ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

What Use For Evolution

What Use is the Science of Evolution?

What use is evolution science? Exactly how does society benefit from this knowledge? For the most part, evolution science seems to be solely directed in a negative direction, toward disproving and discrediting God.

Join Our Christian Chat and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---Ron_May on 11/14/12
     Helpful Blog Vote (8)

Post a New Blog



StrongAxe, the following quote comes from a letter written by Dr Colin Patterson who was senior paleontologist (fossil expert) at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History. "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.....I will lay it on the line there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

If there are, as you claim, transitional forms in the fossil record, why would this expert write this?

If you research the family tree of just about any creature you will see it is almost all dotted lines. Dotted lines are not fossils but belief.
---Warwick on 12/5/12


Warwick,

Just an update on your cricket tale. I heard that last year scientists in Hawaii found a colony of crickets who had mutated half a vertebrate backbone and had half transformed into reptiles, discarding wings for scales. And in another amazing evidence for evolution they found that the crickets all started to chirp Mozart's Requiem in D minor. Ain't evolution amazing!
---Marc on 12/6/12


Interesting story, Warwick.

But is this evolution into a new species, or variation within a species?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/6/12


An interesting event began on the Hawaiian island of Kaui in 1999. Male Crikets there chirped to call a mate. Then a parasatic fly arrived and tracked down them by sound and laid eggs in them leading to their death. In 2001 researchers heard only one cricket. In 2003 searches found plenty of crickets, all silent. This is natural selection which evolutionists say is "seeing evolution at work" and part of microbe to man evolution. Is it?

In the imagined climb from microbe to man there must appear buckets of new, unique, specific genetic information. What happened with the crickets is a loss of information as it did not create a new creature but left only chirpless crickets, a loss of genetic information.
---Warwick on 12/5/12


jerry659:

I never said that something's absence in the record proves its existence. I have several times said that something's absence in the record does NOT prove it's NON-existence. These are very different things, and this is very elementary logic.

The fact that we have no fossils of some intermediate forms does not prove that they exist (NOR that they do not exist), any more than the fact that we have no record (say) of Noah's wife's parents means they didn't exist either.
---StrongAxe on 12/4/12




Axey: "99.9999% of creatures don't survive in the fossil record"

Where did you get that? Other than the obvious oxymoron, your statement is pure conjecture. You are counting that which does not exist to prove its existence.

And, yes indeed, there have been human remains found in the fossil record - in coal deposits as well as in limestone. Google Guadeloupe Woman. This well-documented find has been suppressed because it disproves Evolution.


---jerry6593 on 12/4/12


jerry6593:

Look at how many humans are in the fossil record. Of the billions of humans, there may be thousands of human fossils - for each one found, there are millions who died, and whose remains were recycled by nature in one way or other (decomposition, being eaten, burned in fires, etc.). The ones that survive usually do so because of extraordinary natural phenomena (such as being buried in tar) or extraordinary artificial phenomena (such as being mummified). The fact that 99.9999% of creatures don't survive in the fossil record makes it quite reasonable that some entire species may lack representation.
---StrongAxe on 12/3/12


Warwick,

Yes FSM has the same problems as the invisible pink unicorn and your god BTW.


So does ingestion of special medication act as a ritual and a requirement in Christianity for belief? That would explain a lot. Didn't know that.

Paul Newmann's garlic basil special sauce is used by most practioner's, but never in excess.

I imagine you all need something a bit more psychotropic...
---atheist on 12/3/12


Warwick: "Do these aparitions only appear after the ingestion of your special medication?

I think that our pseudo-atheist friend sees things that aren't there by hallucination rather than medication. Come to think of it, that's how Crazy Uncle Charlie came up with his silly theory.


---jerry6593 on 12/3/12


Atheist the spaghetti monster is only called the flying spaghetti monster when he is flying. The rest of the time, on terra firma, he is known to those near and dear as the spaghetti monster. And the sylabically challenged usually just call him SM.

However the FSM isn't to be confused with your invisible, eternal, spirit FSM is he? How could you know he flies if he is invisible? Are you specially equipped to see invisible eternal FSM's? Do these aparitions only appear after the ingestion of your special medication?
---Warwick on 12/2/12




Atheist: You could read some of the works of C.S.Lewis. He started out as an atheist, and slowly decided, in what appears to me to be a logical way (though you may disagree there) that the world makes more sense if God did make it than if the world made itself

His book 'Miracles' is, I think, one of his best explanations of why nature alone leaves someone looking for a complete explanation looking further
---Peter on 12/2/12


Warwick,

That's the "flying spaghetti monster" not to be confused with the spaghetti monster.
---atheist on 12/2/12


"They have found a portion of DNA strand that is common in every living thing."

That is nothing new, I would assume. Something is common to everything living, anyway. All living thing metabolize in the same way (glucose+=> energy occurs in the same way, and to the DNA coding for that will be the same - though itis more likely to be in the mitochondrial DNA, not in the cellular DNA, I suspect)

But again I have to remind ALL of us that we are arguing outside of our specialty, and so we are talking of things we really don't know about
---Peter on 12/2/12


\\You attempt a parody of what Christians believe\\

atheist is not the only one here who does this type of thing.

BTW, did you know that an electromicrograph of DNA was recently taken, and sure enough, it IS a double helix (twisty ladder) after all?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 12/2/12


Family,when I as a young lady in college even though my family roots not from here,NEVER convince me about NO evolution in college!
my grandmother everyday may as well say 'risk her life! teach me ELENA about the gospel as a small little girl..among voodoo worshipers, idolotry & stupidity.such as yes many used to be aethiests.. all she taught me about JESUS! A very simple kind loving Afrikan woman born in Liberia, JESUS never left me desolate and she won many to JESUS! in a crazy time, in Cuba!
---ELENA on 12/2/12


Atheist your incoherent mutterings are funny but the joke is on you. You attempt a parody of what Christians believe while insisting the universe, and all therein made itself. You believe a microbe became a man without intelligent input. Even the spaghetti monster is more plausible than that.
---Warwick on 12/1/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Software


An Athiest tried to prove evolution to me by saying, "They have found a portion of DNA strand that is common in every living thing." My reply??? "Of Course. God created every living thing."
---CalicoHawk on 12/1/12

Of course, the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink unicorn, or the magical orbiting teapot created every living creature using the same "logic". If A=B then god exists.
---atheist on 12/1/12


A Christian should not limited to his/her belief statements only. Believing in Christ Jesus is an entry point into the continuous manifestations, revelations, experience(s) of the Living Christ and God. It is this experience(s) of Christ that daily assures and confirms to the Christian that he/she is on the best path. Others that do not believe in Christ can never have the marvelous Christ-experience(s) until they do. The only way to test Christ/God is to believe HIM first.
---Adetunji on 12/1/12


An Athiest tried to prove evolution to me by saying, "They have found a portion of DNA strand that is common in every living thing." My reply??? "Of Course. God created every living thing."
---CalicoHawk on 12/1/12


Axey: "How does that DISPROVE anything? The fossil record is very sparse."

What??? The fossil record contains trillions of specimens, and not one of them suggests an evolutionary transitional form.

DISPROOF:

Evolution requires that an organism evolve by slow degrees from a similar, but less developed, precursor organism. Since the Precambrian contains no remains of such organisms, it DISPROVES that foundational principle, and thus the theory itself.

You have believed a fairy tale. It's time for you to grow up into Christian manhood and listen to reason. Why must you defend crazy Uncle Charlie at the expense of your integrity?


---jerry6593 on 12/1/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising


StrongAxe, if Paul or Moses lived during the photo age then the lack of photos of them would be unusual, and you would have a point. But they didn't so you have no point.

If no evidence is known then you have no evidence to support your point. You therefore have nothing but conjecture. This can make an interesting story but nothing but a story.

Evolutionists claim all living and extinct creatures evolved from the imagined original creature. Untold billions of fossils of these creatures exist but not the supposed transitional forms. How could this be if the transitions occurred over vast periods of time, as evolutionists say?
---Warwick on 11/30/12


\\P.S. I am totally against abortion.\\

My Bible says not to be unequally yoked, and to come out from among them and be separate.

Monocellular organisms don't only live in mud. They live in soil, in water, and float in the air.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/30/12


Atheist://.. how irrational the bloggers here are. And all in the name of "belief" as opposed to reason// Christians know you better. You think you are an assumption? Our book of covenant with our God teaches us that you are (1)a FOOL (2)Anti-Christ and anti-God being used by an evil master that is deceiving you with your reasoning.No group on earth ever reached the true creator with reasoning, the true creator revealed Himself to man through Israel.
---Adetunji on 11/30/12


"Of course, HOW these single-celled creatures appeared is another matter. I have no problem believing that God created them, but what the process might look like from our mortal dimension's viewpoint, I don't know.

Only God sees things as they really are, and that's enough for me.

Glory to Jesus Christ!"
---Cluny on 11/27/12

That is sound reasoning.
---Nana on 11/30/12


Send a Free Online Ecard


jerry6593:

You wrote: Evolution REQUIRES development of life forms from precursors. The Precambrian-Cambrian interface DISPROVES that.

How does that DISPROVE anything? The fossil record is very sparse. All we have is a few rare samples here or there. The presence of evidence can strongly suggest a correlation. The absence of evidence, does NOT, however, strongly suggest the absence of a correlation. Does the fact that we have no photos of Paul or Moses prove they never existed? No, it doesn't.
---StrongAxe on 11/30/12


Cluny: You are way off base. A single-celled organism is NOT a precursor to the life forms in the Cambrian, any more than a slug is a precursor to man. These creatures lived in the mud of the sea floor, as they do today. Thus, they appear immediately below the first layer deposited by Noah's flood - the Cambrian.

You have believed a fairy tale. It's time for you to grow up into Christian manhood and listen to reason. Why must you defend crazy Uncle Charlie's non-Orthodox creation story at the expense of your integrity?

P.S. I am totally against abortion.



---jerry6593 on 11/28/12


Usually, I don't reply to members of groups that believe in pre-natal infanticide, but this fact needs to be pointed out.

There ARE fossils of single-celled organisms in pre-cambrian strata, so this fits in with Darwin's theory. There just was not the technology to find them until recently.

Of course, HOW these single-celled creatures appeared is another matter. I have no problem believing that God created them, but what the process might look like from our mortal dimension's viewpoint, I don't know.

Only God sees things as they really are, and that's enough for me.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/27/12


Axe: Perhaps you should read your posts. Evolution REQUIRES development of life forms from precursors. The Precambrian-Cambrian interface DISPROVES that. Evolution REQUIRES long ages for the development of new species. The cataclysmic nature of the fossil record DISPROVES that (see warwick's post below). Evolution REQUIRES transitional life forms. They are MISSING from the fossil record, and once again, that record DISPROVES Evolution.

You have believed a fairy tale. It's time for you to grow up into Christian manhood and listen to reason. Why must you defend crazy Uncle Charlie at the expense of your integrity?


---jerry6593 on 11/27/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders


jerry6593:

You said: Axe: You seem to be arguing that absence of information in the fossil record proves Evolution

I said no such thing. I WAS saying that the ABSENCE of information in the fossil record does not DISPROVE evolution. Lack of evidence for something is not the same as evidence against that thing.

As the old saying goes, "If a tree falls in the forest, and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?". The laws of physics and probability don't change based on the presence of witnesses. Just because we didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't happen. It doesn't mean it happened either, but the best we can do is look for evidence elsewhere.
---Strong on 11/26/12


Peter, my comments were directed at StrongAxe and his idea that those creatures which are not 'selected' miss out because their DNA is "junk."

I think the following example explains it well. Wolves in deep snow regions tend to have longer legs. This gives them survival advantage, as their longer legs allow them to better hunt in these conditions. This does not mean any 1 wolf grew longer legs but that those with longer legs survived to breed. This does not mean those which failed to survive were overall inferior, only so in this specific case. Long legs may be a distinct disadvantage in a different situation.

I don't believe any wolves, or any creature for that matter, has perfect DNA after 6,000 years of the fall.
---Warwick on 11/25/12


In the evolutionary story the fossil record is supposedly a record of the death and consequent fossilization of creatures over millions/billions of years. Interestingly this same record shows these fossils were not produced by the evolutionary slow and gradual method but covered quickly by catastrophes, therefore preserved.

I think it amazing, considering the untold billions of fossils which exist that trasnsitional forms are the only ones missing! Remember evolutionists claim one kind of creature evolved from a completely different creature over vast periods of time, without leaving any record of this! Tricky little blighters!
---Warwick on 11/25/12


Sorry, Warwick, I guess I did not express it well enough.

The question was whether the transmission of DNA from the 'parent' to the 'child' occurs with 100% efficiency, which seems to be your claim, or whether there are errors which might cause an enzyme to gain the ability to digest a product it was not able to digest before (by INCORRECT transmission of DNA from parent to child)

I had the impression that some evidence had been provided (logically it can be, by checking the DNA of the parents and looking at the DNA of the children and seeing if there are any 'problems')
---Peter on 11/24/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages


love.wins:

Exactly! Jesus said by their fruits you will know them. He didn't say by their doctrines you will know them.
---StrongAxe on 11/25/12


Axe: You seem to be arguing that absence of information in the fossil record proves Evolution. How convenient. It's hard to argue against something that doesn't exist. There does, however, exist a real, physical fossil record that documents the distruction of life in the naohic flood. The only thing missing in this record are any evolutionary precursors to the Cambrian, evolutionary transitional life forms, and any hint of fossil formation today. Also missing, of course, is any evidence of long-age deposition or erosion.

It should not surprise me that your science is grounded on what does not exist, since many ground their religion on what the Bible does not say - rather than on what it clearly does say.


---jerry6593 on 11/25/12


I'd rather spend my time with an evolutionist who was a kindly person than with a creationist who was not.
---love.wins on 11/24/12


jerry6593:

The vast majority of lifeforms of any species that die are recycled (i.e. "dust to dust") - most are decomposed, eaten, consumed by various effects of nature, etc. Any fossils that exist at all are extremely rare exceptions to the rule. As such, one should be no more surprised by gaps in the fossil record than by the fact that if you go to a library burned to the ground, and you be lucky and find volume 3 of 10-volume set, it's unlikely that you will find the other 9 volumes, if you find any of them at all. Absence of evidence is NOT the same as evidence of absence. If it were, atheists could point at the sky, say "We don't see any God, so he must not exist", and you would be forced to agree with them.
---StrongAxe on 11/24/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair


Witchcraft and Darwin? What about the evolutionary scientists today, are they similarly encumbered?
---atheist on 11/24/12


Atheist many of those whom you consider irrational here have challenged your beliefs and you have been found wanting. Jerry has asked you numerous questions and I do not remember when you were able to provide a good answer.

Merry Christmas. Remember you don't believe in God, but He believes in you. Repent now and avoid the rush!
---Warwick on 11/24/12


Adetunji: You are correct in your assertion of the true authorship of the evolutionary religion. Unfortunately, closed-minded believers in this cult such as the Atheist cannot grasp the connection. It is an historical fact that Charles Darwin went ashore in South America and attended a witchcraft ceremony just prior to his "epiphany" on Galapagos. It is also an historical fact that he remained sickly (and a bit nutso) for the rest of his life after that experience.


---jerry6593 on 11/24/12


...the originator of this theory were not the human beings that announced it but the LIAR(evil one) who projected it into their minds.
---Adetunji on 11/23/12

The "evil one" indeed. I am amazed at how irrational the bloggers here are. And all in the name of "belief" as opposed to reason.
---atheist on 11/23/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


Ron_May: Thank you for recognizing the negative direction of the theory of evolution. You are right. the originator of this theory were not the human beings that announced it but the LIAR(evil one) who projected it into their minds.
---Adetunji on 11/23/12


Francis: "Speaking as a member of the scientific community, science does not, try to disprove God at all."

I am shocked, Francis, that you would speak on behalf of Atheistic Evolution. What in your scientific background brings you to that conclusion?

If indeed Evolution is backed by science, surely someone here could produce a single supporting piece of scientific evidence to that effect. The REAL science of Historical Geology (which I have studied) shows an explosion of life forms in the Cambrian Layer, with no precursors in the Precambrian - in direct contradiction to the pseudoscience of Evolution. Does YOUR scientific background offer an explanation for this contradiction?


---jerry6593 on 11/23/12


Atheist natural selection concerens events which occur in nature, by natural processes. Spraying insects with insecticide is human intervention not a process in nature, as is natural selection. Likewise selective breeding of animals is not natural selection either.

Natural selection: "A process in nature in which organisms possessing certain genotypic characteristics that make them better adjusted to an environment tend to survive, reproduce, increase in number or frequency, and therefore, are able to transmit and perpetuate their essential genotypic qualities to succeeding generations.

---Warwick on 11/22/12


But this is not natural selection.

---Warwick on 11/18/12


Yes it is.
---atheist on 11/21/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


evolution science seems to be solely directed in a negative direction, toward disproving and discrediting God.
---Ron_May on 11/14/12

Speaking as a member of the scientific community, science does not, try to disprove God at all.

Some christian, unable to handle the findings and theories of science invoke God as an explanation for the unexplained.

Science is mainly concerned with being able to duplicate observed, and lab result, not finding God
---francis on 11/21/12


Atheist you are an excellent example of "devolving ignorances.'
---Warwick on 11/21/12


Peter, I ma not sure what you mean. Maybe you could express yourself another way to help me.

I was responding to a specific point StrongAxe made. He appeared to be saying that natural selection selects the better genetic information and that not selected is "junk." As I understand it natural selection means that because of genetic diversity some creatures are already better suited to survive in a certain evironment e.g long-haired mice in a freezing environment. This does not mean those who do not survive in this environment are genetically inferior only that they are less able
to survive in this specific environment.
---Warwick on 11/21/12


Warwick, the way you state it you appear to state that ALL the 'passage' of DNA is 100% correct.

Are you saying that the statements in the books that the 'passages' are occasionally erroneous is fake?

It is one of the most commonly stated facts
---Peter on 11/21/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


And I saith unto you, beware of false teachers claiming that what a mutation can taketh away it cannot giveth backth. What information that mayth be lost, mayth not be found again. Be warnth, those not understandingth EVOLUTION will repeatth to prattle on gaily losted in the remorsefulness of their devolving ignorances.
---atheist on 11/20/12


StrongAxe your view of natural selection is wrong. It is not that any characteristics are "junk" but that certain characteristics have survival value in certain circumstances. For example if the rainfall declined dramatically in a particular region then those creatures which have characteristics which allow them to survive in this new dry climate will do so. And those who cannot handle the new dry climate will not.

Conversely if rainfall should dramatically increase in a region those creatures which can survive in a wetter environment will do so, and those who don't have such characteristics are less able to survive.

It is a conservative process and gives no support to microbe-to-man evolution.
---Warwick on 11/19/12


David8318:

What natural selection does is to choose among various genetic choices already available to the parents, then propagating the useful ones, while discarding the junk.

Many of the things microbes and other lesser creatures can do, man cannot - because man has many features that are better. This is quite obviously true whether man inherited his DNA from microbes or not.

For example, many lower animals have the ability to regrow limbs, etc. We do not. But this is because we, due to our more advanced state, are much less likely to lose them in the first place, so regrowing limbs is nowhere nearly as important to species survival as it is for, say, geckos.
---StrongAxe on 11/19/12


'Natural selection in the realm of ideas'- strongaxe.

NS works in the oposite direction to what evolution is said to go. Ponderosa has on a micro level 'evolved' or adapted according to market forces... but it remains a fast food chain, nothing else.

Warwick has taken the words out of my mouth and I must admit I agree entirely with Warwick on this matter when he says regarding NS, '...it brings about a loss of genetic information in the population... the opposite of microbe to man evolution.' I have argued before that NS and mutations work in the oposite direction as both lose DNA info.

As regard social Darwinism, unlike Nazism it along with false religion still thrives and drives war and suffering on an industrial scale.
---David8318 on 11/19/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


StrongAxe no individual insect has ever developed immunity to a pesticide. The reality is that within a population of insects some already had resistance. Spraying therefore only kills those without resistance. The percentage already with resistance (most likely a tiny percentage) reproduce while the majority die. If they are sprayed again and again eventually the whole population will be composed of only those who already had resistance, and some of their offspring. But this is not natural selection.

Also it is not necessarily an improvement at all as it brings about a loss of genetic information in the population, a decrease in diversity of genetic information, which is the opposite of microbe to man evolution.
---Warwick on 11/18/12


It's an instrument from the devil 2nd.Cor.11 v 14 for people to use in order to deny God in creation & Everything Else.
---Lawrence on 11/18/12


StrongAxe, despite the way movies portray it in WW11 the country which did far the most to defeat Germany was the USSR. And at the loss of millions of lives. Their politics were atheistic which is of course based upon evolutionism. So your reasoning is incorrect.

This result does not show that social Darwinism is correct at all, but a Godless therefore false premise.
---Warwick on 11/18/12


David8318:

We can witness natural selection in the realm of ideas. For example, decades ago, Ponderosa was the only fast food chain offering free drink refills, but it was so popular that anyone who didn't do the same was left in the dust - now EVERYBODY does it. We can also witness it in biological species. For example, insects gain immunities to pesticides, and bacteria gain immunities to antibiotics.

However, as many people here repeatedly point out, improvement within a species is not the same as changes between species.

Also, if one wants to cite Nazism, the very fact that the Nazis lost the war is proof, in the Darwinian sense, that their ideas were total garbage - i.e. they didn't survive because they weren't fit.
---StrongAxe on 11/17/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


\\The rare earth hypothesis has helped to conivce some atheists that there must be a god. \\

Samuel, I don't understand your term "rare earth hypothesis". Can you explain, please?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/16/12


Strongaxe asks- How does evolution promote fascism?

'The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich' states social Darwinism was '...the ideology behind Hitler's policy of genocide.'

In harmony with the teachings of Darwinian evolution, '...German ideologists argued that the modern state, instead of devoting its energy to protecting the weak, should reject its inferior population in favor of the strong, healthy elements.'

They argued that war is normal in the struggle for survival of the fittest, that "victory goes to the strong, and the weak must be eliminated."

Darwinian evolution was (is) the backbone of Hitler's fascist Nazi regime.
---David8318 on 11/16/12


If you want to read on how evolutionist try to destroy belief in GOD look up the Blind Watchmaker by Dawkins.

The rare earth hypothesis has helped to conivce some atheists that there must be a god.

But belief in GOD is based on many different proofs. Just as belief in the Bible is. One atheist said that just because many parts of the Bible can be proved as true that does not make it true.
---Samuelbb7 on 11/15/12


Evolution is not deceiving anyone who isn't deceived already. It is so far from the truth, that it takes heavy immersion to even begin to believe it. It sounds good, but few people among the unbelieving care about it, much less believe it.

The ones who preach it are deluded, and those who follow it use it to their advantage, politically or economically.

It matters little to God what vain philosophy someone believes. He can easily smash any icon to get at the heart.

I fear that many saints are being misled about its dangers. Some have made crusades against it. They ignorantly believe God is on their side. He is not.
---Phil on 11/16/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


StrongAxe, the very term race is an evolutionary term. Throughout evolutionary history dark skinned people have been portrayed as less evolved than white people. The subtitle of Charles Darwin's book Origin of Species was "the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." His racist contention was that white Europeans were the favoured race. Darwin decreed the Australian Aboriginals were not human but links between primates and man. Sterilization of American blacks was carried out because of evolutionary beliefs.

Get hold of The Creation Answers Book (Creation Book Publishers) and read the chapter 'How did all the different 'races' arise.
---Warwick on 11/16/12


\\How does evolution promote racism? \\

Curiously enough, it was.

CIVIC BIOLOGY, the official Tennessee textbook at the time of the infamous Scopes money trial, taught evolution, and then tried to use it to support racism.

W. J. Bryan himself believed in an old earth, but also believed that evolution with its doctrine of "survival of the fittest" (actually "survival of the fit": fine distinction) would harden the hearts of people towards the weak and suffering, as it later did in Fascist Europe.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/16/12


MarkAxe: "How does evolution promote racism?

Have you ever read the complete title of Darwin's book?

"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

The concept of the evolutionary superiority of the white race has produced the racial genocide in Australia & Tasmania as well as the "ethnic cleansing" of Hitler.

Darwin predicted that the "more civilized white races" would eventually eliminate the "lower races".

Anyone who promotes darwinism is a racist!



---jerry6593 on 11/16/12


Warwick:

How does evolution promote racism? The vast majority of DNA is the same between different species, and this goes even more so between different races or subgroups of human beings. If anything, it tells us how similar we are, not how different we are. If people use evolution to justify racism, they are just using it as an excuse/scapegoat to justify their racism that already has totally different roots.

jerry6593:

Your point may convince Christians, but it won't sway unbelievers. Telling them their beliefs are fables built on conjectures, while your own creation story is based on a book that cannot be proven scientifically either, since you can't reproduce Genesis in a laboratory, is the pot calling the kettle black.
---StrongAxe on 11/15/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


Using phylogenetic analyses to identify whether polio outbreaks are from native circulating viruses or from reverted, escaped vaccines (which tells health workers which vaccines to use in these areas to eradicate disease): see review in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, Vol. 82, No. 1.
---atheist on 11/15/12


But Cluny that which you have previously written shows you have swallowed evolution hook line and sinker, causing you to reject the truth of any Scripture which disagrees with evolution. You are a perfect example of how the the teaching of evolution as fact undermines faith in all of God's word. And you cannot see it! How effective they were.
---Warwick on 11/15/12


This only prove that the "theory of evolution" is nothing but a big fat lie, period. What's there to expound?
---christan on 11/15/12

No, It doesn't, christan.. It proves there are many schools of though on Creation.
---NurseRobert on 11/15/12


If evolution were true: No Supreme judge to judge these law breakers, well, that would send me right over the cliff.
---pat on 11/15/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


\\Cluny, It is common knowledge among those who have studied such subjects as biology, geology or paleontology that lecturers used evolution in an attempt to undermine Christianity. \\

Is it?

I studied two of these, and nobody tried to undermine my faith.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/15/12


Cluny, It is common knowledge among those who have studied such subjects as biology, geology or paleontology that lecturers used evolution in an attempt to undermine Christianity.

From experience I see no social benefit from the teaching of evolution. However I do see negatives such as racism, as the 2 go hand in hand. Conversely Scripture plainly says man and woman were made equal and in the image of God therefore the socalled 'races' are equal. I write 'races' as the word isn't Scriptural. Scripture speaks only of tribes and nations and languages of man.

Why would any Christian imagine God who is all powerful would use such a wasteful and cruel system (evolution) to create, and then say He didn't?
---Warwick on 11/14/12


It is important to understand the incredibly destruction influence that evolutonary theory has on modern thinking. If in fact life was not created by God, and if human beings in particular are not created by God or responsible to Him, but are simply the result of ramdon occurrences in the universe, then of what significance is human life? That we have any eternal importance, at all in the face of an immense universe, is simply to delude ourselves. [There would be no supreme judge to hold us morally accountable]. "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their hosts by the breath of His mouth, for He spoke, and it came to be, He commanded, and it stood forth" Psa. 33: 6,9.
---pat on 11/15/12


Ron: The short answer is that Evolution is not science at all, but rather a creation story for atheists built on the twin pillars of conjecture and fraud. It cannot stand up to the scrutiny of true scientific investigation, but is maintained by pedantic academia's denegration of Christians. Some try to shoehorn Evolution into the Bible, but it doesn't fit. No true, Bible-believing Christian would have anything to do with Evolution.


---jerry6593 on 11/15/12


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


2nd Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears,And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.
---J_Marc on 11/15/12


"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Genesis 1:1 Here lies TIME, MATTER & SPACE - scientist and evolutionist are still knocking their brains out figuring how the world started.

"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 - evolutionist says otherwise.

This only prove that the "theory of evolution" is nothing but a big fat lie, period. What's there to expound?
---christan on 11/15/12


You know precious little about the theory of evolution, Ron_May.

Doesn't is bother you to expound on things you know nothing about?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 11/14/12


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.