This is obviously false. If we take this to the extreme, then only one person can be rated the "strongest" and all others should perish, thereby eliminating the species.
Yes it is false, which is exactly my point, why you felt the need to quote and describe your own opinion of it being false I do not know.

That extreme you described could be used in the context of many theories if I took them to 'their extreme'. It doesnt matter, the fact remains that eugenics teaches these elements of selective breeding no matter what extreme you wish to take them to.

Hawking is a man who is unable to take care of himself, but he is a brilliant mind. Do we "need" him? No, but he sure is nice to have around.
Yes eugenics does disregard disabled people as inferior, which in the case of stephen hawking simply is not true, disabled people ARE NOT INFERIOR which is my point, again you do not debunk my points only reinforce them.

No it hasn't
Yes it has, much of the foundations of eugenics are derrived from extreme darwinistic teachings, or if you prefer to find me another origin please do so.

Nazi Germany based much of its movements with a darwinistic ideology of a superior race (this is darwinism).

No you don't. Most humans realize, perhaps on some innate level, that killing off our own has less value than helping each other survive. Most humans develop something called empathy that makes us feel awful about harming one another. Having someone physically weaker and less intelligent around myself has no bearing on my ability to survive. Why not keep them around?
If you believed in evolution and you also disagree with random acts of violence, or a 'kill to survive' action of murder you would be in as much contradtion as me following chrstianity and saying praising jesus is stupid.

Evolution didn't give rise to Eugenics - Wankers did.
Modern day eugenics which focuses upon the aspects which I have described above in previous posts was founded by Sir Francis Galton in 1865 - who was Charles Darwins half cousin.

Let me elaborate with an extract on actual eugenic theory and how it smacks of evolution and darwinistic elements.

"Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering. More controversially, some, such as the Nazi regime in Germany, used eugenics as a pretext for racial discrimination.

Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral and is based on, or is itself, pseudoscience. Historically, eugenics has been used as a justification for coercive state-sponsored discrimination and human rights violations, such as forced sterilization of persons who are claimed to have genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized population and, in some cases, outright genocide of races perceived as inferior or undesirable".

Again I do not speak of evolution being incorrect, I am just saying (I feel I am repeating myself for no reason) that there are certain elements which must be addressed about evolution in the classroom.

I wish people would actually stick to the subject of evolution in the classroom and not rant on about debate points between creationism and evolution.

Oh man, stop - my sides are splitting.

There really is tons of evidence - from many fields - which consolidates evolution. You know this already, that's why you are trying so hard to argue against it.

You guys scare the shit out of me.
Can you prove we evolved from apes?

Wow, because seriously there are a ton of institutions who are offering millions to anyone who can prove evolution.

Which is why we have so many cases of 'fake missing links'.

I seriously do not trust the comments and intellect on this site when I have heard people say:

"science deals with things we can see and observe, thats why evolution is in our classrooms"
To which I replied:

"Have you ever seen an ape evolve into a man?"
hmm...

I understand that you wish to brandish me a creationist and shoot down creationism, then please do so, I am by no means a creationist or an evolutionist, both parties are lacking great deals of evidence.

I wont ever forget the evolutionist who said we have the same number of chromosomes as apes, which is a viable enough explanation as to why we got here as humans (that we evolved from these apes).

To which the creationist replied, well, I know something else which has the same number of chromosomes as humans and its tobacco.

The crowd applauded, the debate continued.

.....Oh and please do explain how evolving from rocks is a good enough explanation as to why we are here today (and dont hide behind your 4 billion years of evolution story).