Why is it people who believe in EVOLUTION don't realize they are aligning themselves with ADOLF HITLER?

Question

One main reason evolutionists and creationists differ in opinion is because they have a different premise. Evolution scientists believe everything originates from a series of changes and can be explained by time, chance, and continuing natural processes that are inherent in the organization of matter and energy. (Creation X) Evolution is commonly applied to the historical development of life and has been expanded into virtually any subject matter all the way to the development of the universe itself. Like most ideas, the Theory of Evolution has evolved into something it was not originally believed to be.

Creationists believe in evolution, but not to the extreme that every living thing evolved from a single cell into the complex organisms of today. In essence evolution means change. Micro-evolution (small changes) within species is a scientific fact that Creationists readily acknowledge (120). However, macro-evolution (tremendous changes) is a belief that is simply not evident in

nature.

There are two kinds of Creationism; scientific and Biblical. Scientific creationism bases its beliefs upon the scientific data. In fact, creation scientists believe that scientific creationism and Biblical creationism should be taught independently of each other. Some of the most brilliant scientists in the history of the world were creationists: Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, Galileo, Faraday, Kepler, and so on.

While it is often asserted that Creationism is based on religious beliefs, evolution has its beliefs based in atheism and secular humanism. The Supreme Court has classified atheism and secular humanism as religions. The evolution model is atheistic in nature while the creation model is theistic. One evolutionist wrote an article titled, "Creation 'Science' Is Dishonest." On the contrary, scientists who assert evolution as a "fact" only need to look at the history of their false findings and hoaxes of man's "missing links" to see their hypocrisy (156 and 159). It is one

thing to personally believe in evolution and relate it and all evidence associated with it as circumstantial, but to assert it as a "fact" is unethical and prejudicial.

Another reason why creation scientists view things so differently from evolutionists is simply a matter of differing interpretation of the data. Even evolutionists do not agree with one another because of differing interpretations of the data, especially when it comes to biological classifications. So, why are creation scientists shunned?

Evidence for evolution can be interpreted in different ways. Comparing anatomical similarities between different organisms can provide evidence for evolution. The forelimb in vertebrate animals can be compared bone for bone. The upper arm, forearm, wrist, hand, and fingers are distinguishable (53 and Britannica 7:9). While evolutionists contend that this is evidence of, "descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of,

"descent from a common ancestor (evolution)" creationists believe that this is no more than proof of, "a common design (creation)."

A second piece of evidence for evolution is shown in the development of organisms. The embryonic stage of development is so similar that a frog, chicken, salamander, or human embryo are virtually indistinguishable. Evolutionists believe these amazing similarities show how organs and structures have changed their form and function with evolution. Creationists show what evolutionists call "useless evolutionary leftovers" are in reality necessary functional structures (62 and 66).

A third source of evidence that evolutionists use comes from chemical evolution or "hot soup" as Dr. Stanley Miller calls it. In 1953 he conducted an experiment using a "primordial solution" along with an electrical discharge to simulate lightning. He became successful in producing amino acids commonly found in nature. Creationists hold that it is no more than science fiction

that would make a scientist conclude that life could result from a hypothetical chemical evolutionary process. There is no evidence to support this kind of speculation.

A forth source of evidence is related to genetics. This evidence relies on the process of mutation in order to validate the theory of evolution. In the documentary Genetics: Patterns of Diversity it concludes, "But still, the controversy remains. The challenge to Darwin's theory is to explain these molecular changes in terms of natural selection." There are many other challenges to Darwin's theory. Creationist Dr. Parker states:

Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers.

...The creationist mechanism works and it's consistent with

what we observe. The evolutionist assumption doesn't work, and it's not consistent with what we presently know of genetics and reproduction. As a scientist, I tend to prefer ideas that do work and do help to explain what we can observe. (Creation 115)

It is an established fact that mutations can not be the mechanism that explains the process of evolution because it leads to the destruction of the organism.
Now, the creation model for variety that Parker refers to is the genetic square (114). This is the mechanism which is believed to have caused differences among people at the Biblical "Tower of Babel" incident. "Variation within created types" is a scientific fact (107). This is the (creationist) mechanism by which we observe such diversity among organisms. Evolutionists try to exaggerate this scientific fact to further their claims. The fact is, as Dr. Gary Parker wrote, "Creationists don't believe that frogs turn into princes... but rather that frogs and people were separately

created from the same kinds of molecular 'building blocks'". The creationist mechanism works!

The fifth and most popular source of evidence used by evolutionist stems from the fossil record. Evolutionist Jay Savage states, "We do not need a listing of evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution..." (V). Encyclopaedia Britannica (14:376) under a section called "The speculative nature of phylogeny [via fossil record]" states, "...judgements of relationships among organisms are almost always based upon incomplete evidence..." This means assumptions are used to fill in the missing pieces of evidence. Britannica also states, "The overwhelming majority of species that have ever lived have long since been extinct and with them the connecting links necessary for the direct demonstration of the descent of modern organisms from common ancestors." This statement shows that the evidence does not exist for Savage to "demonstrate the fact of evolution." He sidesteps the scientific process and

and logic thereby showing his bias thereby discrediting himself, his profession and the theory.

Answer 1

I don't think they are aligning themselves with Hitler.

However, your distinction of the two different types of Creationism is interesting. A scientist I know, trained in evolutionary theory, also thinks the Theory of Evolution is as much a belief system as Creationism.

What gets me is why Richard Dawkins has to keep banging on like does.... What's his problem with other people believing in a Creator? Even Stephen Hawking, who couldn't acknowledge that there's a God, had to come up with the word 'designoid' to explain things which 'appeared' to be designed!

I feel sorry for people like them... they have a Heavenly Father who is reaching out to them, but they won't listen.

Answer 2

You miss the point completely. the answer might want to be discovered in the manifesto on the 'georgia guidestones' the position the requirement is to reduce the present, irresponsible, stages of inhabitants by technique of 95%. devil is likewise at the back of this and demands lack of life, misery and destruction - what do you imagine handed off in the international wars that were planned many years before they befell? Hitler replaced into part of what you would possibly want to comprehend because the illuminati which originates out of Germany - he basically personified the NWO agenda. What about the Catholic church killing 30m human beings ('heretics') in the middle a at the same time as in very few months because they knew the actuality? of Vlad who almost impaled 0.5 the inhabitants? we've a tendency to miss that the Jews went via countless holocausts between 9AD and the 2d international conflict - common killing a concepts more advantageous than 6m of them. evaluate the function that many have performed for the period of historic previous to reason lack of life, misery and destruction - they are all evil and part of a similar satanic brotherhood. in basic terms evaluate the Clintons and Blair and then evaluate who they report to. David Icke has an informative website on those subject matters. If Hitler had overtaken the international, the anti-Christ might want to were in position in the present day and we'd want to all be in an fairly terrible difficulty. notwithstanding, this difficulty is about to ultimately erupt any time now.

Answer 3

Mmmmm smells like propaganda.

Okay for a start, learn to write your own essays and don't just copy & paste.

Secondly, get your head out of the Discovery Institute's ar$e. You're using the "wedge" argument that doesn't even try to disprove evolution, instead it just says "Evolution is atheist in nature, there for you are a bad Christian if you support it!"

The Supreme Court has never defined Atheism or Secular Humanism as a religion because there is no basis for religion, they have no higher power and no religious beliefs. Religion isn't built around facts, it's built around faith.

Answer 4

Are you 7

Answer 5

Hitler was well known to have held the belief that the Aryan Ancestors of the German people were descended from a highly evolved man that came to Earth from outer space. A stupid idea, and certainly not on the lines of evolution.

Answer 6

stop asking the same question over and over
Evolution has nothing to do with Hitler, he was Catholic.
Plus, your arguments have nothing to do with facts, and you are not representing the sides of the argument correctly in your statements. You apparently find it hard to believe that life could have evolved to its current state on this planet from one origional living organism. Do you really think that human beings came from 2 single individuals (adam and eve), like you bible thumping fundametalists believe?

Answer 7

Hmmm, youre just stupid enough to be interesting. Despite all the nay sayers please keep up the good work. I have one request though? Can you reply more often to your own posts and add additional nonsense on a more frequent basis?

Looking forward to seeing you dominate the insane section of Answers.

Answer 8

Was last night's assignment, "Give a convincing impression of someone who knows what the hell they're talking about"?

I have a feeling you are on your way to getting an F for that one. You really, really don't know what evolution is about.

Answer 9

I didn't realise that the Atheist Evolutionist wanted to destroy the Jews. If you eat Polish Sausage are you aligning yourself with Hitler too?

Answer 10

why do you keep asking the same question?

Again: Hitler never mentions evolution, NOT ONCE.

He does mention his Catholic upbringing many times, however. And his antisemitc message seemed to resonate in Christian Germany!