qoteing faithman......
Evolution, on the other hand, produced Carl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Adaulf Hitler, Mao Sa Tung, Margret Sanger. All who rejected God. All who embraced evolution, all were mass murderers. Evolution was the excuse used by the slave holder, to deny humanity to folks of African desent. Evolution excused the colonial imperalist of Europe, as they exploited other peoples because they were "less than human", and thus nothing more than apes in the way of their "progress". Evolution is the genesis of the religeon of secular humanism, which is a godless faith, hell bent on destroying American as we know it. Evolution most assuridly is the foundation of atheism, and the enemy of all that is good and Holy. These are observable facts, from the social history of man. Evolution places all human life at risk from despots who can deny humanity to people groups, and thus slaughter them by the millions.
For a Christian to compromise with this damnedable religion in any way, is to agree with the enemies of the Lord Jesus Christ.
....end quote
geez faith man how many falsehoods can you put in a single paragraph?
It was the Christian churches ( except Quaker) that supported Slavery in the USA, I will give you historic evidence if you like. They supported it useing the bible in fact.. if you want google the words.. Slavery, Quaker and youll discover that the Quakers were about the only offical christian institution that was against slavery
The source of social Darwinism ( which you are confusing with accual Evolution) was not Darwin but Herbert Spencer and the tradition Protestant nonconformism going back to Hobbes via Malthus. Spencer's ideas of evolution were Lamarckian. The only real connection between Darwinism and social Darwinism is the name.
Evolutionary theory shows us that the long term survival of a species is strongly linked with its genetic variability. All Social Darwinist programs advocate minimizing genetic variability, thus reducing chances of long term survival in the event of environmental change. Understanding of evolution should then rebuke any attempt at social Darwinism if the long term survival of humanity is treated as a goal.
Darwin wrote a letter declining the dedication of an unnamed book on atheism, but he wrote it to Edward Aveling. Aveling's common-law wife was Elanor Marx, Karl's daughter, and she inherited his papers. They got mixed up with Karl Marx's papers, and the letter was assumed to have been to Marx. This view found ideological favor in Russia, so it got widely repeated. Later, a letter from Aveling, requesting permission to dedicate his book The Student's Darwin to Darwin, was found among Darwin's papers. Darwin declined permission and argued that science should not address religious matters directly. [Colp 1982; Carter 2000]
Evolution properly understood refutes racism. Before Darwin, people used typological thinking for living things, considering different plants and animals to be their distinct "kinds." This gave rise to a misleading conception of human races, in which different races are thought of as separate and distinct. Darwinism helps eliminate typological thinking and with it the basis for racism.
Hitler hated Athiests, and I ll will provide quotes if you like.
Hitler based his ideas not on Darwinism but on a "divine right" philosophy:
Thus, it [the folkish philosophy] by no means believes in an equality of races, but along with their difference it recognizes their higher or lesser value and feels itself obligated, through this knowledge, to promote the victory of the better and stronger, and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker in accordance with the eternal will that dominates this universe. [Hitler 1927, 383]
The first edition of Mein Kampf indicates that Hitler was a young-earth creationist at the time of its writing; it says, "[. . .] this planet will, as it did thousands of years ago, move through the ether devoid of men." (p. 65)
"Evolution is Athiesm"
For a claim which is so obviously false, this claim gets repeated surprisingly often. Evolution does not require a god, but it does not rule one out, either. In that respect, it is no different from almost all other fields of interest. Evolution is no more atheistic than biochemistry, farming, engineering, plumbing, art, law, etc.
No increase in genetic information?????huh
It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of:
increased genetic variety in a population [Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991]
increased genetic material [Brown et al. 1998; Lynch and Conery, 2000; Ohta, 2003; Hughes and Friedman, 2003; Alves et al. 2001]
novel genetic material [Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996]
novel genetically-regulated abilities [Prijambada et al. 1995]
If these don't qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
A mechanism which is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, where a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations which change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances where this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors [Lang et al. 2000].
RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. [Zhang et al. 2002] Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. [Brown et al. 1998]