Why do Evolutionists/Atheists get mad for DEBUNKING EVOLUTION using their own words?

Question

In my postings I compare/contrast how evolutionists/creationists interpret data. Evolutionists constantly make assumptions to support their absurd theory. I used their own words, from evolutionists themselves, to discredit their theory.

By the way, Hitler did use the theory of evolution to advance his agenda for a "supreme race". Britannica proves it and referred to it as "social-Darwinism". THESE ARE THE FACTS. These are my findings from "authoritative sources" on Evolution. When they get the truth in their face they look like they got a wedgie in their panties. Thanks for all the fun you all have provided. I will be back with more.

Answer 1

A very interesting question. I've been following this debate since the Sixties. The brilliant by-line of evolutionists always was, "Man evolved from the Apes..." When the question was asked: "In evolution the original model is replaced by the new, improved 'evolved' model, is it not? Then by this reckoning, if Man did evolve from the Apes, then why do Apes still exist?" After a pregnant pause the evolutionists started singing, "We evolved from a common ancestor!" A common ancestor??? Now that's a far cry from 'Man evolved from the Apes.'

So the question to evolutionists now is: "Where is that common ancestor, the fabled Missing Link?" Their battle cry now is, "Man and Chimps share (take your pick) 90, 98, 99, 99.9% DNA." Duh! Of course Creation shares DNA. All life on Earth was Created in a sealed environment, that eco-sphere we call the... Earth, from the same building blocks, since all life on Earth is based on the carbon atom.

When it is pointed out that for evolution to cross species unions for which no evidence exists between hominoids and apes would be involved, which would result in the birth of a hybrid (hybrids are born sterile) the Evolutionist starts asserting, "Speciation..." Not two species creating a third, but a single species birthing a third or more species. The question now is: "When has it been known that an Ape birth anything but an... Ape?" Animals kill their own young when they sense that they are... defective or different. Speciation may work in the plant kingdom, but is stretch in the animal kingdom.

The real question is: "Where did Modern Man come from?" There is no real evidence for evolution, as he does not fit the evolutionary pattern. Modern Man just appeared on the scene one fine day and may have killed off other primordial hominoids. There is no evidence that he cross-bred with them. Seeing how Modern Man can't even get along with one another in this enlightened day and age, is it any wonder that our ancestors may have killed off early sub humans? Could it be that our ancestors left the apes, monkeys and chimps alone because they were less of a 'threat' than Neanderthals and their kind?

So, where DID Modern Man come from? Could he have really been exiled from... Eden? Is the Evolutionist really so frightened of that possibility? Food for thought.

H

Answer 2

Why do creationists pretend to themselves that their opponents are somehow getting mad and upset? You flatter your ability both to challenge our intellect and to stoke our emotions. Think yourself lucky that any of us can even be bothered to read what you put.

It is rather like your claim that you debunk evolution using evolutionists' own words - a dream you may have, but one that will never come about. In your last question you quoted briefly one evolutionary scientist ripped from a reference in the Enc Brittania. The rest was inference, supposition, quotations from creation scientists and general jibberish. You say you quote from authorititative sources though you don't. Enc Brit is a reference work, not an authorititative source on evolution. It's like offering your opinion on a TV show based solely on reading a summary/review in the next day's paper, even if that review quotes from the show. It is lazy scholarship; indeed, it doesn't come close to what some of us know as scholarship. That is why you are not taken seriously, please don't flatter yourself that you have somehow enraged us into stupefaction. You have not sufficiently met the terms of any useful debate.

Oh, and to answer the Hitler nonsense, at least for you if nowhere else: if Hitler had wanted to use evolution to create his master race he would have just left everyone alone for a million years or so and looked at what the result was. If humans interfere with evolutionary processes, it is immediately NOT evolution, it is selective breeding, which dog breeders and pigeon fanciers (as you will know from your detailed reading of The Origin of Species...) have carried out for centuries. It is true to say that thinkers such as Herbert Spencer and Karl Pearson advocated active eugenics programmes, and that these were picked up by some German thinkers who wished to claim that the German people was a superior breed. The British were doing the same thing in the 19th century (and yet unaccountably failed to initiate programmes of mass extermination). To say that Hitler "used" evolution, or even more laughably that this is "proved" by the Enc Brit, is as valid as saying that Hitler "used" Wagner's music.

I know any appeal to you to actually find out the facts for yourself and to think openly about these things is futile, but in a public forum like this I owe it to you to correct such absurd displays of foolishness. I DO know what I am talking about, and you can expect to be replied as such when you so conspicuously parade the fact that you don't. Mostly people can see that you are just getting a bit desperate to protect creation science from the mountains of evidence (not proof - they are not the same thing) that supports evolution.

I have checked in a mirror and am confident that I do not look like I have a wedgie in my panties. Now go and read something sensible.

Answer 3

Actually, Hitler used Eugenics. Evolution and Eugenics are different things. Eugenics can still be argued or used with the creationist model for life as well. THESE ARE THE FACTS. Now re-read your sources a little better.

Answer 4

1 and #3 are describing characteristics of God. 1) "God is love" -- 1 John 4:8 3) "I the LORD your God am a JEALOUS God" -- Exodus 20:5 #2 is describing the characteristics of man. 2) "love is not jealous" -- 1st Corinthians 13:4 No mental contortions or gymnastics needed. Just a simple understanding of what is being said. EDIT: I don't understand the anger in this question and in some of the answers. EDIT#2 (((((To the person who posted the 23 misquoted verses.))))) You really need to read what it is that you are copy and pasting. You are very much in error with your given verses. They do not say what you are implying.

Answer 5

Because you are LYING. You are saying there are no transitional fossils, false. You are saying that Stephen J Gould believes and forwards in some conspiracy, false (you probably misquoted him joking or using an antithesis). You say that social Darwinism comes from evolution, that is false. You say that you are using brittanica, but there is no evidence. Hitler was not an evolutionist, and even if he was, Christians throughout history have killed millions of more people.

EDiT: H, your "if we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" argument is the stupidest I've seen. That is like saying "If Americans came from England, why are the still Englishmen?"

Answer 6

we get mad because you are using garbage science (crap put forth by fundametalists) to say that creationsim is correct. When you spout propoganda in any form you are going to piss people off. Furthermore, how can you compare a group of people to adolf hitler (like in your otherposts), and NOT expect them to bi*ch slap you back?
Furthermore, simply by saying "authoritative sources" in no way makes you credible. As I said before, there has never been ONE single article published in a scientific journal that debunks the theories of evolution.
But please feel free to continue to waste your time. At least you aren't blowing up abortion clinics or having sex with your cousin

Answer 7

Hmm, Darwin's theory of evolution vs. invisible man in the sky theory? Sorry, but I'm with Darwin on that one.

Answer 8

Well, evolution has more proof than mythical gods.

Answer 9

When you are right and you are people can't stand it
Short and sweet!

Answer 10

.... IT IS MUCH BETTER .,,, THANK YOU... ..( NOT PERFECT ) BUT BETTER.. .. GOOD LUCK WITH THAT.... HATE TO SEE PEOPLE BANGING THEIR HEAD IN A BRICK WALL ,,. BUT HEY,, WE ALL HAVE TO DO,, WHAT WE NEED TO DO..... AND OUR OWN WAYS OF DOING IT..