How the evolutionists will win.

I hold to a simple standard: if you don't believe in evolution, that's your right. But, as a consequence, you should be barred from being prescribed any modern antibiotics. Put your money where yer freakin' mouth is.

Originally posted by Stunspot
I hold to a simple standard: if you don't believe in evolution, that's your right. But, as a consequence, you should be barred from being prescribed any modern antibiotics. Put your money where yer freakin' mouth is.

This is how the argument gets off track in the first place. I believe in evolution, it is a fact, in the form of microevolution. The part where Christians and evolutionists differ is the argument over macroevolution, which is all of the species we have today evolving from nothing. Because in the beginning there was nothing if you subscribe to the big bang theory. Even the proponents of evolution from the late 1800's acknowledge that science doesn't back them up on their theory, it is just what they choose to believe because they do not want to believe in God.

"I will not accept that [creation] philosophically, because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
- George Wald [Nobel Prize Winner], "Biochemical Science: An Inquiry into Life"

"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
- Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons"

Do you not understand? Do you think you are more evolved than these two men? You must be smarter, right?

Darwin and Huxley were racists and sexiest. It was the time they lived in. They thought it would and should be that way for all of time. Your founders of evolution, but I guess what they BELIEVE doesn't matter.... or do you just CHOOSE to ignore that. Your belief system determines your behavior.
It says it in the OP, Hitler, Stalin, Tse-Tung were firm believers in evolution. They wanted to rid the earth of people they CHOSE to believe were sub-human, less evolved. This is not to be argued, this is fact.

"The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man's attaining to a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands... the average mental power in men must be above that of women."
- Charles Darwin, "Descent of Man", p.586

The complete title of The Origin of Species is, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. Favoured races... racism, again is was politically correct for the time. How evolutionary of him.

I've been an evolutionist before (in the purest sense) and once believed it was possible for ape to evolve to man. I haven't had my current beliefs for very long. I wasn't raised in the church or bible belt. I have my bachelors degree in psychology. I am not claiming or implying that I am smarter than anyone else, but it's obvious enough to me that most of you believe my mind hasn't evolved enough to understand the concept of evolution. Well, I've been down that road and it is a deadend. We will choose what we want to believe in the end, to each his own. But honestly, my OP wasn't an attack on evolution per se, it was what I think is in the works as we live out our lives. And the point is, if it goes down like I believe it will, your evolutionist rooted rulers of the NWO still don't care for you and think they are better than you. Are you hoping to be one of the 500,000,000 left? You can have that world of slavery.

Let's try to stay on topic, eh?

reply to post by Stunspot


If a man like Darwin or Huxley, or any of their promoters/followers (Hitler, Stalin and Tse-Tung), were to propose the theory of evolution (preservation of the favoured races) in today's age, they would be laughed at, shunned, ignored and rightly so. With their beliefs, they would be labeled as having nothing to contribute to society except for hate and oppression. And they would be labeled this by all of society, including government, politicians, and the public.

The only reason ape to man evolution was accepted was because the rule of the white man in the 1800's over their "primate slaves".

Originally posted by Aeons
You realize that most scientists aren't atheists, right? That even most evolutionists aren't atheists.

Just because most atheists ascribe to the theory of evolution, doesn't mean that they own the concept.

I find it terribly manipulative that so many people try to reduce things to "just two things." Perhaps it is because they can't conceive of more than two things.

They aren't are they??

"A study has shown atheism in the west to be particularly prevalent among scientists, a tendency already quite marked at the beginning of the 20th century, developing into a dominant one during the course of the century. In 1914, James H. Leuba found that 58% of 1,000 randomly selected U.S. natural scientists expressed "disbelief or doubt in the existence of God" (defined as a personal God which interacts directly with human beings). The same study, repeated in 1996, gave a similar percentage of 60.7%. Expressions of positive disbelief rose from 52% to 72%"
Demographics of atheists


Making up "facts" are we?? And who is manipulating who?? Can you "conceive of more than two things"?

THANK YOU!!! for showing your ignorance

Do I need to tell you also that "most" means "more than half" or the "majority"??

There are several problems with your article but let us start with just two.

You realize there are scientists in all nations and cultures, don't you?

That there is a difference between reporting "no religion" and reporting "atheist?"

Originally posted by Aeons
There are several problems with your article but let us start with just two.

You realize there are scientists in all nations and cultures, don't you?

That there is a difference between reporting "no religion" and reporting "atheist?"

edit on 2011/2/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

My OP is about America, I live in America. Most scientists in the US "express disbelief or doubt in the existence of God".

The link is not an article!

The rest is semantics.

Originally posted by Aeons
There are several problems with your article but let us start with just two.

You realize there are scientists in all nations and cultures, don't you?

That there is a difference between reporting "no religion" and reporting "atheist?"

edit on 2011/2/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Its funny that you address semantics rather than the real issues, one that "the father of evolution" being a sexist and racist.

You must be so proud!

Oh. Narrow your subset until you get the results you want.

Climb that Ladder of Inference.

reply to post by six67seven


I for one, refuse to evolve and I have forbidden my children to evolve.
This should fix everything.

Can we throw this whole thing into R?

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by Aeons
There are several problems with your article but let us start with just two.

You realize there are scientists in all nations and cultures, don't you?

That there is a difference between reporting "no religion" and reporting "atheist?"

edit on 2011/2/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Its funny that you address semantics rather than the real issues, one that "the father of evolution" being a sexist and racist.

You must be so proud!

All the men of that age were racist and sexist. And not just the white ones.

That one is wrong on one subject, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything is wrong. They are men - not untouchable heroes or gods.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by Aeons
There are several problems with your article but let us start with just two.

You realize there are scientists in all nations and cultures, don't you?

That there is a difference between reporting "no religion" and reporting "atheist?"

edit on 2011/2/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

Its funny that you address semantics rather than the real issues, one that "the father of evolution" being a sexist and racist.

You must be so proud!

All the men of that age were racist and sexist. And not just the white ones.

That one is wrong on one subject, it doesn't necessarily follow that everything is wrong. They are men - not untouchable heroes or gods.

edit on 2011/2/27 by Aeons because: (no reason given)

ALL THE MEN OF THAT AGE WERE RACIST AND SEXIST???? Are you kidding me??

That is just ignorant!

You are contributing NOTHING!

Yeah it doesn't necessarily follow that everything is wrong, it was only the FOUNDATION to his theory.

reply to post by six67seven


Wow, what a crazy post...where to start...

I think the consensus is that the elitists are atheists and/or evolutionists.

Only in your fantasy world

Last I checked most world leaders are either Christian, Muslim, or Hindu.

Also, what is an evolutionist? Do you believe in gravity? Does that make you a gravitista? Ridiculous...

Consider the power that Stalin, Hitler and Tse-Tung had over their respective nations and people. They all were fans of Darwin and Huxley and in love with eugenics, evolution and control.

First of all, Hitler was a Christian...not that it matters. They weren't horrible dictators because they believed in evolution. They all were after one thing, and one thing only...absolute power!

A Christian nation full of vulnerable people whom were just enjoying their freedoms.

The US is a secular nation

It is my opinion the elitists that claim a religion only do as a front, so not to lose their followers/people whom look to them for leadership, when in reality they are easily being controlled.

Or rather they use religion to control the people...like religion has always been used.

I believe the elitists, or a majority, are evolutionists at their core. If they truly were people of traditional faith, how can they justify the world in which they live and will soon leave behind?

Again, "evolutionists" isn't a word...just like gravitistas and thermodynamicstas don't exist. And how do they justify it? With OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE!! In short, logic and rationality

The NWO is founded in evolution. Their beliefs allow them to promote the idea of eradicating 95% of the world's population - leaving 500,000,000 people as the Georgia Guidestones state along with the known eugenicists within the NWO and American elitists like Ted Turner and Bill Gates. No one founded in religion would think of such an idea, although I believe evolution can be considered a religion, but that is besides the point.

NWO founded on evolution? Riiiiiight

No one is talking about killing off people...and if you check history, you realize that there's hundreds of religiously motivated genocides. So you saying no world religion would think that way is beyond laughable

Communism and Nazism are both rooted in evolution

You seem to have no clue about the definition of these words. Let me help you:

Nazism

Communism

And of course evolution is part of the school curriculum, it's based on scientific, objective evidence and in over 150 years hasn't been debunked...which is why it's classified as a scientific theory!

I'll skip your Beck-like crazy fantasy predictions on how religion will disappear. But to give you a clue, the only reason religions are losing members is because people are FINALLY waking up and demanding objective evidence...science constantly debunks religious doctrines, and now that everyone and his dog has Internet, people can finally educate themselves.

Evolution will become the major religion

Evolution isn't a religion, it's a scientific theory based on scientific method...which is OBJECTIVE and CREDIBLE compared to religious claims.

I feel evolutionists may applaud their belief system taking over but they should realize it will only be by force.

I am amazed by evolution, sure. It's a remarkable theory that perfectly explains biodiversity...and it held up for over 150 years. We're actively using findings from the theory in modern medicine and gene technology.

And why only by force? All it takes is education and asking people to demand objective, credible evidence when they form their beliefs. And yeah, I truly believe that will be the ultimate downfall of religions that ask for a literal interpretation of their dogmas.

That is my theory of evolution.

I'm sorry to say this, but your "theory" isn't a "theory" because it's not based on objective, credible evidence. It's a hogwash hypothesis at best, and not backed up by evidence at all.

reply to post by six67seven


It appears as you say but Satan will only have power for a short time.

Evolution the lie that it is fits nicely into the pockets of those with a desire to do everything that they please with no implications. That is how they sleep at night.

Evolution is a religion in nature as it is not a viable theory it has been shown flawed at every angle yet those with out the ability to think freely continue to accept it as gospel and with out question. It is a belief and a belief that requires faith to accept as there is no facts only hypothesis in it.

reply to post by six67seven

Most scientists in the US "express disbelief or doubt in the existence of God".

Actually, the number of scientists doubting evolutions is so ridiculously small, there's more scientists with the first name "Steve" than scientists who doubt evolution

Project Steve

There's no shame in not knowing...but you should at least make an effort to properly research your claims before coming on here typing a bunch of nonsense

Originally posted by ACTS 2:38
reply to post by six67seven

 

It appears as you say but Satan will only have power for a short time.

Evolution the lie that it is fits nicely into the pockets of those with a desire to do everything that they please with no implications. That is how they sleep at night.

Evolution is a religion in nature as it is not a viable theory it has been shown flawed at every angle yet those with out the ability to think freely continue to accept it as gospel and with out question. It is a belief and a belief that requires faith to accept as there is no facts only hypothesis in it.

1) Prove the existence of Satan

2) How does the theory of evolution make me believe I can do anything I want without implications?? No one has ever committed a crime and then justified it with "evolutionary theory told me so"

3) Actually, it IS a viable theory...which is why it's classified as such. As for accepting gospel without question, I'm pretty sure religious believers are way better than scientists when it comes to drinking coolaid without question

And of course by its very definition, the theory of evolution does require objective, credible evidence as backup. Otherwise it would be classified as a hypothesis...you might wanna google "scientific method" because you don't seem to understand the difference between science and religion if you claim science is a belief

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by six67seven

 

Wow, what a crazy post...where to start...

I think the consensus is that the elitists are atheists and/or evolutionists.

Only in your fantasy world

Last I checked most world leaders are either Christian, Muslim, or Hindu.

This does not address the NWO

Also, what is an evolutionist? Do you believe in gravity? Does that make you a gravitista? Ridiculous...

Gravity has nothing to do with the question of why humans are here or how we got here.
Evolutionists have a belief system that tries to address those questions.

Consider the power that Stalin, Hitler and Tse-Tung had over their respective nations and people. They all were fans of Darwin and Huxley and in love with eugenics, evolution and control.

First of all, Hitler was a Christian...not that it matters. They weren't horrible dictators because they believed in evolution. They all were after one thing, and one thing only...absolute power!

Like I said in the OP, Hitler HID behind the cross to keep support from his people. They weren't just after absolute power, they wanted to rid the earth of the "apes" (Jews) and fill the earth with their Aryan race. So you show your ignorance.

A Christian nation full of vulnerable people whom were just enjoying their freedoms.

The US is a secular nation

You would like to believe so. Read the constitution, its rooted in Christianity. Our presidents take an oath on the bible when they are sworn in. You again show your ignorance.

It is my opinion the elitists that claim a religion only do as a front, so not to lose their followers/people whom look to them for leadership, when in reality they are easily being controlled.

Or rather they use religion to control the people...like religion has always been used.

The same can be said about evolution.

I believe the elitists, or a majority, are evolutionists at their core. If they truly were people of traditional faith, how can they justify the world in which they live and will soon leave behind?

Again, "evolutionists" isn't a word...just like gravitistas and thermodynamicstas don't exist. And how do they justify it? With OBJECTIVE, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE!! In short, logic and rationality

evolutionist defined

The NWO is founded in evolution. Their beliefs allow them to promote the idea of eradicating 95% of the world's population - leaving 500,000,000 people as the Georgia Guidestones state along with the known eugenicists within the NWO and American elitists like Ted Turner and Bill Gates. No one founded in religion would think of such an idea, although I believe evolution can be considered a religion, but that is besides the point.

NWO founded on evolution? Riiiiiight

Yes, right.

No one is talking about killing off people...and if you check history, you realize that there's hundreds of religiously motivated genocides. So you saying no world religion would think that way is beyond laughable

You must be missing out, willingly, if you don't know about eugenics and that is the tip of the iceberg. How do you know 'no one is talking about killing off people'?

Communism and Nazism are both rooted in evolution

You seem to have no clue about the definition of these words. Let me help you:

Nazism

Communism

"The German Fuhrer... has consistently sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." - Sir Arthur Keith, Evolution and Ethics, 1947, p. 230.

"Adolf Hitler's mind was captivated by evolutionary thinking probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas... lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf and in his public speeches." - Robert Clark, "Darwin, Before and After", 1948, p.115

"Darwin's book is very important and seves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history."
- Conway Zirkle, "Evolution, Marxian, Biology, and the Social Scene", 1959, p.86

And of course evolution is part of the school curriculum, it's based on scientific, objective evidence and in over 150 years hasn't been debunked...which is why it's classified as a scientific theory!

I'll skip your Beck-like crazy fantasy predictions on how religion will disappear. But to give you a clue, the only reason religions are losing members is because people are FINALLY waking up and demanding objective evidence...science constantly debunks religious doctrines, and now that everyone and his dog has Internet, people can finally educate themselves.

Actually religions are not losing members. That is only your opinion and you cannot back up that claim.

Evolution will become the major religion

Evolution isn't a religion, it's a scientific theory based on scientific method...which is OBJECTIVE and CREDIBLE compared to religious claims.

It is. Your theory requires faith for belief.

I feel evolutionists may applaud their belief system taking over but they should realize it will only be by force.

I am amazed by evolution, sure. It's a remarkable theory that perfectly explains biodiversity...and it held up for over 150 years. We're actively using findings from the theory in modern medicine and gene technology.

And why only by force? All it takes is education and asking people to demand objective, credible evidence when they form their beliefs. And yeah, I truly believe that will be the ultimate downfall of religions that ask for a literal interpretation of their dogmas.

That is my theory of evolution.

I'm sorry to say this, but your "theory" isn't a "theory" because it's not based on objective, credible evidence. It's a hogwash hypothesis at best, and not backed up by evidence at all.

It is a theory, I just added facts and support in response to your attempt to explain away my thoughts.

edit on 27-2-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

reply to post by six67seven


Yes, all the men of that era and time were sexist - with a small percentage who were less so as area of statistical "error" in the sample. I appreciate the "statistical error" of the sample though - their diligent work I am indebted too.

Darwin gave a framework of ideas and some examples of how this framework played out. This theory has been consistently re-examined over time. His ideas are now quite dated, and have been vastly improved upon.

No one man has all the answers. His racist beliefs may have given him some creative spark. His sexist beliefs were probably an extension of his familial angst, and proving that he was smarter than his wife probably helped psychologically gird him to taking her ideas at face value. This merely means that he made a psychological mistake in applying is observations to his moral beliefs.

Does that make his observations incorrect about observable variation? No.

I can be offended by his arrogance, and still find value in his work.

You might say, I find evolution to be an interesting exercise in the study of God's work. No finer pursuit really.

Originally posted by six67seven

I haven't seen notes about creationism in any of my biology textbooks.

"Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25 "

By the evolutionists own words

You say that evolution is not science but is a RELIGION???!!!! WOW, WOW, WOW, WOW, WOW... Are you F'N SERIOUS???

And you claim that scientists lose debates about evolution when up against creationists?? Are you again, F'N SERIOUS??!!!

I'll just end this right here and right now because if I continue with this post I will SURELY be banned by what I wish to write further here. But I will conclude with saying that creationists and the religious fundamentalists are so F'N ignorant that it is PAINFUL to read their posts. Its just so unbelievably grossly pathetic and supremely ignorant how the religious and creationists think and what they say.

Thats all I can say without going further and being banned or warned for manners...

reply to post by six67seven


You're trying to make a connection between the NWO and evolution...which is laughable. Anyone who ever wanted to lead and control did it because of either MONEY or POWER. They're not doing it because the theory of evolution explains biodiversity perfectly.

Gravity has nothing to do with the question of why humans are here or how we got here.
Evolutionists have a belief system that tries to address those questions.

But both are theory backed up by evidence that is objective and credible.

Like I said in the OP, Hitler HID behind the cross to keep support from his people. They weren't just after absolute power, they wanted to rid the earth of the "apes" (Jews) and fill the earth with their Aryan race. So you show your ignorance.

Then how about you present objective evidence that Hitler wasn't a Christian? And YOU are calling the Jews "apes"...the genocide did happen, but it wasn't justified by the theory. It was the idea of a complete madman!!

You would like to believe so. Read the constitution, its rooted in Christianity. Our presidents take an oath on the bible when they are sworn in. You again show your ignorance.

The bible has SYMBOLIC value based on traditions.

And you should really read the first amendment in the bible

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The same can be said about evolution.

How on earth can evolution be used as a weapon? It makes no claims regarding genocide!!

You must be missing out, willingly, if you don't know about eugenics and that is the tip of the iceberg. How do you know 'no one is talking about killing off people'?

Oh, plenty of people are talking about killing off people...but it has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, it's not the reason people act aggressively.

The theory is PASSIVE, it explains biodiversity...nothing more. Plus, it's an established fact especially considering we're using it in modern medicine!!

And I really hope you see why Hitler didn't use evolution as a weapon...at best he used it as an excuse because of his super weird interpretation that has no bearing in reality. Nothing in the theory of evolution would objectively justify anything he did

Actually religions are not losing members. That is only your opinion and you cannot back up that claim.

Actually, I can back up that claim with numbers

Religions losing members

Your theory requires faith for belief.

No it doesn't...because it's based on OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE and following scientific method. That's the cool thing about science, it's based on rationality and logic and doesn't require blind faith.

It is a theory, I just added facts and support in response to your attempt to explain away my thoughts.

If you believe what you posted can be considered "facts", you should look up the definition of "fact"

Thanks for trying to explain further though...

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by six67seven

 

Yes, all the men of that era and time where sexist - with a small percentage who were less so as area of statistical "error" in the sample. I appreciate the "statistical error" of the sample though - their diligent work I am indebted too.

Darwin gave a framework of ideas and some examples of how this framework played out. This theory has been consistently re-examined over time. His ideas are now quite dated, and have been vastly improved upon.

No one man has all the answers. His racist beliefs may have given him some creative spark. His sexist beliefs were probably an extension of his familial angst, and proving that he was smarter than his wife probably helped psychologically gird him to taking her ideas at face value. This merely means that he made a psychological mistake in applying is observations to his moral beliefs.

Does that make his observations incorrect about observable variation? No.

I can be offended by his arrogance, and still find value in his work.

You might say, I find evolution to be an interesting exercise in the study of God's work. No finer pursuit really.

Ah ha... observable variation!! There we have it. I'm not discussing the FACT of observable variation. It's the fact that non-observable variation, also known as macroevolution in this case, is the leap of faith you have to take to believe. Never has it been observed! Ever!

Thank you.