Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Evolution is a myth? Please explain:

You are the hoax Thunderstruck.

The DNA evidence suggests that a bottleneck in the human population occurred about 70,000 years ago wherein we may have been reduced to as few as 10,000 individuals on the planet.

Pildown man was received by science with skepticism from the start, and science eventually proved it was a hoax. That's how the scientific method weeds out falsity. As for Lucy, why wouldn't her bones still be on display??

And since he also believes that the Rhinoceros, the Tapir, the Horse, Donkey, and Zebra are all related species (all being members of the order Perissodactyla), stemming from a common ancestor, he also believes in speciation by natural selection. That's called Darwinian Evolution.

I have a fair amount of first hand knowledge with people who lived through 70 years of Communism where it was a state crime to teach anything other than atheism and evolution in the public forum. Registered churches who were willing to follow state guidelines could conduct services within their walls only, but unregistered churches who would not accept the compromises of state guidelines were considered illegal. I talked with one man who said the last time he saw his father was when the KGB took him from their home at night and presumably sent him to Siberia because he had committed "crimes against the state" as a pastor. That was a common occurrence. What the underground church under Communism endured for contradicting mandatory education in atheism and evolution was often kept from the national news by our liberal media. All of this was fueled by the Marxist agenda which relied heavily on convincing the populace of atheism and evolution. But in the end the godless system of Communism imploded, and the Church is still teaching theism and creation and will continue to do so till the end of time.

I had the privilege to live there for a period of time and use a public auditorium where the walls were lined with famous atheists/evolutionists/communists who spoke there ... they are gone ... but in the very podium where they promoted their agenda in the name of (false) science the enduring Word of God went forth and another church was founded.

Here is a good book to read: https://books.google.com/books/abou..._read_button#v=onepage&q&f=false

Actually, the teaching of Darwinian Evolution was outlawed in the Soviet Union. They declared it a product of bourgeois capitalism, since it emphasized competition for survival. Instead, they required that Lamarckianism be taught as the means by which speciation occurred. Lamarckianims proposes that, for example, the ancestors of giraffes struggling to reach higher and higher edibles in the trees, stretched their necks ever so slightly throughout their lives by this process, and then passed that slight morphological change on to their descendants, till eventually we had modern day giraffes. Anyone caught teaching Darwinian Evolution was arrested for promoting competition rather than cooperation.

As a result of this, the Soviet Union suffered year after year of crop failure, eventually leading to their giving up of Lamarckianism and conceding that Darwinian Evolution was correct.

Thus, in the Soviet Union, Lamarckism was labeled “creative Soviet Darwinism”
https://www.britannica.com/science/Lamarckism

They can call it what they like. It isn't Darwinian Evolution, and is just plain wrong. No legitimate scientist has been an adherent for a century or more. It was only favored by the Soviets because they disliked the idea that progress could have anything to do with competition.

Theism and Creationism are the death knell of Communism, the vanguard against Socialism, and the bulwark of capitalism, morality, and freedom.

That makes sense, but though they disliked an aspect of classic Darwinism they certainly embraced the main theory.

Quite the opposite.

Beate Wilder-Smith suggested that evolution is

“a central plank in Marxist doctrine today. The Nazis were convinced, as are communists today, that evolution had taken place, that all biology had evolved spontaneously upward, and that inbetween links (or less evolved types) should be actively eradicated. They believed that natural selection could and should be actively aided, and therefore instituted political measures to eradicate the handicapped, the Jews, and the blacks, whom they considered as ‘underdeveloped’

Darwin, however, opened the door to Marxism by providing what Marx believed was a ‘scientific’ rationale to deny Creation and, by extension, to deny God.4 His denial of God, and his knowledge of Darwin, inspired Marx to develop his new godless worldview now known as communism. And like other Darwinists, Marx stressed that his communistic worldview was ‘scientific’ and, as such, employed a ‘scientific methodology and scientific outlook’.5 Bethell notes that Marx admired Darwin’s book,

“not for economic reasons but for the more fundamental one that Darwin’s universe was purely materialistic, and the explication of it no longer involved any reference to unobservable, nonmaterial causes outside or ‘beyond’ it. In that important respect, Darwin and Marx were truly comrades … ”6

Lenin greatly admired his father, who was a hard-working, religious and intelligent man. Koster adds:

“The only piece of art work in Lenin’s office was a kitsch statue of an ape sitting on a heap of books—including Origin of Species—and contemplating a human skull. This … comment in clay on Darwin’s view of man, remained in Lenin’s view as he worked at his desk, approving plans or signing death warrants … . The ape and the skull were a symbol of his faith, the Darwinian faith that man is a brute, the world is a jungle, and individual lives are irrelevant. Lenin was probably not an instinctively vicious man, though he certainly ordered a great many vicious measures. Perhaps the ape and the skull were invoked to remind him that, in the world according to Darwin, man’s brutality to man is inevitable. In his struggle to bring about the ‘worker’s paradise’ though ‘scientific’ means, he ordered a great many deaths. The ape and the skull may have helped him stifle whatever kindly or humane impulses were left over from a wholesome childhood.”38

The importance of Darwin’s ideas is stressed by Parkadze, a childhood friend of Stalin’s:

“We youngsters had a passionate thirst for knowledge. Thus, in order to disabuse the minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in six days, we had to acquaint ourselves with the geological origin and age of the earth, and be able to prove them in argument; we had to familiarize ourselves with Darwin’s teachings. We were aided in this by … Lyell’s Antiquity of Man and Darwin’s Descent of Man, the latter in a translation edited by Sechenov. Comrade Stalin read Sechenov’s scientific works with great interest. We gradually proceeded to a study of the development of class society, which led us to the writings of Marx, Engels and Lenin. In those days the reading of Marxist literature was punishable as revolutionary propaganda. The effect of this was particularly felt in the seminary, where even the name of Darwin was always mentioned with scurrilous abuse. … Comrade Stalin brought these books to our notice. The first thing we had to do, he would say, was to become atheists. Many of us began to acquire a materialist outlook and to ignore theological subjects. Our reading in the most diverse branches of science not only helped our young people to escape from the bigoted and narrow-minded spirit of the seminary, but also prepared their minds for the reception of Marxist ideas. Every book we read, whether on archaeology, geology, astronomy, or primitive civilization, helped to confirm us the truth of Marxism.”47

As a result of the influence of Lenin, Stalin and other Soviet leaders, Darwin became ‘an intellectual hero in the Soviet Union. There is a splendid Darwin museum in Moscow, and the Soviet authorities struck a special Darwin medal in honour of the centenary of The Origin’.48

When RNA started it did exactly what it does today. God created the complete system.

Nice try. You are trying you switch meaning and are failing. Adaptation is not evolving to a higher order of animal.

Your blind faith is what is the problem. You are rejecting reality.

Should I read a textbook that includes Nebraska man and Piltdown man? Or should I read one that taught neanthradal was not human?

I think the Flood was about 5,000 years ago. And the answer is YES.

Sorry, but if there was a world wide flood, no way it happened only 5000 years ago. Genesis literalism is completely and thoroughly repudiated by science.

Who said higher? You did in fact accept that the two extant species of rhinoceros, the tapir, and the three extant equine species had a common ancestor. It's recorded here in this thread. That's not mere change by adaptation of two strains of the same species to different environments. That's speciation. I asked how, and you said by the process of adaptation. So you admit that adaptation can take us further than mere adaptation of the same species to differing environments. Not only that, but even beyond the same family. We are now at the order level of variation, yet still accepting a common ancestor of them all.

I'm sorry, buddy, but you are now a proponent of Darwinian evolution (congrats). You're way past intra-species variation by adaptation (all that any Creationist is willing to accept). You're even past inter-species variation by adaptation. You've entered into intra-order variation by adaptation. You are solidly within the evolution camp now, whether you're aware of it or not.

If species of different families within the same order can be related (something you've admitted to here), why not species only sharing a class? After all, if it's possible to walk ten yards it's possible to walk ten miles.