Posted on 03/08/2011 10:13:26 AM PST by topcat54
Nobel Prize winning Biochemist Christian de Duve, a professor emeritus at New York City’s Rockefeller University and 1974 winner of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, warns that “natural selection has resulted in traits such as group selfishness being coded in our genes. These were useful to our ancestors under the conditions in which they lived, but have become noxious to us today.” Rape and killing the weak were also useful, and with no God, perfectly “moral.”
...
It’s humorous to watch atheists try to build a case for a moral universe without God. The latest popular attempt is the Center for Inquiry and its ad campaign “You don’t need God—to hope, to care, to love, to live.” I wonder how this slogan would have worked when competing life forms came up out of the primordial ooze and the stronger chomped down on the weaker in order to insure its evolutionary future. “Since there is no God,” the strong Amoeba said to the weak Amoeba, “there is no reason why I can’t use you for food or enslave you to make my life more fulfilling. Who is there to object except a stronger Amoeba.”
(Excerpt) Read more at americanvision.org ...
Lfetists do not evolve....they devolve.
Yea................take a long hard look at what’s in Congress and the White House and get back to me.
The headline makes no sense.
I wish they just dissolved.
Reminds me of when the Protestants of Europe deliberated over whether or not they should defend themselves against the Muslim hordes, should they invade. After much soul and scriptural searching, they concluded that they should. I wish liberals could come to the same conclusion.
Don’t worry evolutionist, as long as a single cell amoeba survives we’ll make a comeback. Granted it’ll take 15 billion years or whatever the latest line is. I’m sure it’ll be long enough for Mother Gaia to undo all the harm we’ve done to her.
Here is the key line.
“If you want this planet to continue to be habitable for everyone that lives here, you have to limit the number of inhabitants.”
A Nobel Prize winner at an American university. Folks, this is how the Nazis thought. You can’t get any clearer about the liberal/Democrat/socialist/environmentalist mindset. They should live, while everyone who disagrees with them should die. “No..he’s just saying that it would be better if it were that way.” So did Hitler, and then he did something about it.
What happens at the cellular level during natural selection? Is it just a term that sounds good but doesn’t doesn’t really explain anything?
“You don’t need God—to hope, to care, to love, to live.”
It certainly helps. Nevertheless, an athiest could choose to “care.” The real difference is you do need God to have a reason not to kill that guy down the street for his money, as long as you think you can get away with it. Without God, all choices are equally moral. An athiest who chooses to “care” or to “promote drum circles” or to “murder all conservatives” has only personal preference to inform his choice. He has no moral basis to interfere with the choice of another athiest who is about to kill him, only personal preference.
Natural selection amongst humans has probably stopped. The sick, the challenged, and the useless are no longer selected out of the population before breeding. See the film Idiocracy, and you’ll see what we have going. And don’t forget to drink Brawndo, it’s got electrolytes.
Supposedly, natural selection, adapting to changing environments, and evolution was what allowed species to modify itself to better deal with its environment.
Now that the environment has changed to make different characteristics important than those that were historically valuable, shouldn't natural selection and evolution take us in a new direction to better adapt to this new environment?
Just because the environment has changed, does that nullify the “goodness” of natural selection?
There seems to be a severe disconnect (more than normal) in their thought processes.
Moral relativists are kinda fun to play with, actually.
So, morals is simply a matter of preference, eh?
So, if someone else believes the exact opposite of what you believe, your morals are no better, right?
There’s no way one set of morals, even those of the atheist in question, can be judged as “better” without an objective standard.
They either admit to an objective standard (then you go to where that is defined),
or they have to admit that their worldview does not and cannot allow that Mother Theresa was a better person than Adolph Hitler.
Hasn’t this guy really just established that man,left to his own devices, is fallen and destined to die? Those of us who have never had a grant for research, but did have a Bible around the house, could have told him that.
What he is saying is that humanity needs a God, needs to be saved.
He just doesn’t realize that.
The scary thing about evolution is the inherent conclusion that we, as humans, are not a result, just one of the species in the ongoing continuum.
What’s next? And will “what’s next” consider us inferior and kill us off or just enslave us?
Yet another fascist arguing for eugenics pogroms. At least since the book, “Beyond Freedom and Dignity” came out most government social workers have been to many seminars where the eugenics agenda is just barely beneath the surface. They’re indoctrinated with the idea that as social workers they’re special, wonderful, and selfless folks who can’t achieve the results they want due to silly and outmoded ideas about individual freedom and human dignity.
Fifty years of brainwashing as education has already dumbed the population down to the point that someone like Barry could be elected president. So, it’s obvious that unless the democrat fascist infrastructure is finally and totally torn down within the next few years they’re going to not just ignore, but totally eliminate the Constitution the next time they have a majority in Congress and a democrat president. Anyone who still doesn’t realize that the democrat party is nothing but a child of the lethal thirties fascists is deliberately hiding from reality.
JMHO
Regards
Huh? Is this guy seriously asserting that nobody had any problem with murder prior to the time of Christ??
“...or they have to admit that their worldview does not and cannot allow that Mother Theresa was a better person than Adolph Hitler.”
It’s really rough on them when you ask them for a reason that environmental despoilers are better or worse than Martin Luther King. To athiests, there ought to be no way to distinguish between them.
And the funny thing is that they have a clear litany of good and evil, which they regard as absolute—environmentalists good, homophobes bad, muslims peaceful, evolutionists good, global warmingists good, Christians very bad and scary blah blah blah. It’s not clear where the litany comes from or why they care. Nothing ought to make any real difference to an athiest except how he feels this moment. I guess homophobes and Christians make them feel badly while environmentalists make them feel good or something like that.
In reality, none of their supposed relativism is anything other than a way to rationalize not having to think about Christianity—or more accurately, being able to think about it in a safe way. But when it comes to judging other people’s behavior who aren’t in their group, they are not relativists. They are absolutely against homophobes and environmental despoilers. Yet none really stop and think where their values come from.
I keep hoping natural selection will get rid of the Libtards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.