19 thoughts on “Stalin killed millions because he believed Darwin’s philosophy

  1. Stalin killed millions because he wanted to make himself a God on Earth, like the Pharaohs or Roman Emperors, and misinterpreted Darwin’s book to justify it. He did not do it ‘because of,’ or to advance Atheism. As a raging psychopath, he wanted to create a Religion of Personality, with himself at the apex. 😦

      • If we don’t blame the Bible for the Westboro Baptist Church, and we don’t blame the Koran for ISIS, it hardly seems appropriate to blame Darwinism for Stalin. A psychopath will become a psychopath, no matter what he reads. If he had become a priest, he might also have become another Torquemada. Insecure and arrogant people like him are not molded by their reading, but rather, they misunderstand and misrepresent what they have read to justify their inevitable actions. 😯

      • I do not blame the book, I blame the man for not doing his due diligence in the manner of researching the subject matter. HE made the conscious choice to believe and act. The people who read Darwin’s book did not misinterpret nor misunderstand the posited theory…there is no God; hence, no consequences. Darwin, like Stalin, went through school to become a minister. After reading Lysle’s book Charles Lyell’s “Principles of Geology” while serving on the BEAGLE.

  2. Always good to see that some theists have no problem lying and bearing false witness, ignoring their bible as convenient for them. Stalin was a megalomaniac this is why he did what he did. He misused Darwin’s ideas. But nice try to lie about what atheism leads to. If Stalin had become a priest, he would have done the same with the bible.

    • Not lying, my friend. The facts of history speak for themselves. Nor have I ignored the bible as you said. In this we agree, Stalin was a megalomaniac and it is highly probable that he would have done the same thing with the bible…perhaps, dare I go so far to posit, he may have even set in motion a new Inquisition? There was no misuse of Darwin’s ideas, he directly used their intended purpose. Most people fail to remember the full title of the book: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” He never actually touched on the “origin of species” and his theory was failing at best. Everything, without a moral lawgiver, became relative to the person. Man could speed up the natural selection process by killing off the “unfavoured races”…No, there was no misuse of that theory, as it was a partial impetus for the Civil War here in the United States to preserve the white mans favored status, it was the impetus for Hitler’s war against the Jews, Pol Pot’s killing of his own people, Mao Tse Tung’s killing of his own people…ahhhh, the list could go on, but I won’t because you have it all figured out…Godspeed to you.

      • So, which is it, Murf? “Stalin killed millions because he believed Darwin’s philosophy” or “Stalin was a megalomaniac and it is highly probable that he would have done the same thing with the bible”.

        you want to claim that atheism and evolutionary theory are at fault, and you falsely claim that Darwin’s book was intended to excuse genocide as a philosophy. Evolutionary theory is not a way of thinking e.g. a philosophy, it is a theory that has been repeatedly proven true by observation and experimentation.
        Do quote where in Origin of the Species it ever says that genocide is good. Yep, the whole title is indeed: ““On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Favoured means “endowed with special advantages or gifts” and when you read the book you see that Darwin’s argument is that living creatures with characteristics that are favored in a certain environment they will live to pass along those favored characteristics to their progeny. Also in this title the term race is used and is used in this definition “the descendants of a common ancestor : a group sharing a common lineage” Both definitions are from Merriam-Webster dictionary.

        Again, a Christian’s ignorance about what he speaks shows again that he needs to remain willfully ignorant to spread his false claims.

        You also make a false claim that Darwin “never actually touched on the “origin of the species”. That is all the book is about, how different species arise. What you appear to be trying to do is claim that Darwin never touched on the origins of life. He never meant to do that and you have invented a strawman to attack since you can’t actually address what Darwin actually says.

        There is not one time that Darwin ever said or intimated “Man could speed up the natural selection process by killing off the “unfavoured races”” You’ve invented that to try to bear false witness against those who you disagree with. It is a false claim made for your personal advantage, a lie.

        Darwin was an Englishman. He wrote “Origin of the Species” before 1859, when it was published and before the USCW ever started. Your nonsense “No, there was no misuse of that theory, as it was a partial impetus for the Civil War here in the United States to preserve the white mans favored status,” tries to lie that Darwin intended it to be used to “preserve the white man’s favored statue”. He never did. Darwin knew that humans were equal. He wrote this in The Voyage of the Beagle “I thank God, I shall never again visit a slave-country. To this day, if I hear a distant scream, it recalls with painful vividness my feelings, when passing a house near Pernambuco, I heard the most pitiable moans, and could not but suspect that some poor slave was being tortured, yet knew that I was as powerless as a child even to remonstrate. I suspected that these moans were from a tortured slave, for I was told that this was the case in another instance. Near Rio de Janeiro I lived opposite to an old lady, who kept screws to crush the fingers of her female slaves. I have staid in a house where a young household mulatto, daily and hourly, was reviled, beaten, and persecuted enough to break the spirit of the lowest animal. I have seen a little boy, six or seven years old, struck thrice with a horse-whip (before I could interfere) on his naked head, for having handed me a glass of water not quite clean; I saw his father tremble at a mere glance from his master’s eye. … And these deeds are done and palliated by men, who profess to love their neighbours as themselves, who believe in God, and pray that his will be done on earth! It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty: but it is a consolation to reflect, that we at least have made a greater sacrifice, than ever made by any nation, to expiate our sin.”

        He also said this in a notebook of his “Animals whom we have made our slaves we do not like to consider our equals. — Do not slave holders wish to make the black man other kind? — animals with affections, imitation, fear of death, pain, sorrow for the dead. — respect.”

        To lie and claim this man was for social Darwinism is simply despicable, a Christian using deception to spread his nonsense.

        Now, who did try to use Darwinism for what became called social Darwinism and its still called that today? Herbert Spencer was a sociologist who took Darwin’s theory of how species changed and tried to apply that to how humans and their social structure should work. Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton was one of the founders of eugenics, not Darwin. You in your ignorance attack the wrong people in your desperation to denigrate evolutionary theory. Spencer supported Lamarckism which was wrong, the claim that if I stretch my neck, my children will have a stretched neck too. Spencer tried to put evolutionary theory onto subjects that it had nothing to do with. Spencer was also one who supported disallowing marriage between the races.

        Social Darwinism, not evolutionary theory, was used by Christians to justify the poor and the wealthy, people like John Rockefeller and later by someone like good Catholic Robert Bork, that there is some law of God that is represented when the rich get richer and poor are kept poor. We also have Louisa McCord, southern belle and defender of slavery as approved by this god since those people of color are less than she is, classic socialist Darwinism “If such be the Stowe and Westminster idea of a gentleman, we are unfortunate enough to have less convenient consciences, and singular as the fact may appear to this knowing fraternity, we are willing to state upon oath, or in any other, the most veracious manner possible, our fixed belief and certain opinion, that there really are a good many among our Southern inhabitants, men and women, who do what they think right, and are not living with a constant lie on their lips and in their hearts; who own slaves because they believe “the system” to be the best possible for black and white, for slave and master, and who can, on their knees, gratefully worship the all-gracious providence of an Almighty God, who has seen fit, so beautifully, to suit every being to the place to which its nature calls it. Ay, Mrs. Stowe, there are pious slaveholders; there are christian slaveholders; there are gentlemanly slaveholders; there are slaveholders whose philosophic research has looked into nature and read God in his works, as well as in his Bible, and who own slaves because they think it, not expedient only, but right, holy and just so to do, for the good of the slave—for the good of the master—for the good of the world. It is not only a New-England “Miss Ophelia” who “would cut off her right hand, sooner than keep on from day to day doing what she thinks wrong.” There are men, and women too, slave-owners and slaveholders, who need no teachings to act as closely as human weakness can, to such a rule. Southern hearts and Southern souls can beat high, and look heavenward, with noble and pure aspirations, blessing God for his mercies; blessing “the system” through which His wisdom obviates, what to man’s little intellect might seem insurmountable, evils, and blessing that beautiful order of creation, which ignorant bigotry, vainly, as yet, has striven to cast back into chaos. “

        and “Make your laws to intefere with the God-established system of slavery, which our Southern States are beautifully developing to perfection, daily improving the condition of the slave, daily waking more and more the master to his high and responsible position; make your laws, we say, to pervert this God-directed course, and the world has yet to see the horrors which might ensue from it. The natural order of things perverted, ill must follow. “

        and “It is a mere quibble to talk of his want of opportunities and instruction. Where were the white man’s opportunities and instruction, when the power

        of mind guided him to the destiny for which Heaven created him? when, by the sunlight of reason, he burst a bonds of ignorance, and, echoing the Almighty fiat, “let there be light,” saw the day beam, which still to the negro was darkness? What guide had he? what opportunities? what instruction? further than the God-given intellect which nature has denied to his lowlier fellow? The white man needed no leading strings. God created him for the leader and the teacher. The mind of the white man sprang by its own power to that eminence which to the negro nature is unattainable.” UNCLE TOM’S CABIN
        1. “Uncle Tom’s Cabin, or Life among the Lowly.” By HARRIET BEECHER STOWE.
        2. Westminster Review.—July, 1852.—Contemporary Literature of America.

        Funny how Hitler demanded that all books on evolutionary theory be banned. There was a list of books that the Nazis banned, it was printed in Die Bucherei, the Nazi journal for their lending libraries. Let’s look at what it listed as banned:

        Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279
        1. The works of traitors, emigrants and authors from foreign countries who believe they can attack and denigrate the new German (H.G. Wells, Rolland).
        2. The literature of Marxism, Communism and Bolshevism.
        3. Pacifist literature.
        4. Literature with liberal, democratic tendencies and attitudes, and writing supporting the Weimar Republic (Rathenau, Heinrich Mann).
        5. All historical writings whose purpose is to denigrate the origin, the spirit and the culture of the German Volk, or to dissolve the racial and structural order of the Volk, or that denies the force and importance of leading historical figures in favor of egalitarianism and the masses, and which seeks to drag them through the mud (Emil Ludwig).
        6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Haeckel).
        7. Books that advocate “art” which is decadent, bloodless, or purely constructivist (Grosz, Dix, Bauhaus, Mendelsohn).
        8. Writings on sexuality and sexual education which serve the egocentric pleasure of the individual and thus, completely destroy the principles of race and Volk (Hirschfeld).
        9. The decadent, destructive and Volk-damaging writings of “Asphalt and Civilization” literati! (Graf, H. Mann, Stefan Zweig, Wassermann, Franz Blei). [transl. note: a derogatory term for writers dealing with upper middle class urban society].
        10. Literature by Jewish authors, regardless of the field.
        11. Popular entertainment literature that depicts life and life’s goals in a superficial, unrealistic and sickly sweet manner, based on a bourgeois or upper class view of life.
        12. Nationalistic and patriotic kitsch in literature.
        [Source for German text: pp. 143-144 of Strothmann, Dietrich. Nationalsozialistische Literaturpolitik: ein Beitrag zur Publizistik im Dritten Reich. Bonn: H. Bouvier, 1968. Translation by Dr. Roland Richter. B

        We also have this from another nazi black list for books “c) Alle Schriften, welche die christliche Religion und ihre Einrichtungen, den Gottesglauben und andere einem gesunden Volksempfinden heiligen Dinge verhöhnen, verumglimpfen oder verächtlich machen.
        c) All writings that ridicule, belittle or besmirch the Christian religion and its institution, faith in God, or other things that are holy to the healthy sentiments of the Volk.

        Considering that conservative Christians agree with this, that evolutionary theory threatens Christianity, you seem to be in quite alliance with Herr Hitler. Read Mein Kampf to see how Christian Hitler was. I have.
        Again, a Christian tries to make false claims and insist that Hitler was influenced by Darwin’s evolutionary theory when he wanted to exterminate the Jews, the disabled, homosexuals, when all of that exhortation came from the bible where it says that the disabled cannot be in this god’s presence, that Jews were responsible for the death of Christ and where it exhorts the murder of homosexuals.

        Pol Pot and Mas Tse Tung are as Stalin, a megalomaniac, and again, using social Darwinism of Spencer et al, not Darwin’s evolutionary theory. You fail again, Murf, since they, like Stalin would have done the same with religion as you admitted above.

        and no, you can’t go on, but you try to lie that you can.

      • Never said atheism was at fault. His loss of belief in God was a result of reading and strongly believing Darwin’s theory. The rest was a tragic culmination of that belief. Is it possible that a man can become a megalomaniac by believing he is the favored race and all others are beneath him? Darwin was, in fact, a racist…simple as that. If you don’t understand what he posited as fact based upon his beliefs, then you have no place to speak on the subject. The rest of what you blather on is meaningless tripe, smoke & mirrors. You need to get a life and have a better knowledge of history and the facts of the matter at hand.

      • so, Murf, you claimed that Darwinism is at fault and all Christians associate evolutionary theory with atheism. You again claim that evolutionary theory leads to atheism so atheism is indeed at fault thanks to your words “Never said atheism was at fault. His loss of belief in God was a result of reading and strongly believing Darwin’s theory. The rest was a tragic culmination of that belief. ”

        interesting that you are trying to run away from what you have tried to claim.

        And now we have more baseless claims from you now trying to claim that megalomania somehow “comes” from accepting evolutionary theory and then being an atheist.

        You lie again about Darwin being a racist. You have no evidence not one quote.

        I know exactly what Darwin wrote and said. You have yet to show that you have read what he wrote or read quotes from him.

        I do love a christian who was caught in a lie, again doubling down on those lies. You do more than I ever could to show that Christianity is nonsense and some Christians ignore their god and bible when it is convenient for them.

      • Based upon everything you have said or asserted, so far, you but an obnoxious little twit. You made an assertion that you have no ability to prove (i.e., “you want to claim that atheism and evolutionary theory are at fault, and you falsely claim that Darwin’s book was intended to excuse genocide as a philosophy.”) Evolutionary theory is as much a religion as Christianity…both require a certain amount of faith and Christianity has more circumstantial evidences going for it. Yet, my tax dollars are taken from my pocket to teach theories which are false. Evolutionary theory or Darwinian thought simply created a platform of thought that made it easy for people to believe there was no God. With many it was a social thing, with others it was a mission.

        The favored races aspect was also to determine that the whites were far superior to blacks and hence were the favored race. Hitler took this to mean that the Aryans were the favored race, Mussolini took it to mean the Italians, the Japanese held much the same, as did the Chinese. Stalin…who knows what specifically he thought, although the early writings about him implied that turned from the church after he read Darwin’s book. His actions spoke rather loudly throughout history. Thomas Huxley (Darwin’s Bulldog) helped push, if not bulldoze much of Darwin’s ideas through. Many scientists did not agree with his theory.

        Darwin posited ideas and thoughts, as well as, ramblings. Later on in his book he uses those ideas, thoughts and ramblings as stated fact. It is irrelevant that he wrote the book in 1859 and that he was an Englishman…his theory had both widespread and historical repercussions, a ripple effect of sort. The Civil War was to begin in 1861, but had been brewing since the 1830s, if not earlier. Again the white man being perceived as the favored race and thereby had the right to possess slaves as property. The South believed it to be their right to the founding of the nation. Much of what Darwin wrote was from Erasmus Darwin. The ideology posited was from philosophers long before Darwin’s time. His favored race belief didn’t fair very will for himself, as he decided to marry his first cousin. They had 10 children, but three died before age 10, two from infectious diseases. And three of the six surviving children with long-term marriages did not produce any offspring — a “suspicious” sign, researchers say, that these Darwins could have had reproductive problems because of their lineage.

        I never brought up Social Darwinism…you did, so I have not pushed anything of the sort…so is the liar now? Or are you just conflating? I am done with you at this point. You are just pushing your perceived belief of some personal injury of your ego. And you continue to fight very hard against something that does not exist. Hmmmmm. Besides, I am not very impressed with your cut-n-paste job. Does not show deep though, just regurgitation without thought.

      • And a whole pile of false claims from a Christian.

        I having the best time watching a Christian desperately trying to not be held responsible for false witnessing he’s done.

        You have yet to show that Darwin’s theory or Darwin intented on evolutionary theory to support genocide. You now lie that evolutionary theory is a “religion” when that is only a Christian trying to pretend everyone is like him when it comes to thoughtlessly believing something. There is no faith needed for accepting evolutionary theory. We have plenty of evidence for it. Your or any other Christian’s version of Christianity, not so much. Christians don’t agree on the most basic things and we have no evidence for any of the essential events in the bible. No magic events, no reason to think there is your god.

        Poor dear, now whining about how dare the gov’t teach science when it dares to show that poor Bro Murf is wrong. You benefit from evolutionary theory being correct every day, from antibiotics to modern foodstuffs. You are a hypocite like so many Christians are, having no problem with science until it shows that your religion is no more true than the pantheons of the Ancient Greeks and Egyptians.

        What you are upset by is that no one needs you or your god you’ve invented.
        You again can’t show that “favoured races” was used in the modern sense. You have to lie about that too, Murf. In that I can quote Darwin who did not think that the races were superior one to another, you end up being shown as a liar again.

        Now you admit that you have no idea what Stalin thought. All you’ve done is repeat lies in order to try to bash atheism. Yep, plenty of people think they are superior, and they are wrong. They are megalomaniacs. I think it’s perfectly hilarious that you now whine that the early writings about Stalin now only “implied” what you tried to claim as truth. Do try to backpedal faster, lying Christian.

        Yep, scientists back in the early 1800s didn’t agree with Darwin. And all of their hypotheses failed since they had no evidence for them, just like you.
        You still have no evidence for your lies about Darwin. How nice. It is not irrelevant at all about when Darwin wrote his book but you keep trying to lie about that too, dear. Darwin spoke against slavery and again, never said that his theory was about your idiocy about one race being better than another.

        No, much of what Darwin wrote was not from “Erasmus Darwin”, his grandfather. That is again a lie. You have no evidence for it as usual. Erasmus wrote “”the strongest and most active animal should propagate the species, which should thence become improved”” which is not what evolutionary says at all. Your ignorance about the subject again makes you look like an ignorant brat.
        It’s also hilarious that poor ignorant Murf, tries to claim that marriage to a first cousin causes infectious disease. Sorry, dear ignorant one, it doesn’t work that way. At best, a first cousin would only have around 12% of the same genetics as another. So, if two related people have children, they have around a 5% of having some genetic problem; a non related couple has around 2.5% of that.

        the only “researchers” who claim a “suspicious sign” are lying Christians, the same type that always try to claim that Darwin converted on his deathbed. That there were plenty of grandchildren shows that you are trying to lie again and are simply ignorant on how genetics work. How pathetic.

        I know you didn’t bring up social Darwinism, since that would have shown your lies to be that right off. What you describe as the use of evolutionary theory in such cultural context *is* Social Darwinism. Your lies that evolutionary theory was advanced by Darwin as a reason for genocide are false claims that Darwin supported the bastardization of his work. He didn’t.

        Dear, if you want to claim I’m a liar, do show evidence. If not, well, we know where you stand when it comes to your supposed religion.

      • IF evolution is not a religion, then you must prove it! It is held up by faith in the multitude of assertions since 1859 that have been proven as false. Gill slits, piltdown man, Lucy, etc. Evolutionists push variations in species as proof of macro evolution, blah blah blah.

      • LOL> Oh my. i can prove it just by citing the definition of religion: “a personal set or institutionalized system of religious (relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity) attitudes, beliefs, and practices”

        So, what about evolutionary theory is false, dear Murf? The evolutionary theory, unlike religious dogma, can change depending on what we observe.

        Funny how it was scientists who showed that Piltdown Man was a fraud, not theists. Lucy is quite real. And embryos do have structures similar to gill slits but they are not quite: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evodevo_02 “Ancestral characters are often, but not always, preserved in an organism’s development. For example, both chick and human embryos go through a stage where they have slits and arches in their necks like the gill slits and gill arches of fish. These structures are not gills and do not develop into gills in chicks and humans, but the fact that they are so similar to gill structures in fish at this point in development supports the idea that chicks and humans share a common ancestor with fish. ”

        We’ve long known that ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny. It takes a creationist to try to attack long superseded ideas in his quest to lie.

        You are again showing just how ignorant you are about evolutionary theory, a lazy ignorant man who attacks something he doesn’t understand since he wants to pretend he is special. Differences between species is evolution. I do love how creationists like you have to accept evolution since it is obvious, but then you whine about macro evolution as being wrong. Evolution is evolution. As always theists are always trying to catch up to science and having to admit that science is what works, not their myths.

        And nice space here in your head, I think I’ll put a plant over by the medulla oblongata.

      • You continue to spew your bs. Science is slowly catching up to the Bible…evolution is not proven but rather a belief based upon posited thoughts, beliefs, and fraudulent ideas. There are no transitional structures between man and an ape-like creature. You continue to say I lie, by asserting yet it still stands…you can only attack my character, and my beliefs as false without any actual proof. You continually say “bro Murf is running away” yet here I am, again. You say I don’t understand, which is code for “I’m dumb and you are smart,” yet evolution has required millions of years to come into being. On average the evolutionary theory has grown by 21,000 years per year over the past several decades just to make it viable. I know a bad theory when I see it. But you go ahead and keep it up!😏

      • LOL. The bible claims that stars are little fires on a solid dome. They aren’t. It offers two contradictory creation stories, neither of which are supported by evidence. It claims a flood more than 28,000 feet deep covered the entire earth, but can’t tell the time when and Christians don’t agree.

        Again, no evidence for that nonsense, plus no evidence for all of the rest of the essential events of the bible.

        Evolutionary theory is indeed shown as accurate by observation and experimentation. The antibiotics you benefit from work because we know how evolutionary theory works.

        There are plenty of transitional structures between human primates and apes. You are simply too lazy and too afraid to look at that information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils#Human_evolution

        You do certainly still lie and I’ve shown where and how. Your character is based on deceit and selfishness, so I have no problem in attacking it at all.

        It’s hilarious that now you want to claim that since I point out that you don’t understand and how you don’t understand, it “really means” that I am saying that I am smart and you are dumb. You are ignorant and lazy. You may have some intellect but you do not use it since you are more concerned with pretending you are special. It’s even funnier when Christians try to claim that I, a former Christian, don’t “really” understand their bible nonsense. Shucks, Murf, are they calling me stupid and themselves smart?

        Now, what this has to do with the fact that evolutionary theory has taken millions of years is beyond me. No, evolutionary theory hasn’t “grown by 21,000 years per year” since that makes absolutely no sense at all. Evolutionary theory is a theory about mechanisms, not years.

      • I have never heard the reference of, “ The bible claims that stars are little fires on a solid dome.” However, think about it…what is a star? Hydrogen & Helium (98%) burning balls of fire…hmmmmm…space is a vacuum and without Oxygen, so how does it burn? But rather intriguing, to say the least. You say, ‘It claims’ I will assume you mean the Bible says that “a flood more than 28,000 feet deep covered the entire earth” you are, in this statement, making the same assumption as so many others make…that the mountains were there prior to the flood. Because nowhere in the Bible, nor in the Genesis creation, does the Bible mention that the flood of water was 28,000 feet deep to cover the mountains. Now the different translations do extend from “high hills” to “highest mountains,” which is problematic with respect to the translations themselves. The Authorized Version references “high hills” being covered. The Hydroplate Theory explains much of this. The idea that not knowing the time when Christians don’t agree is an irrelevant factor.

        The truth lies in the strata; however, evolutionists date the strata by the perceived age of the skeletal remains in them. And the evolutionists date the skeletal remains by the perceived age of the strata. Hmmmmmm…sounds like circular reasoning to me!

        You say, “no evidence for that nonsense,” yet you cannot explain the existence of petrified clams on the Himalayas or Mt. Everest. They certainly didn’t walk there, or shall I say that no evolutionist has found any vestigial appendages that were perceived to be legs millions or billions of years ago, as they did with the whale. LOL

        You also say that, “Evolutionary theory is indeed shown as accurate by observation and experimentation.” There has been no observation done that would allow for anyone to say with absolute certitude that one species evolved from a completely different species. And your antibiotic comment is ludicrous, in that, a problem was seen and a designer experimented and developed a remedy.

        And no, there are no transitional structures, you cannot prove beyond any reasonable doubt, let alone a preponderance of evidence, that any of those remains had offspring. The strata are filled with the chronology of death, not evolution. Many of those evolutionary discoveries, so-called, were proven false, with respect to being transitional in nature. They were discovered, but not as advertized.

        My reference to evolutionary theory growing by 21K years per year, was with respect to its time-span. It would seem as though in the 1770s, or there about, the age of the earth was believed to be about 70K years old; slowly it crept up to millions of years in the late 1800s to early 1900s and within the last century it has grown to 4+ billions of years in age…but who cares?

        You say I am, ignorant and lazy, quite honestly the same could be said about you. I have looked at many of the theories throughout my life and have determined that there must be a God, a Designer of all things. Without such, too many questions remain to be answered, such as: Where did the great nothingness come from that was compressed into the size of a dot and then exploded? How did nothing create such an immense amount of gravity? This is what started off the evolutionary process, because without the Big Bang so-called, the earth would not have been here to have an immense amount of rain fall upon the rocks; thereby, creating the primordial soup mixture from which our ancestral amphibian relatives came from.

        Let us digress for a moment, you have listed numerous people touting them as “Christians” but were not…Hitler? Really? And yes, evolutionary thought can lead someone to believe there is no God; and hence, atheism. Sadly you have a great number of Christians who believe that God used evolution.

        I still hold that it is not Darwinism that is at fault, but man’s freewill choice. An unalienable right.

        Every theory or philosophy posited, proven or unproven, has a ripple effect upon all aspects of life. Some will pick and choose what to apply, others will apply across the board in their lives. Even with Christianity, or any other religion. You say, “there is no faith needed for accepting evolutionary theory.”
        Yet, no proof of evolution has been given. People are just expected to believe everyone from Darwin’s time forward who have chosen to believe such is the case? Then that is, indoctrination. Darwin proved nothing! He simply posited a theory and no he never did yield the origin of species…they were just posited theories…unproved and unprovable, as Sir Arthur Keith (an evolutionist) said.

        What is the purpose of man with an evolutionary philosophy? Simply to spread his DNA in order to ensure his genetics last on forever, if possible. What is the purpose of man with an atheistic philosophy? He has no purpose. Any purpose he purports to have is completely relative to himself and no other.

        You said that, “The evolutionary theory, unlike religious dogma, can change depending on what we observe.” The only aspect of evolution you can observe is that of micro-evolution, or variations within the species. You have never observed macro-evolution, or the evolutionary process changing from on species or kind to another; because it has not happened.
        “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable. “ ~Sir Arthur Keith

        “Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” ~Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum

        This will be my last post on this, you can say I am running away all you want…if that makes you feel better. I cannot see wasting my breath or my words on someone such as you. If you were a Christian, as you have implied, then you will have plenty to answer for…just like the rest of us! You have been an obnoxious twit the entire discussion. And you still have proven nothing! Have a nice life.

      • Do read your bible, Murf. It might help.

        And no stars that are thousands of miles across and are fusing elements aren’t little fires on a dome. “14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth.”” Genesis 1. They move so they aren’t the stable signs claimed. You again show how terribly ignorant you are. Fusion doesn’t need oxygen ::facepalm::

        It’s great to see you now try to claim that the flood was on an earth that had no mountains. Alas, geology shows that you are wrong. The bible does say that the water covered the mountains. “19 The waters swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; 20 the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep.” Genesis 7

        Yep, you can’t figure out how your god “really” wants this supposedly magic book to be described. Highest hills or highest mountains both show you to be wrong. The hydroplate hypothesis does not explain much of the flood. It’s even better that Christian creationists can’t even convince each other that their hypotheses are true.

        A layer of water 10 miles down would be hundreds of degrees hot. So, when it shot up, then it would fall back, causing more heat. So poor ol Noah and the ark would have been parboiled. We would also be able to find deposits of these explosive releases. There are none.

        it’s always great fun to see a Christian insist that his ignorance is an “irrelevant factor”.

        The truth does lie in the strata. There is no massive flood deposit that would have occurred from the silly flood. Again, you rely on your ignorance and lies to try to falsely claim that fossils are only dated from the perceived date of the strata. Nice strawman an ignorant creationist offers.
        There are petrified sea life on top of the Himalayas thanks to the Indian sub continent crushing sea sediments before it as it moved into the belly of south Asia. That’s where we get that pink salt from too. A closing-up sea that dessicated and left salt deposits behind as layer to be bent up with the other rocks. But do tell me how a flood can leave deposits of salt that must dry out, Murf.

        It doesn’t matter what you say, since all you do is lie, Murf. We’ve found vestigial limbs which came from lobe finned fishes.

        Alas, again, you depend on your lies and ignorance to try to claim that there has not been any observation that demonstrates evolutionary theory. That is of course untrue since we’ve seen fruit flies evolve, tuberculosis evolve, moths evolve, etc. You also have no idea how antibiotics work, so again it is only willful ignorance that keeps your religion intact. A designer didn’t design a remedy, a human observed that a mold acted against some bacteria and deduced that something in the mold was killing it. Thus we have antibiotics and thanks to evolution, some bacteria have evolved a resistance to it since their beneficial characteristic was selected for by being exposed to the antibiotic toxin.

        It’s great fun again to see you intentionally lying, Murf. Now we have you backtracking and saying I can’t show that the transitional fossils are that “beyond any reasonable doubt”. Nice of you to admit that I’m right and you are wrong again, Murf. You now have to try to move the goalposts since you’ve been caught in a lie. You also can’t show that “many of those evolutionary discoveries were proven false. You are lying again.

        Your reference to evolutionary theory growing by 21K was just one more lie, that now you try to make up that it has something to do with “timescale”. Yep, the age of the earth has been estimated in the past when we didn’t have good instruments, to now when we do. That’s all you have, you poor thing, that we didn’t know as much a couple of hundred years ago as we do now. How utterly pathetic. And where does this 21K come in? Ah yes, it doesn’t since your desperation has you repeatedly changing your story.

        Yep, dear, you are ignorant and lazy. I can show that and I have. Now, do show that about me if you want to lie and claim the same could be said about me, little one.

        No one cares what an ignorant man thinks about science when he can’t even show his god exists, Murf. Theists of all types invent a god and none of you can show that yours is the right one.

        We don’t know *yet* the answers to all questions. We may never know. And that doesn’t show that Murf’s god made in his own image is real.

        Yes, dear, Hitler was a Christian. Read Mein Kampf. I know you won’t, because again, you need your willful ignorance to keep believing. So many Christians want to declare that anyone who doesn’t agree with them, or who inconveniently obeys the demands of this ignorant god.

        Yep, there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with evolutionary theory. So, your claim that evolutionary theory can lead someone to atheism is wrong. Those Christians are just as Christian as you; none of you are the one TrueChristian™. None of you can do what the bible promises you can do. You are frauds who invent many versions of a religion in your image. All of you pick and choose what you want out of the bible, which parts are to be taken literally, what to be claimed metaphor and which parts to completely ignore since they are ridiculous.

        Again, without evidence, your claims are just baseless opinion, that are countered by reality. You’ve claimed that Darwinism *is* at fault, so this is just more backtracking “I still hold that it is not Darwinism that is at fault, but man’s freewill choice. An unalienable right.”

        Alas you continue to lie when you claim that no evidence for evolution has been given. It has, and only your desperation to pretend you are special causes you to deny it, just like so many theists whom you don’t agree with. You have failed to show that faith, belief in things unseen per your bible, is needed to know that evolutionary theory works.

        No one has to just believe in evolutionary theory at all. They can do experiments themselves to see it work. So again, poor Murf ends up with one more strawman to attack since he can’t handle reality.

        Darwin did posit a hypothesis and it was built in to a theory by people after him. Again, we see a creationist unable to deal with how science works. He has to go back a couple of hundred years to attack something that is superseded since he has nothing else. In that same vein, you run back to a long dead person, Sir Arthur Keith, who died before a huge amount of research had been done. He was an idiot who believed in the Piltdown Man, which, again was proven a fraud by scientists, not theists. He believed in long disproven nonsense like humans came from Europe not Africa, thanks to his ignorance racism. He also never said the quote you give “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable” You are again found out to be lazy and a liar. What is known about that quote is that Ray Comfort appears to have invented it in his bastardized version of Origin of the Species: “Thus after giving this citation, Christian apologist Ray Comfort speaks of Keith as “author of Forward [sic] to The Origin of Species, 100th edition” but fails to provide any page number (Intelligent Design vs. Evolution: Letters to Atheists (Orlando: Bridge-Logos, 2006), 9). Christian authors Linda Coates and Leslie S. Kelly similarly speak of Keith as “the scientist who wrote the forward [sic] to the 100 year anniversary edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species” when giving this same citation also without a page number (The 12 Days of Christmas: A Guide to an Old Tradition with a New Purpose (Mustang: Oklahoma, 2008), 46).

        Evolutionary theory has no philosophy. That is for humans to invent. Evolutionary theory does seem to be a great way for DNA to replicate itself and no more. However, us humans have the nifty thing of intellect and consciousness and we can think about giving ourselves other things to do. There is no one atheist philosophy. We all have different worldviews, only agreeing on the fact that there are no gods.

        We don’t need a god, or you to have a purpose. Yep, those reasons can be completely relative. So? What makes that bad? You have no answer, you only strive desperately to make up a job for your god. All your bible has as a purpose for humans is for a god to masturbate.

        Evolution is evolution. There is no difference between macro and micro. It’s so fun to watch you betray your prior creationists by now accepting that evolution does happen since you can’t keep going lying that it doesn’t. You accept evolution, dear. You only now have to lie and claim that its only “macro evolution” that doesn’t happen. I’ve experienced evolution when I had e coli and it didn’t respond to first line anti-biotics. I had to be given progressively stronger ones to kill it.

        You’ve never seen your messiah so whining that my not having witnesses evolution myself is an issue shoots your claims in the face.

        And oh look, another lie from Murf when it comes to a quote. ““Evolution is a fairy tale for grownups. The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” ~Professor Louis Bounoure, Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum“

        Louis Bounoure did not say that. One can see how Christians manufactured the quote from several quotes from different people: Cretinism or Evilution?: More Out of Context Quotations of French Scientists (talkorigins.org)

        He was never a director, and that is the typical Christian nonsense of trying to giving someone more authority than they have when trying to use the fallacy of the appeal to authority for their lies.

        Now, we have poor Murf making impotent threats based on his sadistic fantasies. Nope, Murf, I will not have “plenty to answer for”. You on the other hand, if your god is real and the bible is accurate, will have a problem with your repeated false claims and outright lies, Romans 3.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s