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.

 

Darwin and Dawkins are both Wrong and Evil

page: 1
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   
The breakthrough research of Tim Harwood, David Wilcock, and others has now established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Darwin was wrong.

Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

Using the example of a Dolphin's Sonar, Tim Harwood demonstrates, undeniably, that
this complex organ could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. DARWIN WAS WRONG.

Darwin also said, "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth MUST be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? This is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."

Harwood establishes the fact that these intermediate varieties, that form the very basis of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, are virtually non-existent. The fossil record is a highly accurate and detailed account of the development of life on Earth. It proves, without a doubt, that DARWIN WAS WRONG.

So, if Darwin was clearly wrong, making Dawkins clearly wrong, why hasn't this bogus theory been exposed to the world? Because it has never been about science. It has always been about religion. Darwinism is a twisted form of religion used to justify racism, genocide, imperialism, the Holocaust, and other forms of racial injustice.

Simply look at the original title of Charles Darwin's most famous work, "On the Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection, OR the Preservation of FAVOURED Races in the Struggle for Life." The title was later changed to Origin of Species for obvious reasons.

Darwin's Theory was applied to humans and called Social Darwinism, classifying some races to be inferior to others, making some races superior to others. This philosophy had a very strong influence over Adolf Hitler, a Vatican Puppet.

This Social Darwinism has been used to justify a lot of ugliness in our world. Darwin's Theory of Evolution stated that the formation of highly complex systems and processes DID NOT require the assistance of any form of intelligence, thereby making the existence of any form of God or Profound creative intelligence unnecessary.

Darwin and now Dawkins make the denial of any form of God or profoundly capable creative intelligence OK, Scientific, and fashionable for the most intelligent and well educated people. Darwinism has become the scientific evidence most atheists use to justify their atheism.

Darwinism has been proved to be FALSE, scientifically, so it is now just another destructive religion promoting false and destructive dogma, exactly like so many of the organized religions before them.

The truth is ORDER, like a Dolphin's Sonar, requires intelligent direction. Atheists falsely believe such order DOES NOT require intelligent direction.

Personally, I believe men like Dawkins are way too intelligent to actually believe in either Darwin or Atheism. I believe he is an integral part of the Tavistock Institute's agenda to create greater division within the mass consciousness, making it easier for
the ruling elite to enslave and control the useless eaters.

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 4 Jul 09 by Gools]




posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   
what a complete pile of gobbledegoop nonsense. The only reason that it is still around is because it is the most logical of the evolutionary/creationist theories out there and makes the most sense, not because of this ignorant response of )ustifying racism.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 09:54 AM
link   


The fossil record is a highly accurate and detailed account of the development of life on Earth


Sorry. I read this and just stopped reading. The fossil record is neither accurate or detailed. Lets face it. What we dig up is dug up by pure luck.
To say that what we've found even contains a 10th of the number of life forms ever to exist on this planet would be a highly optimistic statement.

we are constantly discovering new species. sorry. but i think you are wrong.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580



The fossil record is a highly accurate and detailed account of the development of life on Earth


Sorry. I read this and just stopped reading. The fossil record is neither accurate or detailed. Lets face it. What we dig up is dug up by pure luck.
To say that what we've found even contains a 10th of the number of life forms ever to exist on this planet would be a highly optimistic statement.

we are constantly discovering new species. sorry. but i think you are wrong.


The odds of us only digging up the defined species and almost none of the "numerous, successive, slight modifications" would be beyond astronomical.
I would say that you reasoning is flawed. Perhaps it's time to start reading again?



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Well, considering the number of fossils they have found, I'm curious as to why none of them show the stages between the species.

As well, all that is really being changed is the DNA itself. Does that not mean that the actual "thing" something ends up being is actually already pre-determined?

To be completely honest, there is nothing in nature that I don't see in programming. DNA has the same function as a configuration file of a program, and cells are self reproducing nanobots who carry out the code.

It is also impossible to generate a random number with action and reaction, things can not just randomly change. Even on your PC, the random numbers it generates are not truly random at all, they can be predicted.

I'm not a literal "7 day" creationist, and I survival of the fittest and such does happen. But there is no doubt a consciousness behind things, and science is ill equipped to deal with consciousness and basically ignores it.

The war on "god" is a war on consciousness.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by bwinwright
Using the example of a Dolphin's Sonar, Tim Harwood demonstrates, undeniably,


judging by the google results, you appear to be on a mission

Here

Here

thats from roughly 5 minutes of looking.....there may be more, but i was actually looking for some link to what "Tim Harwood" had to say

not having any luck

challenge.....

link us directly to what "Tim Harwood" has to say.......


+1 more 
posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 



I'm curious as to why none of them show the stages between the species.


Actually, if you look deeper into the field, you will find numerous examples of what would satisfy the criteria as 'transitional forms' showing speciation.

So, "none" is incorrect.

I am truly puzzled by deniers of evolution. The most obvious singular proof is the geographically isolated species that exist, and ONLY exist within their little niches. Why do 'creationists' ignore this fact?

BUT, I suppose someone will come along and say it was "Step number two: GodDidIt, IKnowIt, and I'mNotDiscussingIt because...GodDidIt!!"



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   
one of the previous posters hit the nail on the head. neither of these schools of thought matters in the slightest unless your livelihood depends on it. no one will ever know what happened a million years ago. we can't even agree on who shot kennedy.

the debates are interesting though. keep the baiting up i'll read some here and there.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I am truly puzzled by deniers of evolution. The most obvious singular proof is the geographically isolated species that exist, and ONLY exist within their little niches. Why do 'creationists' ignore this fact?


It is due to what I like to call Fragile Faith Syndrome. If they were to admit that Genesis is a story by a primitive people to explain their origins, then they would have to look at the entire Bible in the same light, thus they would have to actually search for spiritual truth rather than have it all neatly placed in a single book tied up with a ribbon. I have noticed that they never try to prove the Creation Myth (as no evidence other than Genesis exists), but instead go to great pains to disprove evolution. As I said in another thread:


We should not deny the possibility of evolving from some primitive lifeform, as if it would somehow negate our existance as a spiritual being.


To them, admitting that evolution is the most probable explaination for the diversity of life on Earth, is akin to admitting that there is no God. It, of course, does no such thing. I believe some of it comes from the fact that atheists are equally as guilty as they use it as proof that there is no God. Evolution neither proves nor disproves the existance of the Divine, but both sides continue to use it as a battering ram against the other. To me, evolution just shows the incredible complexity of the Divine. To start with just a spark (Big Bang), knowing that it would lead to incredibly complex life is awe inspiring. The Creation Myth, on the other hand, would be more akin to a childlike start from a more childlike God.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I agree with you Jaxon. People who deny evolutionary theory simply because it runs counter to their religion and go out of their way to find brittle reasons for it to be a flawed theory tend to be rather simple thinkers and cannot think outside the box. There is nothing in evolution that runs counter to Christianity... even the creation myth can be an allegory for evolution.

*shrug* I really don't care in the end what they think. Given the argument in the OP, we should be ankle deep in human remains as well. I mean, how, after 25,000 years minimum since our last bottleneck can we have gone from a few hundred thousand humans to almost 7 Billion humans without it showing thick in the fossil records? Simple answer -- decomposition. Only a very few lucky corpses actually make it to the right conditions to be fossilized. The rest are returned to the earth from which they came.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


Are you suggesting that creationism would make more sense if species were ill-equipped to survive in their surroundings?
Just wondering if you could explain this a bit more?



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 


Not sure I'm understanding the question, heyo.

I am certainly not, however, suggesting in any way that creationism as an a priori explanation makes any sense at all!!! It is over-simplified in the extreme, perhaps suitable as an initial supposition by early Man, when all they knew was a radius of their local surroundings, maybe just a few miles?

On the face of it, in absence of all data, the "Flat Earth" at the "Center" of everything idea looked plausible as well. Lightning "caused" by otherwordly beings in the sky, too. Fortunately, that sort of superstitious twaddle has been left behind....mostly. Tragically, some still like to cling to fairy tales.....

As to a species 'ill-equipped' to survive in their surroundings? That's a rather broad statement because it doesn't specify what 'ill-equipped' refers to. A species in an environment that suddenly becomes less hospitable for some reason will either die out, if unable to adapt, or some offspring will succeed and continue to change to suit the changes in the conditions. It depends on time: How fast conditions are altering, the life cycle and reproductive frequency of the organism, etc.

I think when you ponder outside the framework of the Human lifespan it can make more sense. Sadly, many refuse to consider it.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by badmedia
 



I'm curious as to why none of them show the stages between the species.


Actually, if you look deeper into the field, you will find numerous examples of what would satisfy the criteria as 'transitional forms' showing speciation.

So, "none" is incorrect.


Then why was the monkey they recently uncovered such a big deal?



I am truly puzzled by deniers of evolution. The most obvious singular proof is the geographically isolated species that exist, and ONLY exist within their little niches. Why do 'creationists' ignore this fact?

BUT, I suppose someone will come along and say it was "Step number two: GodDidIt, IKnowIt, and I'mNotDiscussingIt because...GodDidIt!!"


It's not evolution that I "deny". It's just when I look at nature and stuff, I see programs. I'm a programmer, and I see all the same basic ingredients and principles in DNA and organisms that I see in programming.

If I create a program today called "monkey". Then you can bet if I create a program called "human" tommorow it's going to carry alot of the same code. I did this exact same thing this week literally. I was working on a project, and for 1 part of the program I needed something which I had already done in another program. So I simply copied and pasted that code into my new program.

You might say that is a sign that the program evolved or whatever, but it's not.

As well, in the programming world we have what are called .DLL files. To the common person, otherwise known as driver files. DLL stands for Dynamic Link Library. These are generally code that is so common that it is used among a wide variety of programming. Rather than having a bunch of copies of that same file, we install them into your systems directory, and then we all just call that 1 file. That file has a bunch of functions and such in them, and we send data to it, it does it's thing and returns data back to us.

Because of this, we can actually update every single program you have, without having to update the individual programs, we just update the .dll file. So if you play video games, sometimes a driver change will fix a bug etc.

This is important because in the end, each individual program only contains a portion of the code. And guess what? Just like DNA when you change 1 simply little configuration it changes the output. For example:

X = 10 feet. X is our variable/configuration. I send that variable to a function, and it returns a square that is 10 feet by 10 feet. Now, all I need to do is change that 1 single variable. If I say X=50, then I get back a 50 foot square. Huge difference in the return, but only a single and very small change before then.

And that is the same thing with a DNA strand. Change a little configuration here, skin color turns blue.

It's a technology that is more advanced than you can even think about. The study of genetics is really just an attempt to reverse engineer that configuration code, so that maybe someday we can put the variables we want in them etc.

All this, and we haven't even gotten into the fact that from action and reaction as the universe and creation is(bound by laws of logic). And how it is impossible for us to have free will or even to be conscious etc.

So you know, you can save all this "GodDidIt" and not going to discuss it crap for somone else. There are very logic reasons.

The bible even says that the "word" is what made creation. That right there it is specifically telling you it's all a program. What is the "word"? It's logic, the same as the words a programmer puts in a program. Logic creates the laws of creation and so forth.

I'm a programmer, I see a program. When I see a program, I know there is a programmer behind it. Consciousness creates logic, you can not create logic with consciousness. I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you can prove or use logic to create consciousness, then I will make you the richest man in the world. It would be the biggest leap in all of humanity's understanding and would be bigger than traveling to other stars. But it can't be done.

There is creation, and there is consciousness. Or in terms of quantum physics, there is the universe, and then there is the observer. That which is of flesh is flesh, and that which is of spirit is spirit. You are not the program, you are that which observes and experiences the program etc.

And on and on I could go. And on and on people express and try to tell people these things.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by heyo
 


Not sure I'm understanding the question, heyo.

I am certainly not, however, suggesting in any way that creationism as an a priori explanation makes any sense at all!!! It is over-simplified in the extreme, perhaps suitable as an initial supposition by early Man, when all they knew was a radius of their local surroundings, maybe just a few miles?

On the face of it, in absence of all data, the "Flat Earth" at the "Center" of everything idea looked plausible as well. Lightning "caused" by otherwordly beings in the sky, too. Fortunately, that sort of superstitious twaddle has been left behind....mostly. Tragically, some still like to cling to fairy tales.....


What you prove is that while you say they are crazy and such, you are at the same time allowing them to define the topic for you. As you do not debunk things based on what you can see and understand for yourself, but you accept what they say as being that which is true for the basis of your arguments.

As my signature says, there are 2 kinds of close minded people, those who believe and those who don't. Neither are going off understanding, and both are using and accepting the same source as being the authority on the subject.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by bwinwright
 


my lord - you have stepped well away from the evolutionary ladder

what a complete pile of twaddle - sorry but your post is pretty much incomprehensible to those of us with a brain and a reasoning capacity

If you wish to post a theory fine - but it does help if you back it up with SOUND REASONED and PUBLISHED documentary evidence.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by bwinwright
 
Since Darwin published Origin of the Species, multiple disciplines have substantiated his ideas. Using his quotes is redundant. He didn't 'invent' evolution or natural selection. Common descent and transmutation of species were accepted for decades before he was a twinkle in his dad's eye. He only attempted to describe a process that has occurred for millions upon millions of years on this planet.... It's probably occurred and continues to occur on planets and moons throughout the universe.

The evidence of evolution is found in every area of life and technology. Viruses, bacteria, nematode worms, butterflies..the list is almost endless. I won't waste time providing links to evidence because it should be taken for granted that you have arrived at your position by researching the science behind evolutionary theory.

Dawkins represents a more militant aspect of atheism that actively seeks to undermine a belief in God. They are as entitled to be active in that respect as you are to attempt to undermine theories of evolution. Using terms like 'evil' makes the argument seem infantile and petulant.

I've never understood why some religious folk feel threatened by evolution. Their faith must be built on insecurity and self-doubt. Evolution and belief in a creator God are not exclusive...

The Pope has no issues with evolution and is as baffled as any reasonable person by the arguments between some atheists and believers...


“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”


At least science is unanimous in it's acceptance of evolutionary theories. Unanimity is quite the anomaly amongst religions...catholic versus protestant...shi'ite versus sunni...orthodox versus contemporary. They can't even agree how to live a 'righteous life.' They can't agree if God is a vindictive or forgiving power. Absurd!



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Its the climate we live in to why we are the way we are, we evolve ourselves to be the best we can in the climate we are in at the moment.


If we look at evidence, its massive changes in climate that change evolution to suit the enviroment, in these massive changes some was unlucy, the losers, and the winners?

Surivors thats who the winners are.


From fossil evidence, it looks like we may, as mammals, come from a mammal like reptile that was originally about around 250 million years ago.
The mammal like reptile was a surivor and during castasrophes, it burrowed underground survivg any event that happened on the surface of the earth.

here is a fossil that is 48 million years old and could be a direct link between mammals and mammal like reptiles.






itsthe bone in the foot that has it linked to mammals that walk upright today, same bone.



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
To be preserved as a fossil. You have to die in the perfect circumstances. It takes very specific processes to replace organic tissue with minerals. VERY VERY VERY few animals died under these circumstances.

The human veiw on time is so pitifull. Not able to imagine the evolutionary processes that could drasitcly alter a speicies over a span of 1 million years.

Evolution and creationism both exist within the universe. We are the result of alien genetic experiements... but that doesnt mean that life on thier planet didnt REALLY evolve from bacteria.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Wertdagf]



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


S&F great post !

I am sorry im not that eloquent



posted on Jul, 4 2009 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
... but that doesnt mean that life on thier planet didnt REALLY evolve from bacteria.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Wertdagf]


Actually the word your looking for is single cell organisms, life came from our core, a liquid iron core that is a thousand degrees hotter than our suns surface.

Evidence of these single cells can be found in a rock formation that is similar to shark bay in Austrailia, very shallow waters and hydro-thermal vents tha exhausted some of this heat from below the surface, these single cells emerged from these according to evidence from the rocks.


Why do you think astronomers are interested in Jupiters moons?
because they are very volcanic and its possible they harbour the early signs of life.

[edit on 4-7-2009 by Sparkey76]







 
14
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join