It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Disasters Darwinism brought to Humanity

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
So, this thread is about how the theory of evolution has been a disaster.

Other than misinterpreting the meaning of a scientific theory and bashing athiests, I see no proof as to how the theory of evolution is a disaster.

I am still waiting.




posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:09 PM
link   
evidence showing that atheism causes people to be more dishonest
www.youtube.com...

The notion of evolution obviously has social implications and implications to human morality, that is why it is such a bad thing.



[edit on 7-6-2008 by Hollywood11]



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Though your video more than an ambiguous attempt to clarify a stereo type of humanity in different aspects of acceptance, there could be some verifiable acceptances into what was said about the thought patterns in the aforementioned scientific analogies, but there is a group that they didn't inquire on, that is the people that have had their lives altered to the point of being responsible for their thoughts and actions after specific experiences during life's journey. But, that could be another discussion entirely.
As for the http:/globaloneness.org website, it is a very cool place to visit.
I am an atheist and do have a little to mention in the explanation of this particular group and some of it's statements;

We are responsible to each other, the earth, and future generations.
There are enough resources for us all, if we share.
Free exchanges of information allow for greater, collective creative potential.
Love, care and compassion have the power to transform the fabric of society.
We hope that by showing the diverse ways oneness is expressed—in the fields of sustainability, conflict resolution, spirituality, art, economics, indigenous culture, and social justice—others will be inspired to create solutions to personal and community challenges from their own lived understanding of oneness.


Source:
www.globalonenessproject.org...

I personally believe that humans are capable of anything, if we put our minds to it. From Murder to saving lives, leaves quite an entourage of possibilities for us as humans to be either productive or counter productive for the multitudes.
There is one word there that doesn't pertain to me per-say, and that word is "spirituality", which is, or has nothing to do with our individual actions and accountabilities towards our society. You are either a good individual that has done wrong, or you are a bad individual that don't know how to do good. Religion or a belief in anything than yourself is a far cry from a negative thing to be judged so, doesn't take a belief system or an indirect understanding of proper actions and thought patterns to be able to do good. It takes the conscious awareness of what Lay's a head for the action we commit, whether good or bad, there will always be the ripple effect of either choice throughout your immediate life acquaintances and people that are around you.
I don't think that the advent of the thoughts of creationism was too get so out of hand and distorted from the religious point's of views, though I automatically see there is a fear of threat that these finding's could very well be the answers that religious people don't want to accept as the true meaning of life, and for that they have their "Good Book" to fall back on, because that is all they were ever taught and the only thing these individuals want to know. IMHO



posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Allred5923

that is the people that have had their lives altered to the point of being responsible for their thoughts and actions after specific experiences during life's journey. But, that could be another discussion entirely.


haha, yeah that is getting into a bit more complicated territory.

Actually I do agree that a person's programming and experiences influence them as much as their beliefs and ideals can.


Originally posted by Allred5923
As for the http:/globaloneness.org website, it is a very cool place to visit.
I am an atheist and do have a little to mention in the explanation of this particular group and some of it's statements;

We are responsible to each other, the earth, and future generations.
There are enough resources for us all, if we share.
Free exchanges of information allow for greater, collective creative potential.
Love, care and compassion have the power to transform the fabric of society.
We hope that by showing the diverse ways oneness is expressed—in the fields of sustainability, conflict resolution, spirituality, art, economics, indigenous culture, and social justice—others will be inspired to create solutions to personal and community challenges from their own lived understanding of oneness.


Source:
www.globalonenessproject.org...

I personally believe that humans are capable of anything, if we put our minds to it. From Murder to saving lives, leaves quite an entourage of possibilities for us as humans to be either productive or counter productive for the multitudes.


Yes and belief plays a role in putting your mind into something.



There is one word there that doesn't pertain to me per-say, and that word is "spirituality", which is, or has nothing to do with our individual actions and accountabilities towards our society.


Almost every religion believes in the golden rule as fundamnetal and very important.

Spirituality just means how good of a person you are in the end. The better person you are, the higher spiritual level you are. How spiritual you are is determined by how good of a person you are, that's all it means. It doesn't mean you burn incnense or go to seminars on new age things or anything like that.



You are either a good individual that has done wrong, or you are a bad individual that don't know how to do good. Religion or a belief in anything than yourself is a far cry from a negative thing to be judged so, doesn't take a belief system or an indirect understanding of proper actions and thought patterns to be able to do good. It takes the conscious awareness of what Lay's a head for the action we commit, whether good or bad, there will always be the ripple effect of either choice throughout your immediate life acquaintances and people that are around you.


Well, in a way it does take a system of belief, and it has to be put into practice, because all humans are born naturally selfish with seperate conciousness from the rest of the universe.

You might think you are doing something not that bad, but it is actually very bad.

All thoughts good or bad, will ultimately come back to you. All actions will also come back to you. If you swear at someone, you will have to be sworn at in the future. If you hit someone then you will have to be hit. If you kill someone you will end up being killed. If not in this life, then the next life.



I don't think that the advent of the thoughts of creationism was too get so out of hand and distorted from the religious point's of views, though I automatically see there is a fear of threat that these finding's could very well be the answers that religious people don't want to accept as the true meaning of life, and for that they have their "Good Book" to fall back on, because that is all they were ever taught and the only thing these individuals want to know. IMHO


Yeah it's a natural manifestation of Yin and Yang, where there is one belief, another belifef will come along to oppose it.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Darwinism takes more faith than most religions....



What is Darwinism? Darwinism is a theory of empirical science only at the level of microevolution, where it provides a framework for explaining such things as the diversity that arises when small populations become reproductively isolated from the main body of the species. As a general theory of biological creation Darwinism is not empirical at all. Rather, it is a necessary implication of a philosophical doctrine called scientific naturalism, which is based on the a priori assumption that God was always absent from the realm of nature. As such evolution in the Darwinian sense is inherently antithetical to theism, although evolution in some entirely different and non-naturalistic sense could conceivably have been God's chosen method of creation.

In 1874, the great Presbyterian theologian Charles Hodge asked the question I have asked: What is Darwinism? After a careful and thoroughly fair-minded evaluation of the doctrine, his answer was unequivocal: "It is Atheism." Another way to state the proposition is to say that Darwinism is the answer to a specific question that grows out of philosophical naturalism.
www.origins.org...



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Reverend SamuelTophatJack
"It is Atheism." Another way to state the proposition is to say that Darwinism is the answer to a specific question that grows out of philosophical naturalism.


I like that quote, i'm gonna remember it.



posted on Jun, 8 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Hollywood11
 


Good thread! I highly recommend Dinesh D'Souzas book "What's So Great About Christianity" Here's a quote...



Evolution is a scientific theory, Darwinism is a metaphysical stance and a political ideology. In fact, Darwinism is the atheist spin imposed on the theory of evolution. As a theory, evolution is not hostile to religion. Far from disproving design, evolution actually reveals the mode by which design has been executed. But atheists routinely use Darwinism and the fallacy of the blind watchmaker to undermine belief in God. Many scientists have been conned by this atheist tactic. They allow themselves to slide, almost unwittingly, from evolution into Darwinism. Thus they become pawns of the atheist agenda.
D'Souza

To answer this objection...



I see no proof as to how the theory of evolution is a disaster.


But he didn't say the theory of evolution he said Darwinism. NOT THE SAME


As far as The Disasters Darwinism brought to Humanity : Nazis would top my list...



Darwinism was a central, guiding principle of Nazi ideology, especially of Hitler’s own world view. Richard Evans, historian at Cambridge University, has explained, "The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science—a Nazi view of science—as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals." This is not a controversial claim by anti-evolutionists, but it is commonly recognized by scholars who study Nazism.
www.evolutionnews.org...




[edit on 6/8/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


Wow. At least TRY to understand the difference between "darwinism" (ie the theory of natural selection), and "social darwinism" (something Darwin didn't come up with, and which is unnatural selection, the antithesis of Darwin's theory).

Your ignorance is showing. You keep making these inflammatory statements, devoid of any supporting evidence or logic, in some vain attempt to try to make people think badly about the scientific method. All it does is make you look like a gibbering fool to anyone who has a shred of knowledge about either logic, or science.

Grow up.

[edit on 9/6/08 by dave420]



posted on Jun, 9 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Bigwhammy
 


d'souza has made all these statements...yet he never backs it up.

how is darwinism, the initial theory of evolution coming from charles darwin, a metaphysical stance?

hell, that's just one problem...

the blind watchmaker is not a fallacy, yet d'souze feels free to label it as such
also, atheists don't all use it...
ah, how did i skip over the bit where evolution proves design...it doesn't prove design one bit. it doesn't necessarily disprove that the mechanism of evolution could have been designed, but there's absolutely nothing to show that evolution was a process that was designed.

there is no atheist agenda
atheists
are
not
a
united
group

this point has been emphasized and proven repeatedly
we have no agenda
we just don't believe in god
there may be small cohesive groups among the atheist population, but we have no unified agenda and to say such is nothing more than the morose fear mongering that d'souza feels so compelled to take part in to undermine the public perceptions of atheists in general.

now to pick apart the other thing..



Darwinism was a central, guiding principle of Nazi ideology, especially of Hitler’s own world view.


no more so than christianity was.
if hitler used darwinism (and i see nowhere where he mentioned it as a justification) as a justification for his policy, then you must, by the same logic, say that christianity was a central, guiding principle of nazi ideology and hitler's own worldview.



Richard Evans, historian at Cambridge University, has explained, "The real core of Nazi beliefs lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in science—a Nazi view of science—as the basis for action. Science demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and between individuals."


....then hitler really misunderstood darwinism
also, if he's referencing the september 6, 1938 nuremberg speech, i have no idea where he's getting that inference...i have the full text, he never mentions darwinian...well...anything. not the word darwin, not the fundamentals of the theory, nothing about survival of the fittest through natural selection...nadda....

bigwham, could you point out what this guy is referring too?



This is not a controversial claim by anti-evolutionists, but it is commonly recognized by scholars who study Nazism.


oh really?

and honestly, such a broad and sweeping statement with nothing to back it up but the words of one man who clearly has no idea what darwinism is from the reference he made is kind of a bunk way of supporting that flawed point.

a note to ben stein: you were flunked, not expelled.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



how is darwinism, the initial theory of evolution coming from charles darwin, a metaphysical stance?


Straw man fallacy Madd. Darwin didn't create Darwinism. Darwin postulated the theory of evolution, the term Darwinism came later. Darwinism was created by atheists. I posted a paper from Harvard on that to mel in your Atheist Whining Service thread.



the blind watchmaker is not a fallacy


Yes it is. Physicist Stephen Barr writes:


When examined carefully, scientific accounts of natural processes are never really about order emerging from mere chaos, or form emerging from mere formlessness. On the contrary, they are always about the unfolding of an order that was already implicit in the nature of things, although often in a secret or hidden way. When we see situations that appear haphazard, or things that appear amorphous, automatically or spontaneously "arranging themselves" into orderly patterns, what we find in every case is that what appeared to be haphazard actually had a great deal of order built into it.... What Dawkins does not seem to appreciate is that his blind watchmaker is something even more remarkable than Paley's watches. Paley finds a "watch" and asks how such a thing could have come to be there by chance. Dawkins finds an immense automated factory that blindly constructs watches, and feels that he has completely answered Paley's point. But that is absurd. How can a factory that makes watches be less in need of explanation than the watches themselves?
Barr




there is no atheist agenda
atheists
are
not
a
united
group

this point has been emphasized and proven repeatedly
we have no agenda
we just don't believe in god
there may be small cohesive groups among the atheist population, but we have no unified agenda and to say such is nothing more than the morose fear mongering that d'souza feels so compelled to take part in to undermine the public perceptions of atheists in general.


No you've never proven squat. You just shuck responsibilitiy for your philosophy. Which you call it that when you whine about persecution, but when its time to take responsibility for your philosophies consequences then its not a philosphy anymore. Ideas have consequences. That's why its now officailly called The Herding Cats Fallacy

And
there is clearly an atheist agenda to discredit faith in God and religion. THAT has been proven.



no more so than christianity was.
if hitler used darwinism (and i see nowhere where he mentioned it as a justification) as a justification for his policy, then you must, by the same logic, say that christianity was a central, guiding principle of nazi ideology and hitler's own worldview.


Warming up the airbrush again I see? He hated Christainity and loved science and Darwin. Hmmm just like you...



Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure.

Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can't, or can't yet, be explained — that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has needs of a metaphysical nature, I can't satisfy them with the Party's Program. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all the questions.

Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.
library.flawlesslogic.com...




....then hitler really misunderstood darwinism


No you do. You still think it is the theory of evolution its not. Darwinism is atheist religion. Your religion that you deny.

For that you flunk.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Darwinism is not the theory of evolution by natural selection .

That is actually still called the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Darwinism is an atheist religion.

I already provided 3 sources to back that already your ignorance is showing.

Consider it denied.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
In your little cult-like world maybe that's what you think darwinism means, whammy.

But in the real-world, darwinism is the class of evolution proposed by Darwin - evolution by means of natural selection. You can present quotes from screeds by other members of the creationist cult, and repeat them endlessly, but in the real-world we know what darwinism is.

The fact that theists can self-define as darwinists (e.g., Ken Miller, Francisco Ayala) shows that you are attempting obvious dishonest propaganda.

Even your derivative sig shows how contradictory your position is. So darwinism apparently leads to Nazis, rofl. That same group of atheist materialist 'evolutionists' who toured Europe with 'gott mit uns' on their belts.

Duh!

[edit on 11-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 



In your little cult-like world maybe that's what you think darwinism means, whammy.


Simple solution. Just call it evolution if that all you mean.
Why not then? .

No it's in your cult that you try to hide what "Darwinism" means...
Charles Darwin never used the term Darwinism. Sorry the facts are on my side. Its a world view - just like a religion all day long.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Simple solution. Just call it evolution if that all you mean.
Why not then? .


OK, I'll try to express it in a way you might understand.

It's a bit like the difference between christianity and catholicism. Christianity is a higher level category that includes all the different forms of christianity - catholicism, protestantism etc etc. These are a lower category. All can be grouped under the higher level of christianity.

Thus, taking the analogy into evolutionary theory or evolution, this category contains the numerous mechanisms of evolution - sexual selection, natural selection, genetic drift etc etc.

Darwinism is seen as evolution by natural selection, and is one mechanism that is involved in the process of evolution. This can be grouped under the higher level of evolution.

Thus darwinism is not Evolution, but one process of evolution.

Similarly, catholicism is not christianity, but one form of christianity.


No it's in your cult that you try to hide what "Darwinism" means...
Charles Darwin never used the term Darwinism. Sorry the facts are on my side. Its a world view - just like a religion all day long.


No, it's very simple. Even though Freud was a psychodynamic theorist, and so was Jung, we don't label Freud a Jungian. Similarly, we don't call psychodynamics, Jungian psychology. They are both under the label of dynamic psychology theorists, but they are distinct. Freud did his stuff, and Jung his. They are related, but still distinct.

Now, we don't take Darwin and attach his name to something he was not associated with - atheist materialistic evolutionism (or whatever you want to call it). He was associated with evolution by natural selection. And that is what darwinism is.

That's how people outside your cult see it. But I know you have to attempt to redefine in an attempt to paint evolution and darwinism as atheistic, when it's clearly not.

You just make yourself look silly, except to other members of your cabal. Maybe you could call it Dawkinsism? And I could be a dawkobot?

[edit on 11-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:26 PM
link   
Ok, I'm going to point out the great, humongous, ginormous elephant that everyone is stepping around and avoiding.

*IF* Evolution is true, *IF* one species is better suited to survive than others, and *IF* God does not exist, then can someone explain to me why it would be wrong for one race of humans to commit genocide?

If you plan on replying to this, think very, very carefully about your position.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sir_chancealot
Ok, I'm going to point out the great, humongous, ginormous elephant that everyone is stepping around and avoiding.

*IF* Evolution is true, *IF* one species is better suited to survive than others, and *IF* God does not exist, then can someone explain to me why it would be wrong for one race of humans to commit genocide?

If you plan on replying to this, think very, very carefully about your position.


You need to separate your oughts from is's. Essentially you are falling for the naturalistic fallacy. You also appear to be somewhat making a false dichotomy.

Even with god existing you can't explain why it is inherently and objectively wrong for one race of humans to commit genocide. Indeed, if you are a christian (or jew or muslim), your vision of god actually sanctioned genocide, right down to pregnant women, babies, and their animals. In fact, according to the bible, wiping out everything bar a few of each is not an objectively bad act.

Therefore, genocide cannot be inherently and objectively wrong in the abrahamic faiths. Or this form of god is immoral.

I think it is wrong. That's my nature, I have this thing called empathy and a well-functioning moral compass. Having a few written rules does not an objective moral make, just a written rule for you to be blindly obedient to.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


Ever wonder why Physicists don't call belief in classical mechanics "Newtonism"?

because it doesn't have a religious context thats why...



Cult: In religion and sociology, a cult is a term designating a cohesive group of people (generally, but not exclusively a relatively small and recently founded religious movement) devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considers to be outside the mainstream or ...


Christians are hardly a small cult - being 2.1 Billion people - however darwinists are a small cult- so sorry its "your cult" with the definition problem mel.

"a relatively small and recently founded religious movement" i.e. Darwinism

Many Christians do believe in Evolution (including D'Souza who you are criticizing) but NOT Darwinism.





[edit on 6/12/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Many Christians do believe in Evolution (including D'Souza who you are criticizing) but NOT Darwinism.


Oh no, whammy. I'm not talking about christians per se. I already said that there are theists who self-define as 'darwinists' and accept 'darwinism', and evolutionary theory as a whole.

I'm talking about one particularly insidious form of christianity. You see it's this category thing again. I'm quite able to differentiate between the cult-like and the 'normal' christians. I mix with what I consider 'normal' christians every day. I mix with the cult-like mainly on the intertubz, they are few and far between here in my real-world. The cult-like are the sort who target mentally drained military cadets for brainwashing. This 'darwinism' thing just a sad and pathetic attempt at 'rebranding'.

Now. D'Souza. Again, it doesn't matter what D'Souza thinks, Behe also accepts large parts of evolutionary theory, yet he is another ID... who has argued that whales didn't evolve etc etc, Phillip Johnson himself, the 'father' of modern ID, also attempts to play a similar shell-game with Darwinism. But he is explicit anti-evolution. You see, you are being lied to. They are playing a shell-game, but we have known this since the wedgie was uncovered. The only people who really use darwinism in this way are your brethren. They are just creationists in cheap tuxedos!

But lets discuss D'Souza and evolution. D'Souza thinks people shouldn't be scared of Darwin, that 'Paley was right, and Dawkins wrong'.

Problem is. He's full of crap as usual. Paley suggested that everything that is complex requires a designer (i.e., the watchmaker blah). This sort of thinking is in contrast to darwinian-style evolution. This is exactly what Darwin's theory showed to be rubbish.

Paley went right down to organs (eyes etc) and proposed that their complexity was evidence of design and consequently required a designer. Darwin showed this was not the case.

Thus, D'Souza is contradicting himself. He wants to suggest he accepts evolution (mainly because he knows he would not be taken seriously by many. Take note!), but claim that Paleyism is right. But I generally don't expect logical and intellectual consistency in this dude.

Thought you might like this as well:


That's because Darwin's theory actually supports conservative positions in all kinds of interesting ways. First, Darwin gives a dark and selfish view of human nature, which is why we need a tough foreign policy to deal with bad guys who cannot be talked out of their badness--even if U.N. cocktails are served. In addition, the selfishness in human nature warrants a system called capitalism which channels this self-orientation toward the material betterment of society.

Linky

Darwinism leads to capitalism and right-wing conservative ideologues!

[edit on 12-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by melatonin
 


No I think the Bible explicitly says people are by nature selfish and full of sin and any real Christian will tell you that.




They are just creationists in cheap tuxedos!




This 'creationist' thing just a sad and pathetic attempt at 'rebranding'.

You are guilty of the exact same thing. You really are. To me creation is an event. Creationism means I believe God is the cause, it doesn't say anything about how he did it. You imply it means YEC and make fun of creationists like they are all YEC like Dr Dino or something.

In the same way - not all believers in evolution are atheists. But Darwinism has come to imply atheism. So Christians who believe in evolution do not want to be called Darwinists. You are guilty of the same rebranding you are incessantly whining about.

And btw how does the blatant hypocrisy of your objection to the definition of Darwinism escape you? I mean, come on... you are an atheist with the exact materialist world view D'Souza describes I mean -- DUH -- the proof is in you.



and Paley is still right and dawkins was always wrong.

[edit on 6/12/2008 by Bigwhammy]



posted on Jun, 12 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
This 'creationist' thing just a sad and pathetic attempt at 'rebranding'.


Oh, no. It is the 'intelligent design' shell-game that is the rebranding. We even have the evidence that it is so. Lets say, we have the transitional fossil. This was a result of the selective mechanism of the 1987 court case which finally saw creationism legally removed from US science classrooms -

cdesignproponentsists

Intelligent design as currently pushed in the US is just creationism. They use almost the exact same arguments, the exact same methods, they just think people are too stupid to realise their charade. However, you can never overestimate morons - and that's what the disco institute is filled with.

They have jesus the disembodied telic entity on their side, you know.


In the same way - not all believers in evolution are atheists. But Darwinism has come to imply atheism. So Christians who believe in evolution do not want to be called Darwinists. You are guilty of the same rebranding you are incessantly whining about.


Which is why christians like Ken Miller and Francisco Ayala have no issues with the description 'darwinist' and 'darwinism'. It is only people in your cabal who think there is any atheism in darwinism, whammy.

Darwinism has never implied atheism. Indeed, darwin himself was never an atheist. It's a pretty restrictive term anyway, as evolutionary theory is more expansive than mere evolution by natural selection.

Give it up and get with the real-world.


And btw how does the blatant hypocrisy of your objection to the definition of Darwinism escape you? I mean, come on... you are an atheist with the exact materialist world view D'Souza describes I mean -- DUH -- the proof is in you.


I'm a dawkobot. Get the lingo correct. I am even happy to self-define as one.

It's not the defintion, whammy. It's just a form of propaganda used by some people. I know this will never make sense to you, you are still pushing that Dawkins suggests that religion is the root of all evil when he has clearly said that would be a silly argument. But demagogues aren't worried about the veracity of their arguments.

I even showed the clear contradictory position you hold earlier, but you ignored it of course.

1. Darwinism is an atheistic worldview.
2. Darwinism leads to Nazis.

But nazis came from a predominately christian country which toured Europe stealing deckchairs whilst wearing belts labelled 'Gott mitt uns'. 1 and 2 are contradictory. Duh! Get a clue please.


and Paley is still right and dawkins was always wrong.


rofl

[edit on 12-6-2008 by melatonin]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join