass boars cows crocodile crayfish corn crickets dogs dolphins dandelions ducks elephants earthworms eagles Finches fireflies fawns gorillas geese hens horses humans iguanas jackals kangaroos koalas lemons lilacs lilies ladybugs leopards manta rays moreys monkeys mangos mongooses maples mice nuts otters ostriches Oranges olives Porcupines pears porpoises pigs plums rats roses ravens radishes rhubarb rabbits rice starfish scorpions skunks salamanders tadpoles ...
ALL FROM THE SAME LIVING ORGANISM!!! ......

Nope. The last common ancestor of all living things today didn't give rise to any of those. It just produced somewhat different offspring, that further diversified. That's all it takes.

BUT ACCORDING TO YOU EVOLUTIONISTS.... NO CREATURE EVER GAVE BIRTH TO SOMETHING THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS.. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

One of Darwin's key points is that every organism is different from every other. Thought you knew.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,305
13,085
78
✟435,739.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
64
LOS ANGELES
✟19,372.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, Ben Carson also thinks that the pyramids were constructed by Joseph to hold grain for the lean years he prophesied:
https://www.vox.com/explainers/2015/11/5/9677942/ben-carson-pyramids-grain

Which shows that you can be a highly skilled surgeon, and still be a whacko. He's got a lot of weird ideas.

Lots of people claimed that the only reason many people didnt vote for Obama was because he is black.. Are we seeing a similar pattern here with Ben Carson? Isnt it his skin color that really concerns you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
64
LOS ANGELES
✟19,372.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nope. The last common ancestor of all living things today didn't give rise to any of those. It just produced somewhat different offspring, that further diversified. That's all it takes.

WOW.. TURNS OUT YOU DONT EVEN KNOW YOUR OWN FAIRYTALE... BUT WE ALREADY KNEW THAT LOL



Common descent is a concept in evolutionary biology applicable when one species is the ancestor of two or more species later in time. Its broadest application, the last universal common ancestor (LUCA) of all life on Earth, is a central assumption of modern evolutionary theory.[1][2]

Common descent - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,305
13,085
78
✟435,739.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Lots of people claimed that the only reason many people didnt vote for Obama was because he is black.. Are we seeing a similar pattern here with Ben Carson? Is it his skin color that really concerns you?

That qualifies for the strangest excuse to play the race card, ever. You do know that Obama is as white as he is black, right? It's just in America, people tend to call someone partly white, "black."

Which makes no sense, anyway. Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races. It's just a cultural construct, which explains why the number of "races" is determined by the culture in which one lives. Why does the color of Carson's skin matter so much to you?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,305
13,085
78
✟435,739.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
WOW.. TURNS OUT YOU DONT EVEN KNOW YOUR OWN FAIRYTALE... BUT WE ALREADY KNEW THAT LOL

You're starting to get excited again. Maybe it would be good to take a break for a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,305
13,085
78
✟435,739.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
You have proof and evidence to support Darwin's MYO Mindless Mud to Man Myth? LOL... Sure... That's what they all say... Tons and tons of evidence..

Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood says there are "gobs and gobs of it." Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise says that the many transitional forms in the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

And they actually know what the evidence is.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
64
LOS ANGELES
✟19,372.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
64
LOS ANGELES
✟19,372.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood says there are "gobs and gobs of it." Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Kurt Wise says that the many transitional forms in the fossil record is "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."

"Your fellow YE creationist, Dr. Todd Wood says there are "gobs and gobs of it."

When called out on it, Todd gave me Finches Beaks as evidence for evolution..I kid you not.. FINCHES BEAKS!!! Ahahahahha.

I got a feeling he has a different idea of what "evolution" is..... Here... this is for our readers. BWAHAHAHHAH. fool...

Google Image Result for https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p104/c10429/evolution-happening-in-lab.jpg
 
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
64
LOS ANGELES
✟19,372.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
29,305
13,085
78
✟435,739.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
When called out on it, Todd gave me Finches Beaks as evidence for evolution..I kid you not.. FINCHES BEAKS!!! Ahahahahha.

That's evolution, yes. Change in allele frequency in a population over time. He admits that. He just doesn't think it accounts for common descent. As he says there is much evidence for common descent, but he prefers his religious beliefs.

When you get upset, you start doing all caps, double posts, and so on. Maybe take a break?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

jJIM THINNSEN

Active Member
Apr 23, 2020
321
23
64
LOS ANGELES
✟19,372.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That qualifies for the strangest excuse to play the race card, ever. You do know that Obama is as white as he is black, right? It's just in America, people tend to call someone partly white, "black."

Which makes no sense, anyway. Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races. It's just a cultural construct, which explains why the number of "races" is determined by the culture in which one lives. Why does the color of Carson's skin matter so much to you?


"Evolutionary theory has shown that there are no biological human races."


NO That was actually the BIBLE that has shown us that..

The Fairytale of evolution promoted Racism like nothing in history...

Is this ignorance? OR willfully lying? I will give the benefit of the doubt
but stop pressing your luck Evolutionist

You cant even remember the COMPLETE name of your hero's book can you..
Most like likely you never knew it (Hence the benefit of the doubt)... LOL

"On the Origin of Species, by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favored RACES in the Struggle for Life"


Does A Belief In Evolution Lead To Racism? – The Truth

If you are racist, there is a very good chance that you also believe in the theory of evolution. In fact, many of the most famous racists of the past 100 years were hardcore Darwinists. Of course this is not always true. For example, there are millions of radical jihadists in the Middle East that hate all Jews and want to wipe them off the face of the planet. But in general, if someone has a belief in evolution it is more likely that person will be a racist. You see, if you believe that everyone is created by God and is greatly loved by God, then there are no “inferior races”. We are just the “human race” made up of individuals that have been created in the image of God and that are exceedingly valuable. The second greatest commandment in the Bible is to love one another, and that leaves no room for racism at all. But if you believe that we are all just a bunch of highly evolved animals, that is a different story altogether. The logical conclusion is that some groups have “evolved” at a much slower pace than others and are thus “inferior”. This is what Charles Darwin believed, and this is what prominent disciples of Charles Darwin throughout history have believed.

For instance, just consider what Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, believed. She was convinced that sterilizing races that were less “evolved” was only rational

Sanger believed she was ‘working in accord with the universal law of evolution’. She maintained that the brains of Australian Aborigines were only one step more evolved than chimpanzees and just under blacks, Jews and Italians. When arguing for eugenics, Sanger quoted Darwin as an authority when discussing ‘natural checks’ of the population, such as war, which helped to reduce the population. Her magazine even argued for ‘state-sponsored sterilization programs’, forcibly sterilizing the ‘less capable’.

She was a hardcore racist, but this is not publicized by Planned Parenthood today. The following is one of her most disturbing quotes that I shared in one of my previous articles

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

And she focused hard on setting up her “clinics” in minority communities. By doing so, she hoped “to stem the rising tide of color”

As her organization grew, Sanger set up more clinics in the communities of other ‘dysgenic races’—such as Blacks and Hispanics. Sanger turned her attention to ‘Negroes’ in 1929 and opened another clinic in Harlem in 1930. Sanger, ‘in alliance with eugenicists, and through initiatives such as the Negro Project … exploited black stereotypes in order to reduce the fertility of African Americans.’ The all-white staff and the sign identifying the clinic as a ‘research bureau’ raised the suspicions of the black community. They feared that the clinic’s actual goal was to ‘experiment on and sterilize black people’. Their fears were not unfounded: Sanger once addressed the women’s branch of the Klu Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey, and received a ‘dozen invitations to speak to similar groups’. Flynn claims that she was on good terms with other racist organizations.

Sanger believed the ‘Negro district’ was the ‘headquarters for the criminal element’ and concluded that, as the title of a book by a member of her board proclaimed, The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy, was a rise that had to be stemmed. To deal with the problem of resistance among the black population, Sanger recruited black doctors, nurses, ministers and social workers ‘in order to gain black patients’ trust’ in order ‘to limit or even erase the black presence in America’.

Today, the U.S. government gives hundreds of millions of dollars to the organization that she founded every single year.

That is absolutely sickening.

Another very prominent racist who was also a hardcore Darwinist was Adolf Hitler. The following are a couple of excerpts from Richard Weikart’s book entitled “Hitler’s Ethic: The Nazi Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress“…

In 1938 the Ministry of Education published an official curriculum handbook for the schools. This handbook mandated teaching evolution, including the evolution of human races, which evolved through “selection and elimination.” It stipulated, “The student must accept as something self-evident this most essential and most important natural law of elimination [of unfit] together with evolution and reproduction.” In the fifth class, teachers were instructed to teach about the “emergence of the primitive human races (in connection with the evolution of animals).”

—–

The opening pages explained that the central concepts underlying racial ideology are hard heredity and racial inequality. Then it claimed that racial inequality has come about because evolution proceeds by struggle. Different races simply do not evolve at the same pace, so they are at different levels. The authors then asserted that the three main human races – European, Mongolian, and Negro – were subspecies that branched off from a common ancestor about 100,000 years ago. They argued that races evolved through selection and elimination, and the Nordic race became superior because it had to struggle in especially harsh conditions. Throughout this pamphlet the terms “higher evolution,” “struggle for existence,” and selection are core concepts that occur repeatedly.

Are you starting to get the picture?

And almost every major biography of Hitler acknowledges the same thing

The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

If you talk to most racists today, they will use terms such as “subhuman” or “savages” to describe the groups that they do not like.

The unspoken implication is that those groups are “inferior” because they evolved that way.

Anyone that thinks like that is an idiot.

But perhaps it should not be surprising that people buy into such ridiculous theories since we are getting dumber as a society. In fact, one very prominent evolutionist just came out with two new papers claiming that humans have been getting dumber for thousands of years

Are humans becoming smarter or more stupid? Comparing our modern lives and technology with that of any preceding generation, one might think we are becoming increasingly smarter. But, in two papers published in Trends in Genetics, Gerald R. Crabtree of Stanford University claims that we are losing mental capacity and have been doing so for 2,000–6,000 years! The reason, Crabtree concludes, is due to genetic mutations—which are the backbone of neo-Darwinian evolution.

Professor Crabtree is convinced that this loss of mental capacity is the result of mutations which have accumulated in our genes…

Based on data produced by the 1000 Genomes Project Consortium and two recent papers in Nature, Crabtree estimates in the first article that, in the past 3,000 years (approximately 120 generations), about 5,000 new mutations have occurred in the genes governing our intellectual ability. He claims most of these mutations will have no effect, while about 2–5 percent are deleterious and “a vanishingly small fraction will increase fitness.” Crabtree bases his conclusion that humankind is losing mental capacity on the ratio between the deleterious and the beneficial mutations. (One critic calls this a “back-of-the-envelope calculation;” but if Crabtree’s objective is a reasonable order-of-magnitude estimate, then he seems to have achieved that.)

In the second article, Crabtree moves away from the science of genetics and moves into anthropology, which he admits is “not [his] area of expertise.” He opines that humanity began losing intellectual abilities with the advent of agriculture and permanent communities 3,000 years ago because such a change would “tend to reduce the selective pressure placed on every individual, every day of their life.”

This is actually just more evidence that confirms the theory that I wrote about in my previous article entitled “The Human Race Is Dying: DNA Degeneration Would Eventually Lead To The Total Extinction Of Humanity“. With each passing generation, we lose more DNA information and we accumulate more harmful mutations.

Given long enough, at some point the human race would no longer be able to produce viable offspring.

Of course all of this points to the fact that we were created and that humanity is in a long process of decaying because of sin, but most people today prefer to believe in the fairy tale of evolution even though the hard science simply does not support it.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.