Evolution as taught in Colleges and Universities

[wincam]

be amazed  - via google see www.evolutionvsGod.com - wincam

[Guest shiloh357]

"But human beomgs ARE Fish!"   LOL  

 

 

It's funny watch them stumble over having to accept that they have to excersize "faith" in Evolution and their inability to differentiate bewtween adaptation and a change of kinds.

 

Reminds me of the same stuff we get from Evolutionists on WBs. LOL

[other one]

Every single person who comes to Worthy should take the time to see this and take it all in.  Just be sure to watch the whole thing

[Guest shiloh357]

What i found very interesting is when they were asked if they had to choose between saving their neighbor or dog from drowning. They had stumble and stutter over explaining why the dog was more valuable than human life.  The evolutionist worldview places human beings on the same level as animals.  We are nothing but primates, and so from that logic, I can value my dog over a human being when i am put in the position to choose which one has more inherent value. 

[other one]

What i found very interesting is when they were asked if they had to choose between saving their neighbor or dog from drowning. They had stumble and stutter over explaining why the dog was more valuable than human life.  The evolutionist worldview places human beings on the same level as animals.  We are nothing but primates, and so from that logic, I can value my dog over a human being when i am put in the position to choose which one has more inherent value. 

kind of spooky to think where that will lead to as time progresses.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

What i found very interesting is when they were asked if they had to choose between saving their neighbor or dog from drowning. They had stumble and stutter over explaining why the dog was more valuable than human life.  The evolutionist worldview places human beings on the same level as animals.  We are nothing but primates, and so from that logic, I can value my dog over a human being when i am put in the position to choose which one has more inherent value. 

kind of spooky to think where that will lead to as time progresses.

 

Look at where it has already led us.

 

Two people who used Evolution as justification of getting rid of "inferior primates" were Adolph Hitler and Margaret Sanger.   Hitler viewed Jews as descended from apes and pigs.  Maragaret Sanger, the forerunner of Planned Parenthood viewed Africans as inferior and less human and viewed abortion as the best means of getting rid of inferior races.   It is no surprise then that Margaret Sanger didnt' love her own children.   She didn't value human life and she saw her own children as an inconvenience and a burden.  

 

Euthenasia is also the product of the same worldview where we decide who lives and who dies based on what is convenient for the living.  Instead of valuing life, the evolutionary worldview reduces humans to animals, and animal life is expendable and human beings are no more important in the grand scheme of life than a dog or a pig or a horsefly.  Thus, there is no absolute morality, no standard with which to measure right and wrong, or what is just or unjust.

[alphaparticle]

Just because people misuse an idea doesn't make it inherently evil or factually wrong. There is no reason to think that evolution qua a physical theory about biology ought to even have moral or religious consequences.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just because people misuse an idea doesn't make it inherently evil or factually wrong. There is no reason to think that evolution qua a physical theory about biology ought to even have moral or religious consequences.

If you watched the video you would have seen prominent evolutionists claim that human beings are nothing more than animals and human beings have no more value than another lower animal life form.   But I noticed that they had to stop and think about what they would do if they had to apply that way of thinking in a situation where they had to choose between saving their pet,or saving the life of another human being if both were drowning in a swimming pool.   They stumbled over their answers, because they could not choose their pet over the human without looking like an evil person, but if they chose the human being it was tantamount to claiming that the human being did have more value than the animal.

 

It isn't that Sanger and Hitler "used" Evolution.  Rather it was their lack of value for human life that governed how they lived and that lack of value stemmed from the view that human beings are nothing more than animals.    They were able to justify their actions because the first principle in abortion and in Hitler's philosophy is to dehumanize the victim.   Killing Jews because they were inferior "ape men" and not really human is what HItler used to justify the final solution.  He wasn't murdering people in his eyes.  He was getting rid of Jews who were not in fact, human beings.  

 

Planned Parenthood views an unborn baby as a nonhuman.  If they admitted that the baby was human and alive and that there was no magical thing that transforms a nonhuman into human while in the birth canal, then they would be liable for murder.   Margaret Sanger pioneered abortion based on an evolutionary mindset that claims that man is the product of evolution from animals.

 

The Bible says that man is not the product of Evolution, but is a special creation of God, made in His image apart from the rest of the created order.  There is no missing link between humans and apes.  There is no link at all.  Those who say the man evolved are simply wrong.  The Bible is the source of truth.   Either a person believes the Bible or they believe the fallibel theories of sinful men.   You can't have both. 

[alphaparticle]

 

Just because people misuse an idea doesn't make it inherently evil or factually wrong. There is no reason to think that evolution qua a physical theory about biology ought to even have moral or religious consequences.

If you watched the video you would have seen prominent evolutionists claim that human beings are nothing more than animals and human beings have no more value than another lower animal life form.   But I noticed that they had to stop and think about what they would do if they had to apply that way of thinking in a situation where they had to choose between saving their pet,or saving the life of another human being if both were drowning in a swimming pool.   They stumbled over their answers, because they could not choose their pet over the human without looking like an evil person, but if they chose the human being it was tantamount to claiming that the human being did have more value than the animal.

 

It isn't that Sanger and Hitler "used" Evolution.  Rather it was their lack of value for human life that governed how they lived and that lack of value stemmed from the view that human beings are nothing more than animals.    They were able to justify their actions because the first principle in abortion and in Hitler's philosophy is to dehumanize the victim.   Killing Jews because they were inferior "ape men" and not really human is what HItler used to justify the final solution.  He wasn't murdering people in his eyes.  He was getting rid of Jews who were not in fact, human beings.  

 

Planned Parenthood views an unborn baby as a nonhuman.  If they admitted that the baby was human and alive and that there was no magical thing that transforms a nonhuman into human while in the birth canal, then they would be liable for murder.   Margaret Sanger pioneered abortion based on an evolutionary mindset that claims that man is the product of evolution from animals.

 

The Bible says that man is not the product of Evolution, but is a special creation of God, made in His image apart from the rest of the created order.  There is no missing link between humans and apes.  There is no link at all.  Those who say the man evolved are simply wrong.  The Bible is the source of truth.   Either a person believes the Bible or they believe the fallibel theories of sinful men.   You can't have both. 

 

I just did watch the video. That a couple evolutionists are 'moral relativists' or want to be doesn't have any bearing on whether or not evolution entails moral relativism. Besides which, Hitler's use of evolution was factually mistaken.

 

Evolution itself, as a purely biological theory, has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, whether or not He created us or endows us with value.

[other one]

 

\Evolution itself, as a purely biological theory, has nothing to do with whether or not God exists, whether or not He created us or endows us with value.

 

 

Evolution is a theory, however it is being taught as a fact.  We can see and prove natural selection, but natural selection is not Evolution.   There is a really big difference in changing long hair to short or large to small or even changing the shape of a bird beak......   and changing monkeys or apes into humans....     or something to both dogs and cats

 

As the movie asks where is any proof that one type of  living things turned into another type.    I've been waiting for that information since I first took biology in 1963.  Our science teacher then said that he had been waiting a long time for the same...