The Dangers of Evolution

[grumpywolfman]

For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory), you may find the true title of Darwin's book interesting. Darwin's book was originally titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin said that, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by the centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows." You can see why dictators like Hitler (who used Nazi propaganda to make Germans believe that he was a Christian), REALLY liked Darwin's philosophy; it enabled them to embrace racism, and indoctrinate the masses to view people of different "races" as of a lesser species which hasn't "evolved" to their level yet (ie. an animal). The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place. MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.

 

[crushing]

Like the word "theory," "favoured races" does not mean what you think it means. Darwin used the word race as a term for hereditary varieties. At the time the word race didn't carry the modern understanding of human race.

Hopefully this passage from Darwin's work will help you understand-

The most distinct breeds of pigeons, in countries most widely apart, present sub-varieties with reversed feathers on the head and feathers on the feet,—characters not possessed by the aboriginal rock-pigeon; these then are analogous variations in two or more distinct races.

If you are truly interested in Darwin's actual scientific research and not what some anti-science internet youtuber says about it, you can check it out online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/

 

[Chris Parker]

For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory), you may find the true title of Darwin's book interesting. Darwin's book was originally titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin said that, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by the centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows." You can see why dictators like Hitler (who used Nazi propaganda to make Germans believe that he was a Christian), REALLY liked Darwin's philosophy; it enabled them to embrace racism, and indoctrinate the masses to view people of different "races" as of a lesser species which hasn't "evolved" to their level yet (ie. an animal). The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place. MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.

Er.... no.

Is there a reason you're trying to evangelize and push your religious propaganda here? Just wondering, as I have no issue with your beliefs or you expressing them, just that you might have picked a rather inappropriate audience to aim at. Honestly, pretty much everything you've put up over the last two weeks or so have had me laughing at just how ludicrous it comes across (to me).

 

[harlan]

Yes, well, throwing out the baby with the bathwater isn't really a productive way to use scientific theory. Evolutionary thinking has gone on since Darwin's time; the language and context of the theory is in some sense limited by what was known at the time, and open to manipulation by those with various agendas.

'Social Darwinism' is dead. Or if it isn't, it should be.

As for the 'primordial soup' theory, my friend Lynn Margulis would have a laugh at this. Get an education, please.

For those who actually believe that their great great great ancestors came from a bowl of soup that was runoff from a rock (evolution theory), you may find the true title of Darwin's book interesting. Darwin's book was originally titled "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." Darwin said that, "At some future period, not very distant as measured by the centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races throughout the world. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows." You can see why dictators like Hitler (who used Nazi propaganda to make Germans believe that he was a Christian), REALLY liked Darwin's philosophy; it enabled them to embrace racism, and indoctrinate the masses to view people of different "races" as of a lesser species which hasn't "evolved" to their level yet (ie. an animal). The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place. MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.

 

[Cirdan]

Of course we did not come from soup, we came from wood. Odin and his brothers Vili and Ve made the first man and woman, Ask and Embla, from a tree on the beach. They also made Midgard (earth) from the body of the slain giant Ymir, the sky from his skull and the nothern lights from his eyebrows. Soup really, that is just silly.

 

[jezr74]

View attachment $univ.jpg

 

[The Last Legionary]

More agenda trolling. Really, your SOP is "post radical jebusfreak video from unreliable source" then "complain no one watched 90 minute waste of time video that only a lobotomized retarded iguanna would believe" then move on to doing it again in a whole new thread, all the while pushing a POV that only raving nutters with a tentative grasp of reality would believe.

Seriously, when did I miss the rebranding of this site from "Martial" talk to "Radical Jebus Talk"?

This is spam. When is the spammer going to be booted already?

 

[The Last Legionary]

Kent Hovind is a quack, a fraud, a nutter, an all around *** hat.

Can you cite someone credible? Even the Creationist's thinks he's a quack. As to his doctorates, I have 12. Well, 11. #12 is still printing from my deskjet. But as a certified (soon as the ink dries) Doctor of CreationFreakology I can guarentee that he's nucking futts and my qualifications are just as valid as his are. I guarantee it. Except I'm not a tax cheat who's in jail.

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

Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.

He holds three degrees in Christian education (1974, 1988, 1991) from unaccredited institutions.

From 1972 to 1974, Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education.[SUP][2][/SUP]

In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado (now Patriot Bible University in Del Norte, Colorado, which no longer offers this program).[SUP][9][/SUP]

Other critics of Hovind have pointed out that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP] The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and even "Doctor of Ministry" degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 per month. Currently Patriot offers a monthly fee, unlike most universities, which only charge per-credit fees.[SUP][14][/SUP]

Criticism

From creationists

Hovind has been criticized by other creationists, including young Earth creationists and old Earth creationists, who believe that many of his arguments are invalid and, consequently, undermine their causes. Disagreements over how to respond to Hovind's claims have themselves contributed to acrimony between creationist organizations. The Australian and U.S. arms of Answers in Genesis (AiG) were critical of Hovind[SUP][77][/SUP] after he had criticized[SUP][78][/SUP] a position document from Creation Ministries International, "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use".[SUP][79][/SUP] In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments"[SUP][76][/SUP] and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".[SUP][80][/SUP]
The U.S. arm of AiG, led by Ken Ham, had an acrimonious split with its Australian parent in 2005. The Australian organization then split itself entirely off from its parent group, now styling itself Creation Ministries International. Material critical of Hovind was no longer available on the U.S. Answers In Genesis website, whereas the Australian CMI website retained the critical material.[SUP][81][/SUP] In the 2002 article and a 2006 update, written by Carl Wieland and Jonathan Sarfati stated that the claims made by Hovind are "fraudulent" and contain "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good."[SUP][77][/SUP][SUP][82][/SUP] CMI also criticized Hovind for using "fraudulent claims" made by Ron Wyatt in his claims.[SUP][77][/SUP] In August 2009, the Australian CMI website has since published an article praising Creation Science Evangelism for removing some faulty arguments, but decided against deleting its article altogether because "there are lots of 'free-to-copy' DVDs of Kent Hovind’s old talks circulating widely around the world and it will be some time before they disappear from circulation.[SUP][82][/SUP]
Creationist astronomer Hugh Ross, of Reasons To Believe, debated Hovind on the age of the Earth during the John Ankerberg Show, televised nationally on the Inspiration Network in September through October 2000.[SUP][83][/SUP][SUP][84][/SUP] Ross said Hovind was "misrepresenting the field" of different sciences,[SUP][85][/SUP] and Ross told Hovind: "Astronomers view the credibility of the 'Young Earth' as being much weaker than that for a flat Earth."[SUP][86][/SUP] Hovind and Ross previously debated in July 1999 on the Steve Brown Show.[SUP][87][/SUP]
Hovind has stated that carbon dating – a method used by scientists to estimate the age of various objects and events – is unreliable.[SUP][88][/SUP] He has been criticized by Greg Neyman of Answers in Creation (an old Earth creationist group), who says that in Hovind's statements "Hovind goes on to show that he knows absolutely nothing about the science of Carbon Dating."[SUP][89][/SUP] Neyman says that Hovind's claim that "scientists assume the amount of carbon-14 is constant" is wrong, and Neyman writes "there are many periods of decreasing C-14, which disproves his theory that the Earth is young based on C-14 equilibrium."[SUP][89][/SUP]
From non-creationists

Prior to his convictions, Hovind debated atheists, non-YEC Christians, skeptics, and scientists. In May 2004, Michael Shermer debated Hovind in front of a predominantly creationist audience. In Shermer's online reflection, while claiming he won the debate with intellectual and scientific evidence, he felt it was "not an intellectual exercise," but rather it was "an emotional drama."[SUP][90][/SUP] While receiving positive responses from creationist observers, Shermer concluded "Unless there is a subject that is truly debatable with a format that is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion."[SUP][90][/SUP] Others, like evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci, have debated Hovind, and have expressed surprise at Hovind's ignorance of evolutionary theory.[SUP][91][/SUP] Pigliucci indicated surprise at hearing Hovind try "to convince the audience that evolutionists believe humans came from rocks" and at Hovind's assertion that biologists believe humans "evolved from bananas."[SUP][91][/SUP] In addition, William Reville, Biochemist and Director of Microscopy at University College Cork, wrote about Hovind, explaining "Creation science is not science. Science is based on ideas that are testable. What the creationists believe is not rational, but it cannot be disproved."[SUP][92][/SUP]
Hovind was criticized for his involvement with Arkansas state Representative Jim Holt's Anti-Evolution Bill in 2001 (House Bill 2548).[SUP][93][/SUP][SUP][94][/SUP] This bill "would have required that when public schools refer to evolution that it be identified as an unproven theory." Some politicians claimed this bill "would have made Arkansas a laughingstock."[SUP][95][/SUP] Holt called upon Hovind as an expert who "testified for Holt before the State Agencies and Governmental Affairs Committee, alleging much of the information pertaining to evolution in our science textbooks is false."[SUP][93][/SUP] As for the legislation, "Holt admitted much of the information in his bill came from Jonathan Wells' Icons of Evolution."[SUP][93][/SUP]
Critics charge that Kent Hovind's presentations on creation and evolution are a mix of Christian Fundamentalism and conspiracy theories.[SUP][90][/SUP] The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has criticized Hovind because of his selling of books such as Des Griffin's Fourth Reich of the Rich and Peter Kershaw's In Caesar's Grip, and recommending The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a well-known antisemitic hoax.[SUP][96][/SUP] The SPLC reported that Hovind accuses Darwinism of having produced "Communism, Socialism, Nazism, abortion, liberalism and the New Age Movement."[SUP][96][/SUP] It also quotes Hovind as claiming that "democracy is evil and contrary to God's law."[SUP][96][/SUP] In response to criticism, Hovind has stated: "I love the Jews. But The Protocols of Zion [sic] was written to explain how to control the world, I mean, it lays it all out. But it’s really carefully done so that if it is ever discovered the Jews take the blame for it."[SUP][54][/SUP]
The SPLC also criticized Hovind for "point[ing] his followers to Citizens Rule Book, popular among antigovernment "Patriots"; Media Bypass, an antigovernment magazine with strong antisemitic leanings"; and books by tax protester Irwin Schiff"[SUP][97][/SUP] (Schiff has since been convicted and sentenced to 13 years in prison).
While Kent Hovind is in prison, Eric has continued operating CSE and has received criticism for errors in his claims. Biologist PZ Myers criticized Eric and CSE employee Jonathon Sampson for their comments on cephalopods, writing "We do have explanations of cephalopod evolution" and "they lack the intelligence to grasp it."[SUP][98][/SUP] In his criticism, Myers criticized Hovind for failing to look up the evolutionary scholarship on cephalopods and linked to his blog article on cephalopod evolution.[SUP][98][/SUP][SUP][99][/SUP]

 

[K-man]

The Theory of Evolution is a false religion that attempts to remove God from authority and puts man in his place. MACRO-evolution does not happen. You didn't come from a bowl of soup, and the world is much younger than 'scientists' would have you to believe. Please watch the video below for a more in depth look at the dangers of the theory of evolution.

Mmm! And you think that science supports your ridiculous statements. I'm not sure what planet you are from but please keep taking the tablets, especially the little blue ones. Those delusional thoughts seem to be returning.

 

[SahBumNimRush]

I would highly recommend reading, "The Beak of the Finch, A Story of Evolution in Our Time." I was a biology and chemistry double major in college, and it was a book we had to read in our evolutionary biology class. It was a great read, that was easy to follow, and it gave a great view of just how evolution can work on a short period of time (relatively).

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

http://www.amazon.com/The-Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution/dp/067973337X

**As a side note, I would like to point out that I went to West Virginia Wesleyan College, which is a Methodist College, and yet we still studied evolution.. .**

 

[Cyriacus]

Ok - The following is 20% trolling. So... theres that.

People are technically different races, which adapted to different environments, and have different physical characteristics as a result. By definition, those differences can allow people to be viewed as separate species, or subgroups of one overarching species which no longer has one single identity. You can thank climate, nature, and environmental factors (ala nature but in a different way) for that.

 

[harlan]

Proof, please?

People are technically different races, which adapted to different environments, and have different physical characteristics as a result.

 

[Cyriacus]

Proof, please?

You can do your own research - Skin tincture is influenced by temperature, is a big one. Thats an evolutionary difference. An evolutionary difference is the difference between humans and koalas. Therefore, there are multiple different species of human.

Note that i dont look at it that way. Im presenting that point in retaliation to a few things the OP said.

EDIT: Slight correction to my logic - Temperature is a result. The cause is exposure to sunlight. Less sunlight and lower temperatures mean less exposure to the sun over a long period of time, and so on and so forth, whether from clouds, storms, or staying inside more because its cold outside and wearing more coverings.

EDIT 2: And this can affect day to day life.
Google the Fitspatrick Scale.

 

[Brian R. VanCise]

Okay........ Really?

 

[Sukerkin]

:chuckles: I don't think he needs prove that, Harlan, it is something of a given . Different species now, that is harder to claim for the genetic diversity has not grown sufficiently for that.

We nearly 'went out' as a species a while back (70,000 years ago) and dropped to a global population of about 10k individuals and that, it is thought in some quarters, is why we are still not very diverse considering the spread of environments we have adapted to. It is also why we are all related to each other, so let's not squabble too harshly because we are all family at the end of the day.

 

[Cyriacus]

:chuckles: I don't think he needs prove that, Harlan, it is something of a given . Different species now, that is harder to claim for the genetic diversity has not grown sufficiently for that.

We nearly 'went out' as a species a while back (70,000 years ago) and dropped to a global population of about 10k individuals and that, it is thought in some quarters, is why we are still not very diverse considering the spread of environments we have adapted to. It is also why we are all related to each other, so let's not squabble too harshly because we are all family at the end of the day.

Ah, and thats sorta what i was getting at. How you define races and species is colored by how you look at them. I mean, i could push the point and say that if our population went down to 10k, those 10k developed separately from one another. Separately, without the same influences and conditions and beliefs and educations. The further you take it the more i can argue that were all different species, especially if you go back even further still. The biggest thing we have in common is internal organs.

 

[harlan]

Actually, I do (think that that he should support his statement). The INSTANT one uses the term 'race', it needs to be qualified. My understanding (and I openly admit I only have a Bachelor's in Anthropology, and on the fringe of evolutionary discussions due to the academic community that I live in), but 'race' is a discredited term.

BTW...I have a spare copy of 'The Mismeasure of Man' (Gould) if anyone needs to 'bone up' on race theory/social darwinism, etc.

 

[Cyriacus]

Actually, I do (think that that he should support his statement). The INSTANT one uses the term 'race', it needs to be qualified.

I did. I just couldnt be bothered listing off all the different effects geography has on evolution. Skin pigmentation is just the most visible. I couldnt begin to delve into facial characteristics. I dont have that much invested in the point - Optionally, i could ask you to prove otherwise, and prove that these differences are just random magic that happen to occur in specifically related parts of the world for magic reasons. Its all meant as a counterpoint, good sir.

 

[harlan]

Yes, well saying I think the moon is made out of cheese because it's yellow isn't proof (as an analogy).

To substantiate your statement, I would be interested in any links you may have to studies, abstracts, reviews, etc.

I did. I just couldnt be bothered listing off all the different effects geography has on evolution. Skin pigmentation is just the most visible. I couldnt begin to delve into facial characteristics. I dont have that much invested in the point - Optionally, i could ask you to prove otherwise, and prove that these differences are just random magic that happen to occur in specifically related parts of the world for magic reasons. Its all meant as a counterpoint, good sir.

 

[Cyriacus]

Yes, well saying I think the moon is made out of cheese because it's yellow isn't proof (as an analogy).

To substantiate your statement, I would be interested in any links you may have to studies, abstracts, reviews, etc.

Here you go mate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitzpatrick_scale
Skin color has an effect on your physiology.
Skin color is developed as a result of sun exposure over time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_skin_color#Evolution_of_skin_color
If i wanted to be really mean, i could say that because "From ~1.2 million years ago to less than 100,000 years ago, the ancestors of all people alive were dark-skinned Africans.", then all white people are a more highly evolved form of man. Again: Its a vicious rabbit hole, and a perfect counterpoint to the OP. Also, i *think* the all-people-originating-from-africa thing was debunked.

You can find your own studies. Just google it.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+of+skin+color+studies