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.

 

What they won't say about Evolution.

page: 21
3
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


Worldwide flood? Where did the water come from, and where is it now?

Also, if it created the grand canyon, why hasn't the colorado river eaten through to Hell yet? The "flood created the grand canyon" theory is not based on any logic at all. We know the hardness of rock, and we know how long it takes for water to errode it. This is not a guess, but actual science. Unlike the creationists' account, which is abject guesswork of the most retarded category - it stares straight at facts and doesn't believe them. It stands up to logic and reason and claims something's wrong. Pathetic.




posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   
If you are relying on Carbon-14 dating methods to "assume" that the earth is billions of years old, it must be understood that the validity of the calculated date can be no stronger than the weakest link (weakest assumption) used in the calculation. What are some of the assumptions made by most evolutionists in using these systems?

ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists generally assume the material being measured had no original "daughter" element(s) in it, or they assume the amount can be accurately estimated. For example, they may assume that all of the lead in a rock was produced by the decay of its uranium.
PROBLEM: One can almost never know with absolute certainty how much radioactive or daughter substance was present at the start.

ASSUMPTION: Evolutionists have also tended to assume that the material being measured has been in a closed system. It has often been wrongly assumed that no outside factors altered the normal ratios in the material, adding or subtracting any of the elements involved.
PROBLEM: The age estimate can be thrown off considerably, if the radioactive element or the daughter element is leached in or leached out of the sample. This creates significant credibilitie issues. Simple things such as groundwater movement can carry radioactive material into or out of rocks; into daughter elements or out of daughter elements. Rocks must be carefully tested to determine what outside factors might have changed their content.

ASSUMPTION: They assume that the rate of decomposition has always remained constant - absolutely constant.
PROBLEM: How can one be certain that decay rates have been constant over billions of years? Scientific measurements of decay rates have only been conducted since the time of the Curies in the early 1900s. Yet evolutionists are boldly making huge extrapolations back over 4.5 billion years and more. There is some evidence that the rate of radioactive decay can change. If the decay rates have ever been higher in the past, then relatively young rocks would wrongly "date" as being old rocks.

Evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State, has stated: "It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock'."

Evolutionist Frederick B. Jueneman candidly summarizes the situation: "The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' may be short lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences, for example element's atomic clocks are sometimes reset during some global disasters or catastrophies. This explains the often huge discrepancies from laboratory tests results, which makes it heard to accept their estimates as fact.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by Jack Wellman]



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by C.C.Benjamin
 


Well said!

I have not read thru this entire thread, but I thought I'd throw in the Sitchin wrench,...

He does attempt to explain the "missing link"...

It may be a wayout explanation, but , hey, translating Sumerian, Hittite, Akkadian, Assyrian, numerous others,...( only a few around that can even do that,... )

I am willing to at least listen to what he believes he has "translated"


Even if he is accuarate in say 20%... his assertions may still be valid...

Just sayin...



posted on Aug, 15 2008 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by flyby
 


What does this have to do with the ability of a biological organism adapting to certain environmental factors, random mutations, and such over a given period of time? Nothing. Evolutionism is flawed, but no more so than creationism. Let's say your God exists and creation happened for a definite fact. WHAT PROCESS OR METHOD DID GOD FOLLOW TO GET BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS INTO THEIR CURRENT STATES?

God made the Laws of Nature; therefore he cannot go against those laws by simple rule of logic. A lawmaker is not above the laws he has made. Even if he is God. Also, a person far more brilliant than you or I, Mr. Albert Einstein, once said something along the lines of that we do not know 1/1,000,000th of a percent of what Nature holds or IS.

I wish you people would stop being so adamant about your positions and strive to uncover what we ACTUALLY are instead of what we SEEM to be, or what you want to believe we are.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 07:33 PM
link   
It is impossible for matter to create itself, spontaneously, out of nothing. Evolutional theory is of no help: it doesn’t explain how matter was formed and thus by extension, it can not explain the origin of life. In fact over time, cells do not gain additional DNA (which, in evolution, must be present for transitional stages), they lose DNA integrity. Each cell is like a carbon copy of the original. With each passing day, the cells are making copies of each other and becoming a little less like the original. The cells are not evolving, they are aging. I’ve got more wrinkles today than ten years ago. Natural Selection produces extinction of the species, not a proliferation of it. Cells do not improve or become superior over time, but in fact do just the opposite. The Law of Entropy says that cells break down or smooth out over time and lose their cellular integrity. It is the polar opposite of a theoretical, evolutional process.

The general approach for those who don’t believe in a Creator, the argument or theory is an equation: Space + Time + Chance = Everything. How can, in what in reality is, 0 + 0 + 0 = everything!? The space did not cause matter to come into existence, nor did time. Neither can chance influence or create events. Can being come from non-being… spontaneous generation of matter from nothing? Can chance actually do anything or cause something to happen? No. Chance is only the likelihood of something occurring. There must first come “cause” before an effect can occur. An a cause logically demand a Causer…and a Creator. Chance is powerless. It can not make something happen or create something from nothing. It is a non-being.

I met an old intermediate school classmate far from our hometowns in a big city. I thought, that’s incredible. What are the chances of that? Lot’s of zeros I am sure, but I did not go to this city to meet him. He did not come to the same city to meet me. It was pure coincidence or by mere chance. But the chance did not make me go to this city. I did. But I had already existed before having this chance meeting. I caused myself to do so. Same for him. Chance is a possibility quotient, a mathematical equation. But you have to have numbers to begin with or you can’t even write an equation. Chance is powerless to create or to cause something to happen. That leaves only one possibility. The cause must be from an Intelligent Designer, a Creator. There is no other way in which to explain the reason for all matter…the universe and all life forms.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 07:45 PM
link   
An accidental world, with chance as a mechanism for life forms, must fall upward against science’s axiom that out of nothing comes nothing. Cause and effect demands some Causer prior to nothingness. Chance, to Emanuel Kant, is an excuse for ignorance. Chance is not even a noun, it can do nothing of itself, it has no power to effect, it is not an x-factor, as many are convinced. And chance is not composed of physical matter. Regardless of those facts, to those who believe in evolution or carry a disbelief in Creationism or Intelligent Design, chance was the x-factor in everything coming into existence. Otherwise, they must admit that they don’t know how matter, and thus life, came into existence. They simply don’t know and can only placate theories (subjective). We should expect science to deal only with facts (objective), approaching things rationally and logically. They have not. Evolution remains in the textbooks. Believing in something does not make it true. Humanity once believed the earth was flat, however their belief in that did nothing to change the fact that it was spherical. So a jaw fragment here, a skull there, a rib bone from there...all considered to be part of the missing links when the entire chain doesn't even exist.

Incidently, something that is created can not, by necessity, be greater than that which created it. The watchmaker is greater than the watch since it can not make itself. A watchmaker must have already existed prior to the watch's existence. Evolution can not answer the "how" and "when" everything came into existence, to make life even possible. Only how life originated, not how matter originated. To address the origin of species, not the origin of life.



posted on Aug, 16 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


Yes they do - cells do get extra genes. It is just one of the many types of mutation that occurs every time a cell splits. They maintain their integrity perfectly well - that's why after the thousands of years of recorded history (which we can all agree happened), cows don't turn into puddles of mush at the first strong wind, or why dogs don't explode when they bark. You see, evolution has answered that part already - unsuited animals die, and don't make any more. Suited animals live, and make more suited animals. Those animals (as with every animal) have very slight changes in their genes, which means no child is ever the exact mix of both of its parents - it will have traits neither of its parents have (we can see that in every single living thing we care to look at). New genes are created, some disappear, some change, and most stay the same. New "information" (for you creationists, even though you can't quantify what "informaion" is, or even how to measure it) is introduced in each and every reproductive step.

And no, evolution doen't explain the origins of life. That's not covered by evolution, as it's part of abiogenesis. Evolution has never, ever attempted to answer that question, as it has nothing to do with evolution.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I am sorry if I insinuated that all evolutionist's claim that this 150 theory explains the origin of matter. Well said when you stated: "And no, evolution doen't explain the origins of life. That's not covered by evolution, as it's part of abiogenesis. Evolution has never, ever attempted to answer that question, as it has nothing to do with evolution."

You are absolutely correct. Now beyond this:

Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection believed that fossil evidence to prove his theory of gradual progression from one species into another, would eventually be found. It has been about 150 years now and still no such transitionary fossil evidence exists... of even one single species. This despite over half a million fossils, found and catagorized. Where is the fossil evidence of lizards transitioning into birds? This I would like to see, since their lung functions are so radically different, it could not have happened gradually nor rapidly. No fossil transitions equal no proof. There is not even one single example of this anywhere on earth.

Darwin and most scientists at the time, believed that cells were simple, living organisms, with only a few parts. This was thought to enable easy mutation or change into different kinds of cells. Cells are extremely complex, with over one trillion different functions and processes. More complex than the New York City Metro Transit’s transportation system (including the computers that help run it).

What HAS been found and widely known, is an (Cambrian) explosion of hundreds of news species. It isn’t called an explosion because it happened slowly. It is astonishingly instantaneous; almost like a rapid creation event. Where were the fossils below it that were supposed to lead up to these fossils and a sudden appearance of life? It's resembles an explosion, not a million year process. Cambrian's explosion explodes any gradual, millinial change theory that's still called a theory. After 150 years!.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Cellular mutation is not an improvement of the organism. As cells age, it is like the original copy of the cell has a copy made of itself. Then, this copy is copied. That copy is likewise copied, until it becomes much less like the original and has lost much of it’s original cellular integrity. It is not mutating, it is decaying.

If mutation is evolutional progress, then does evolution or as evolution is called, an improvement of the species, also include cancer? ....for that too is a mutation.

Entropic change moves into a more disorderly, chaotic state, not a superior cell. There is a dispersal of it’s mechanical energy, not a reorganizing or improving of the specie’s cellular integrity from one type into another, superior specie. It is a smoothing out process, not a building up process. Entropic change does not increase cellular integrity, it does just the opposite.

Darwin knew when he wrote his book that, strangely, as deep as they dug, there was not sufficient fossil evidence (in his day) to prove his theory of gradual progression, that is from one species into another. His own colleagues noted flaws in his naturalistic speculation. He predicted they would eventually be found. They have not.

I love how a noted anthropologist and devout evolutionist puts it , admiting that ”Evolution is unproved and un-provable. We [evolutionists] believe it because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable?“ (Sir Arthur Keith).



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


How can you claim that no single transitional fossil has been found? A quick wikipedia search shows us ample examples of fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal, dinosaur to bird, and lesser ape to man evolution.

Yeah modern cells are complex, but they've had a few billion years to get that way.

And the Cambrian explosion took place over at least six million years. It was remarkably fast but not miraculous.



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 07:29 PM
link   
wikopedia on human evolution: simple.wikipedia.org...

Human evolution is the THEORY by which scientists THINK that humans became a species (a group of animals that are the same, The THEORY says that some apes started walking on two legs and began to use their hands to carry things about 5 million years ago.

On this same webpage I found only pictures of similarities between primates and man…no actual fossil evidence found on this site…just pictures or drawings. No fossil records or transitional fossil linking these two separate species, evolving from one (primate) into another (human).

Another ILLUSTRATION was a reconstruction of Australopithecus afarensis which was also not real. As for “Lucy” [simple.wikipedia.org...(Australopithecus)] this can hardly be called a link since it is unique and stand’s alone (most of it is not there to stand, incidentally). Instead of finding lines of evidence on this site I found pictures, drawings and stuffed replica’s. If these are the missing links, then where are the remaining 99% at, since so many millions and millions of primate-to-man species are said to have necessarily existed during the evolutional process, so then... where are they?

I could not find on wikopedia (or anywhre else) the "transitional fossils of fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal, dinosaur to bird?" you spoke of on this site. I only saw more pictures, more drawings...more glaring lacks of evidence; only "they think" or the "theory is"...

I can not understand why there is not at least one, single set of transitional fossils from one species or even close to the next species in the line that has ever been found. 150 years and still just a theory!



posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 09:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


en.wikipedia.org...
Here is a small list of some transitional fossils.

I'd also like to point out (for the 10,000th time) that a theory is not just an idea/guess; it is a description of a set of related phenomena that is supported by evidence, peer reviewed, etc. You will get a better description of evolution if you use the main wikipedia site, the simple english one is for people with a limited vocabulary and is not nearly as thorough.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 05:50 PM
link   
When I visited the link you suggested in your reply, I was already skeptical after reading the first two sentences [show below]:

"This is a very tentative list of transitional fossils (fossil remains of a creature that exhibits primitive traits in comparison with more derived life-forms to which it is related). An ideal list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, i.e. those forms morphologically similar to the ancestors of the monophyletic group containing the derived relative, and not intermediate forms." en.wikipedia.org...

So an "ideal list" would only inlude "recursively', which would "include the 'true' transitionals'". I can plainly see that the ideal list is not available, only a tentative one.


One of wikopedia's link on the Pikaia gracilens is an extinct animal known from the Middle Cambrian fossil found near Mount Pika in the Burgess Shale of British Columbia. Averaging about 1 1/2 inches (5 cm) in length, Pikaia swam above the sea floor using its body and an expanded tail fin.

Paleontologist Simon Conway Morris placed P. gracilens in the chordates, making it PERHAPS the oldest known ancestor of modern vertebrates. MAY have filtered particles from the water as it swam along. Its "tentacles" MAY be related to those in present-day hagfish [then where are the transitional fossils to support P. gracilens to hagfish???, show me one!].

I discovered that they never said anything with absolute certainty about this specie or it's origns or it's ancestory without qualifying it with a May or Perhaps. If fact, I counted 5 MAYS and 1 PERHAPS. That does nothing to prove anything to me. I am interested in facts. These comments sound more like scientific "hope-so" than "know-so".



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I continued visiting the links and looking for additional hard evidence with real, live examples of transitional fossils from one type of specie into another. Under the Evolution of the horse, Plesippus


The famous fossils found near Hagerman, Idaho were originally thought to be a part of the genus Plesippus. The Hagerman Fossil Beds (Idaho), a Pliocene site, were discovered the fossilized remains, originally called Plesippus shoshonensis but further study by paleontologists deteremined that fossils represented the oldest remains of the genus Equus. The only thing they could say for sure was that: "Their estimated average weight was 425 kg, roughly the size of an Arabian horse.


The dinosaurs to birds transitional fossils and I keep getting sent to this link below:

Ichthyornis is a genus of seabird from the Late Cretaceous of North America. Its fossil remains are known from the (Turonian-Middle Campanian, 93.5-75 mya) chalks of Alberta, Alabama, Kansas, New Mexico, Saskatchewan, and Texas, in strata that were laid down in the Western Interior Seaway; some fossils from other locations like Argentina and Central Asia are sometimes referred to this taxon.

It is "thought" that Ichthyornis was the Cretaceous ecological equivalent of modern seabirds such as gulls, petrels, and skimmers. At 60 cm (2 ft), it was the size of a gull.

Although the wings and breastbone are very modern in appearance (suggesting strong flight ability), the jaws retained numerous small, sharp teeth. Unlike earlier birds such as Enantiornithes, it appears to have matured to adulthood in a rather short, continuous process.

Ichthyornis was first discovered in 1870, by Benjamin Franklin Mudge. Othniel Charles Marsh's 1880 monograph on "Odontornithes" remains the most important general reference on this animal.

Kalobatippus "probably" gave rise to Anchitherium....

etc., etc.....but the point is I was only shown ONE skeletal remains (of a horse resembling a Arabian one!) and no transitionals of before or after his kind...or likewise for any of the other species either. They are good only at identifying extinct speices. If evolution was so great, why'd they die out if they were considered to be evolving ever so superior in survivability? I am left again with gaping holes of evidence and must accept what is extrapolated exceedlingly, on what are dozens and dozens of MAYBE's, PERHAP's, and POSSIBLY's. That is more faith than fact.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by Jack Wellman]



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   
You are hilarious. Sorry. I responded to all these posts you seem to think prove your points in another thread. Please stop recycling your same old points that can easily be refuted.

Take a good long look at this link. I have a feeling that you will read it and not comprehend it, or refuse to. Get out of your shell. You are not special, and the Christian bible isn't either. How convenient it must be to forget about the over 3000 other gods that existed before yours, and that they thought they were right as well. What about the people who believe in the Norse creation myth, where man was formed from the feet of a giant? Myths have nothing, and they never have. They are subjective stories told by people to give comfort. Science can be an uncomfortable feeling to those unfamiliar with it. It's hard to switch over, but it's a switch for the better.

Take a good long read through this website as well.

Transitional forms won't have the head of a duck and body of a reptile, or some weird combination. Things happen VERY GRADUALLY over time. To deny evolution is to deny the FACT that the very plants we eat didn't come from wild plants that look nothing like they do now. Queen Anne's Lace is the wild form of carrot. It's called artificial evolution because it was specially cultivated and grown by people a long time ago. Over many years, its form changed because we selectively bred the plants that we liked and destroyed the ones we didn't.

It's hysterical how creationists rail Evolution, and yet their very own book is full of inconsistencies, has thousands of different sects that interpret it in different ways, and even some of those are terrorist groups.


the historical record is rife with massacres and war crimes committed by theists, often for explicitly religious motivations. One of the more infamous was that of Arnold Amalric, Papal Legate during the 13th century Albigensian Crusade, who told the besiegers at the city of Beziers to "Kill them all, God will recognize His own." Estimates of the number of civilians killed range from twenty thousand to one hundred thousand.


Atheism on it's own is not responsible for any deaths. Some theists say "Hitler was an atheist!", but the fact is unclear, and the fact that he was an atheist doesn't have much to do with the fact that he is was an evil, abominable person. Hitler was mostly vegetarian, a non-smoker, a teetotaler, a dog-lover, and a fan of Richard Wagner's music, and yet none of these are considered evil. The reasons behind Hitler's killings weren't atheistic in nature, and they weren't because he hated people who liked cats instead of dogs.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   
Darwin’s theory of evolution changed the course of human history forever. Unlike any other theory before or since. Some of these changes have been detrimental. In his book “Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”, he attempts to explain where humans came from, and other species: coming through progression or evolution of life. Originally from single cell ameba’s to highly intelligent animals. It can not explain the origin of the universe and how all matter came into being. I understand that.

This academia immediately infiltrated education. As a result, perceptions of racial superiorities and inferiorities were changed…almost seamlessly, as by osmosis. Different human races or nations or people groups were not all at the same rate of progression in the evolutionary process. Some races were believed to be far superior, or further along in the process than others. Still others were judged far more inferior, or further down the evolutionary scale. They were expendable…disposable.

Hitler hated Communism, which in part persuaded him to invade Russia. Russia was too expansive, too resourceful, too rich in people and factories to conquer. Russia is still as formidable as ever. Hitler’s murder victims pail in comparison to Stalin, Lenin and Chairman Mao‘s. The genocide of the Jews, the Slavs and the Gypsies, the millions that died under Communism and still dying, the ethnic-cleansing, were not helped by Darwin’s theory. All stemming from the belief that the Arian race was far superior to being under the god-less iron-thumb of Communism, which to itself was god, the belief in evolution has caused millions to die.

Communism, atheistic by design, has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen, and it failed miserably. In doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the nearly 30 million of it’s subjects that died in aggressive wars and rebellions. The extermination or deportation of the Jews was of racial overtones. China’s staggering number is 65 million, Cambodia 2 million, North Korea, 2 million…and thousands more scattered world-wide. This is like survival of the fittest...



posted on Aug, 26 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   
Additionally, in the early 20th Century, 32 American states had laws in the books to sterilize or euthanize unfortunate, innocent victims thought to be "un-fit" for the human species, including Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. She called for the elimination of "human weeds," “pruning the species for furtherance of it,“ for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and maladjusted," and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races.” Mrs. Sanger argued that organized attempts to help the poor were the "surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating . . . defectives, delinquents, and dependents”. The U. S. Supreme Court backed the states on their practices. How fortunate we are today, even the great Physicist, Stephen Hawking might not have survived such a fate or had Albert Einstein had Muscular Dystrophy, who knows?

To believe in evolution or atheism or communism is most certainly not tantamount to being a prejudiced person or having racial bigotry. This association can not and must not be made. The references to this theory created much suffering in the early 20th century due to certain social stigmas of the day. It is not so in this day and age in which we live. I believe that mankind is more tolerant in this global community today than a century ago. Most of the effects of a belief in evolution as far as society is concerned, were most damaging in the early 20th century.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Jack Wellman
 


Now you're REALLY showing your ignorance. Social Darwinism is artificial selection, not natural selection. Darwin, and science as a whole, detests this notion, as it is contrary to nature. Why do we have the scientific field of medicine if you think all scientists are down with killing diseased people? You're not making any sense - your arguments are dancing all over the place, pirouetting around logic, leaping over massive tracts of knowledge, cherry-picking anachronistic standpoints that on the surface suit your twisted viewpoint, regardless of the fact that they've since been corrected in the 150 years of evolutionary theory.

So, you don't want to believe in evolution, regardless of the astounding evidence, but you're fine in believing that "some cosmic Jewish Zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree".

Oh, and that matter can't come from nothing, but that God can fart out an entire universe in a few days.

Genius. I weep for our future.



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   

This academia immediately infiltrated education.As a result, perceptions of racial superiorities and inferiorities were changed…almost seamlessly, as by osmosis.Different human races or nations or people groups were not all at the same rate of progression in the evolutionary process. Some races were believed to be far superior, or further along in the process than others.Still others were judged far more inferior, or further down the evolutionary scale.They were expendable…disposable.


You act as if there were no racist people back in the day of Darwin, and yet I would have to say that most people probably were, considering Slavery was pretty active.I can find numerous quotes to show that Darwin didn't like Slavery and was fairly modern for his day, but it will be easier just to point to a website or two.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Racism is a cultural phenomenon, and if you're brought up in it, it's hard to stop.I would have to say that there are probably more religious people who are racist than Atheists, but I have no evidence to base that upon other than the fact that religion has spawn many hate groups such as the KKK, and things are often done in the name of X god against people because of a belief in certain scriptures.Ultimately, if you are racist, you will find whatever means necessary to back up your thoughts, and you will misconstrue whatever you come across to fit your world.This can be a holy text or evolution, it doesn't matter.To claim that either one is exclusively racist is incorrect.


The genocide of the Jews, the Slavs and the Gypsies, the millions that died under Communism and still dying, the ethnic-cleansing, were not helped by Darwin’s theory.All stemming from the belief that the Arian race was far superior to being under the god-less iron-thumb of Communism, which to itself was god, the belief in evolution has caused millions to die.


Darwin's theory is meant to help explain how life evolved on the planet, not to save people from a delusional overlord.


Blavatsky argued that humanity had descended from a series of "Root Races", naming the fifth root race (out of seven) the "Aryan" Race. She thought that the Aryans originally came from Atlantis and described the Aryan races with the following words:

"The Aryan races, for instance, now varying from dark brown, almost black, red-brown-yellow, down to the whitest creamy colour, are yet all of one and the same stock -- the Fifth Root-Race -- and spring from one single progenitor, (...) who is said to have lived over 18,000,000 years ago, and also 850,000 years ago -- at the time of the sinking of the last remnants of the great continent of Atlantis."


Seriously, you would put evolution and Atlantis in the same argument? Aryanism is a mythology and theosophy that has supernatural beliefs (Atlantis, seriously?) that misuses the theory behind evolution to its own will.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

If you want to talk about inspiration for antisemitism, read the proven-to-be-a-hoax book Protocols of the Elders of Zion


Communism, atheistic by design, has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen, and it failed miserably. In doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the nearly 30 million of it’s subjects that died in aggressive wars and rebellions. The extermination or deportation of the Jews was of racial overtones. China’s staggering number is 65 million, Cambodia 2 million, North Korea, 2 million…and thousands more scattered world-wide. This is like survival of the fittest...


Atheism is not Communist by design [2] [3] [4] , and claiming any death that happened in a communist society is false and slanderous. I can't even begin to make an attempt at sourcing out all the deaths caused by religion in this world, not to mention sacrifices.Don't be fooled by my words here, though. I am not claiming the death of a religious person or someone who kills a religious person should be tallied, just deaths for or by religious people for religious reasons.


Christians are constantly using Communism as a club to beat down all opposition to their religion, their power and their schemes.Anyone who disagrees with them, Atheist or not, is denounced as being a "Communist." Religion implies that there is an inseparable connection between the political-economic dictatorship called Communism, and the freedom from religion called Atheism.Religion chooses to ignore the fact that Atheism is older than Communism and Christianity put together.


Oh, let's not forget about Christian Communism.


Christian Communism is a form of religious communism centered around Christianity.It is a theological and political theory based upon the view that the teachings of Jesus Christ compel Christians to support communism as the ideal social system.Although there is no universal agreement on the exact date when Christian communism was founded, many Christian communists assert that evidence from the Bible suggests that the first Christians, including the Apostles, created their own small communist society in the years following Jesus' death and resurrection. As such, many advocates of Christian communism argue that it was taught by Jesus and practiced by the Apostles themselves.


[edit on 27-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



posted on Aug, 27 2008 @ 09:42 AM
link   


Additionally, in the early 20th Century, 32 American states had laws in the books to sterilize or euthanize unfortunate, innocent victims thought to be "un-fit" for the human species, including Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. She called for the elimination of "human weeds," “pruning the species for furtherance of it,“ for the cessation of charity, for the segregation of "morons, misfits, and maladjusted," and for the sterilization of "genetically inferior races.” Mrs. Sanger argued that organized attempts to help the poor were the "surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating . . . defectives, delinquents, and dependents”. The U. S. Supreme Court backed the states on their practices. How fortunate we are today, even the great Physicist, Stephen Hawking might not have survived such a fate or had Albert Einstein had Muscular Dystrophy, who knows?


I don't get your point here. Someones beliefs in eugenics doesn't integrate with the fact that they are Atheist. There are people who believe in eugenics that are Christian as well, so what about them? [1] [2] [3]

Let's not forget about Christians who believe that Euthanasia is OK too:


Thirdly, let me suggest that, if through technology, we are able to determine that a brain is dead; therefore, the spirit has been yielded up - the soul has returned to God, then we may cease the use of technology to continue life support of a body which has no spirit. This would be the exercise of negative euthanasia.


How convenient. So, if the brain is determined to be dead, it's OK to let them go? There have been cases where brain death was determined, but the subject comes "back to life." What about that? [1] [2]

There are scientific explanations for this, but I'm sure that doesn't interest you.



To believe in evolution or atheism or communism is most certainly not tantamount to being a prejudiced person or having racial bigotry. This association can not and must not be made.


Not only is it not tantamount, they have nothing to do with each other. No one can claim Atheism as their reason to kill someone, because atheism isn't a doctrine or manifesto. It is "no belief in god", and that's it. It carries no extra baggage. Just like believing evolution doesn't include racism. Those who believe in the real theory behind evolution would know that we all come from a common ancestor, and that not a whole lot has changed since we migrated out of Africa, other than us spreading around the globe. We can have offspring with any other human on the planet (unless there is some disease or other malady a person has to prevent this), so we're all still part of the same species.

[edit on 27-8-2008 by OnionCloud]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 18  19  20    22  23 >>

log in

join