The Relgion of the New World Order : Darwinism

reply to post by AshleyD

For instance, claiming that evolution is a blind, unguided process, as Dawkins has done, is absolutely not scientific. That drags us into a level of theology because that gets us into the existence of a supreme being (unfalsifiable).

I believe this is invalid logic. There is no empirical evidence of a god, so whether or not he,she,they, or it guides evolution - science has nothing to say about the process. Evolution doesn't attempt explain the diversity of life without god, it explains the diversity of life without "magic". The question of whether or not god guides is of little value to a reality in which god apparently stays hidden and reclusive - except to a subjective believer. We can show that evolution CAN HAPPEN without god, but that isn't the same thing as saying god isn't there.

The theory of evolution doesn't care if you're an atheist like Dawkins or a Christian like Ken Miller. It simply is what it is.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

But that has little to do with the far reaching claims of Darwinism like common ancestry and unguided natural processes being the exclusive mechanism for it.

As clearly shown in the videos... it does. Here's a little protip for you; Nobody cares what your religious beliefs are, until they start spilling over into the realm of classroom or the laboratory. Science is largely a process of removing bias, and religion is one of the biggest slants of bias known to humanity. If you can't separate your religion from your research, your doctrines from your dissertations, then nobody is going to believe you're interested in finding out what's really true about reality... you'd be on a quest to find your god.

And therein lies the problem... creationists are pushing hard to get their religion in the science class, because they lack faith. They are afraid of reality disproving their doctrines - and by proxy, their religious and ethical philosophies built on their misconceptions. Their false idols.

So? Darwinism is not. (a fact) That's the point.

We know "Darwinism" is not a fact. It never was, because by the time Darwin's original theory had truly enough evidence to support it's proposition - evolution had already expanded well beyond Darwin's original framework. For instance, Darwin proposed some mechanism for information on traits to be passed down - and it was a big hole in his theory. It wasn't until an Augustinian (Read: Christian) priest by the name of Gregor Mendel proposed that mechanism by introducing his theory of genetics that the theory evolved into a truly workable basic framework.

Thank god that some of those who worship him weren't so blinded by bronze age stories to the point of denying the very work of his creation!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Their creator. It doesn't mention who that creator is. It could be serendipity. It could be as simple as the reader's mother and father. What gave them the power to grant unalienable rights? Their creators... their mothers and fathers. All the way back to the first modern humans. What gave them that authority? The providence of being the first humans.

Why do you think the founders used such a vague term as creator? Because they wanted it to be subjective - and fit with EVERYONE'S belief, even those who had no beliefs. It doesn't say Christ, it doesn't mention Yahweh.... it doesn't even mention "God". It says "Creator".

reply to post by Gawdzilla

So, then, there is some supernatural being that is required for life to begin?

Dude, don't encourage the push into Abiogenesis territory. He's just going to use a currently incomplete understanding of a probable mechanism to obfuscate the entire debate through deflection away from facts into pointless and endless sophistry.



[edit on 14-5-2009 by Lasheic]

reply to post by Lasheic

Science is largely a process of removing bias

You have got to be kidding.

Presupposing naturalism and ruling out the inference to design is the definition of bias. By ruling out the supernatural & intelligent design a priori you rule out the claim to finding truth.

Because if in fact the supernatural happens to be the truth, you will hopelessly embrace absurdities ad infinitum to explain (explain away) the evidence. Hence naturalistic science has no valid truth claims about origins due to BIAS.

Now there are valid testable, falsifiable scientific models based on the Bible that stand up to scientific scrutiny and better explains the evidence.

www.reasons.org...

[edit on 5/14/2009 by Bigwhammy]

Well the way I see it since Christianity is a blending of Paganism [the old religion] and what was then considered the [new religion] by the Roman Empire, then has basically ruled the Western world since the day The council of Nicea under Constantine put the bible together it is the religion of the NWO ever since. The church has ruled side by side with monarchy's and governments for hundreds of years. It has ruled and dominated thought, and has dictated how everyone is to live with there superior morality myth.

You wish to give examples of Nazi Germany and Communist countries, but do you know that we murdered Indians? Not just murdered them, we forced them to convert or die, and we destroyed there culture all in the name of Jesus!





[edit on 14-5-2009 by LDragonFire]

Dude, don't encourage the push into Abiogenesis territory. He's just going to use a currently incomplete understanding of a probable mechanism to obfuscate the entire debate through deflection away from facts into pointless and endless sophistry.

This is about Darwinism which is a metaphysical stance and worldview, not evolution. Typically the Darwinist parishioner embraces unscientific absurdities like abiogenesis, well actually lately most of the smarter naturalists switched over to panspermia since they have never been able to address homochirality to any reasonable extent. Darwinism is not based on evidence - it the only show in own for an atheist to explain life - its a philosophical necessity.

Anyhow enjoy your little pagan religion but we know its not really science, so drop the show.

You people are completely insane. The promotion of darwinian evolution theory can only result in the death of the "weak" by the hands of the "strong." What's funny to me is what seems like strength to you is in actuality your weakness.

In the name of natural selection, the elite excuse their disregard for human life, as we, the uninitiated of lesser blood, are the weak, and they are the strong. We are all their sheep, no matter how you fashion yourself. Therefore we are all subject to torture, pain, and grief, for we deserve no better in the eyes of evolution, and they deserve the high life of luxury. Is this acceptable to you?

Should we then, by extension, let those less fortunate than ourselves, the worthless eaters, the poor, the crippled, the old etc. --should we just let them die? Should we control our population? Who decides who lives and who dies? Who decides who is weak and who is strong?

reply to post by LDragonFire

You wish to give examples of Nazi Germany and Communist countries, but do you know that we murdered Indians? Not just murdered them, we forced them to convert or die, and we destroyed there culture all in the name of Jesus!

I'm not going to justify those actions, they were clearly wrong. But you are committing a genetic fallacy to smear Christianity and ignoring the real point of my argument about Nazis and Communists. People that killed in the name of Jesus did so against the clear commands of Jesus. Jesus taught to even love your enemies! The undeniable truth is that a Darwinian paradigm supports and promotes the ideas of racial dominance and "fittest" survive at the expense of the weak. This is perfect for the elitist NWO conspirator. Christianity is diametrically opposed even boldly claiming that "The meek shall inherit the earth".

[edit on 5/14/2009 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

You wish to give examples of Nazi Germany and Communist countries, but do you know that we murdered Indians? Not just murdered them, we forced them to convert or die, and we destroyed there culture all in the name of Jesus!

I'm not going to justify those actions, they were clearly wrong. But you are committing a genetic fallacy to smear Christianity and ignoring the real point of my argument about Nazis and Communists. People that killed in the name of Jesus did so against the clear commands of Jesus. Jesus taught to even love your enemies! The undeniable truth is that a Darwinian paradigm supports and promotes the ideas of racial dominance and fittest survuve at the expense of the weak.

Im not attempting to smear Christianity by stating facts. The men in the name of Jesus were strong and the Indians were weak and the laws of Nature were played out, reality sure does bite!!!

We see this played out everyday, the Lions kill the Water Buffalo, just as the Corporate Executive squashes his competitors, its is fact and the way the world is. Go to any playground and you will see it.

It is not a religion just Fact.

reply to post by LDragonFire


I don't deny that either. I know that man is depraved. Many use the title of Christian to accomplish their own agendas.

Counterfeit money doesn't prove that real money doesn't exist. False Christians who do bad things don't negate the components of the worldviews which is the subject. If people actually followed Christian values there would be no wars.

Darwinism encourages what Christianity is mainly opposed too - Selfishness and Pride. Man is sinful. That's why you need Jesus my friend - it the only way out.

This post will be in response to the OP and not to any of the discussion that has come forth as a result.

While I do think that Darwinism is being used as a tool for the NWO, I don't think it will be the actual religion of the NWO. I actually think that the NWO religion will be more along the lines of Pantheism.

Pantheism and Darwinism actually jibe very well together. The only real difference between the two is that while Darwinsim believes there are no gods, Pantheism takes the view that the universe, and everything in it, is god. A self-creating, self-aware, self-evolving mass of matter and energy with no external being needed to guide the process.

Do you see the similarities here? I sure do.

Pantheism could very easily be used as a means to harmonize the beliefs of Atheists, Neo-pagans, and New Agers into a unified doctrine that they all can find some level of agreement with. While at the same time isolating those pesky monotheists who are holding humanity back from evolving to the next level of consciousness or whatever. Think about it, compare it to what Biblical prophecy has to say about the NWO, and connect the dots.

Anyway, that's my opinion on the matter. I hope I did somewhat of a decent job of explaining it.

reply to post by Lightmare


That does make sense. It reminds me of one of the atheists that used to post here who actually claimed that God was "the universe". He posted here for a while - he was like the most impossibly arrogant person I've ever encountered. He also claimed that he personally could make a living thing in the lab. Design new animals etc.

EDIT: Now I remember his name LastOutInfiniteEternal - he is banned.

So sure a neo pagan animistic scientism - well that pretty much is Darwinism - oh well - full circle. Well maybe its better to say Darwinsim is like pantheism in denial because they really do believe in magic. They just use a code word and call it "chance".

Thanks for your post.



[edit on 5/14/2009 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

I don't deny that either. I know that man is depraved. Many use the title of Christian to accomplish their own agendas.

It isn't just Christians, many "religions" have had this or still do practice a sort of convert or die mentality. If you don't convert you are shunned and/or made to suffer or punished if they can, Darwin explains why.

Counterfeit money doesn't prove that real money doesn't exist. False Christians who do bad things don't negate the components of the worldviews which is the subject. If people actually followed Christian values there would be no wars.

Im going to agree that the ten commandments are a good model for a moral society, but lets compare The USA with any communist country that has ever existed and see if we have a moral leg to stand on.

Do not have any other gods before me. Well the Communist are atheist so they violate this one, but so does the USA for allowing all religions and faiths.

You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.' Hmmm the communist enforced this one more than we have.

You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God. Well both sides are guilty here!

Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy. Well again both sides guilty.

Honor your father and your mother. Well do you see where this is going? There are no laws that do this anywhere in our country or communist countries.

You shall not kill. All country's have this law.

You shall not commit adultery. Our and or communist countries do not have many laws about this, Islamic countries sure do enforce this one.

You shall not steal. Well funny how the Commy's enforced the same ones we do.

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor. As far as I know there are no laws against coveting.

Darwinism encourages what Christianity is mainly opposed too - Selfishness and Pride. Man is sinful. That's why you need Jesus my friend - it the only way out.

I completely believe in God, but I don't believe in a book or religion that ImHo has been corrupted to the core throughout the ages.

We are Human Animals, We are predators, this is where our intelligence comes from, We are the top of the food chain because we are the smartest animal here, and we are social. God made all of his animals this way this is how nature is, all you have to do is to see. We call it evil or place a label on it attempting to be something we were not designed to be.

Uh dude don't bacteria swap DNA and viruses evolve? on the other hand crocodiles and sharks have been stagnant in evolving ,evolution is just a theory and not a fact,and is accepted as a plausible explanation until suggested otherwise because it can best explain phenomena.

This post was going well until the ironic introduction of religion and god,nobody has ever tested a GOD or gotten a sample of him,there doesn't seem to be an observable effect GOD has in everyday environment that can be directly proven and linked to him with quantifiable evidence,nobody can prove him in the now, based on rational scientific evidence,do our five senses even detect him everyday?

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Thanks Bigwhammy. I'm glad it makes sense to someone else besides me. Sometimes I think I spend way too much time thinking about this kind of stuff.

Dude...I think you just came up with quote of the year and didn't even realise it.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Darwinsim is like pantheism in denial

I love it! It's perfect!!!

You should make that your sig. Or if you don't, I will.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Illusion of design. Do you seriously not think that a trial and error system running for 3+ billion years isn't going to generate structures that are actually good at something, and therefore needs guided? Trial and error, or natural selection in this case, is plenty guidance.

The main issue I have with this whole "intelligent" design creationism façade, is the idea that God employs an autonomous evolutionary system then sits around and does nothing with it for about half a billion years as life just sits around in Prokaryote form before actually deciding on some basic designs. Then he slowly slowly forms us into this state we are in now.

It's not exactly the most efficient use of time. What's more, his design sucks. Our jaws are too small for the number of teeth we have to fit into them, we get goosebumps for no reason, the hips of women are too small, making reproducing dangerous without intervention and unnaturally interfering like with caesarean sections.

If we are designed, we are designed to be wide-assed, apish cavemen, no more.






This is pure fantasy:



[edit on 14-5-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Okiminletsdoit!

on the other hand crocodiles and sharks have been stagnant in evolving

Kind of stagnant, but not really. They haven't changed much in terms of physiology, but you can be sure that if you took a modern shark (dunno which species you're thinking of) back in time, you'll find that they won't be able to breed with sharks of the past.

The shark and crocodile forms are successful, so it makes no sense that they would change - there isn't any environmental pressures being applied to them.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

If you're afraid of imaginary beings it stands to reason that the real world would scare the bejesus out of you. That's why they're afraid of evolution, that and it hurts to think about such difficult concepts.

I am reminded, as so often, of Nietzsche:

Moral judgment and condemnation is the favorite form of revenge of the spiritually limited on those who are less so, likewise a form of compensation for their having been neglected by nature, finally an occasion for acquiring spirit and becoming refined—malice spiritualizes. Deep in their hearts they are glad there exists a standard according to which those overloaded with the goods and privileges of the spirit are their equals—they struggle for the “equality of all before God” and it is virtually for that purpose that they need the belief in God. It is among them that the most vigorous opponents of atheism are to be found.

Beyond Good and Evil 219

Anyway, the creationsts' last straw - the supposed impossibility of abiogenesis in the absence of a Creator - is now being gently pried from the poor fellows' desperate hands. See here [2] [3] on ATS and pretty much all over the Web today. This Nature News story is probably the most informative and least speculative of the coverage.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
This really can't be established as having anything to do with random mutation of DNA and natural selection. It could just as easily be evidence of a common design by a supernatural designer. So no Darwinism is not science its a metaphysical research program like Karl Popper said.

It has everything to do with common descent. Accusation was, that there are no predictions. I showed you that this accusation was a false one. As for telomere sequences at the center of chromosomes being signs of a designer, I don't see how. They serve no function there. If it's a sign of designer, then this designer was a fool. It's no more sign of a designer than it's a sign of pink unicorns magically transferring nothingness into matter behind the curtains.

p.s. Do you know who was the first leader to congratulate Hitler for rising into power? It was.. the pope. Hitler himself was deeply religious.



[edit on 15-5-2009 by rhinoceros]

Originally posted by BigwhammyWell maybe its better to say Darwinsim is like pantheism in denial because they really do believe in magic. They just use a code word and call it "chance".

Are you making this up as you go along or digging through creationist websites for ideas? Either way, you just don't have a chance with this dogmatic approach to reality. "Chance" is sufficient for life to begin, no imaginary friends are required.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I personally dont see how evolutionary theory disproves the idea of a higher being, a creator, a designer, aka God.

???

How does it?