--> The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists

NoDNC.com - STOP Democrat Corruption ^ | NoDNC.com Staff

[Oztrich Boy]

Because there is a large segment of the population who know that life originated from another intelligence.

But they are not exactly good candidares for conservative thought.

[GSHastings]

A leap of faith is required to conclude "designer".

And the more we learn about the spectacular intricacy and complexity of life, the more "faith" it requires to believe that evolution explains it.

When Darwin roamed the Earth, we had very little understanding of the complexity of living things, nor of the Universe. Evolution was a plausible explanation.

That dog won't hunt any more. It is utterly impossible for Evolution to be the mechanism responsible for countless living structures. On the other hand, Intelligent Design literally fills our little corner of the universe. Intelligent Design exists in an great abundance and variety. It is foolish to not at least CONSIDER that it may in fact be the driving force of the Universe.

[woodb01]

No. In short, evolution isn't concerned with how life began, only how it has changed over time. Those who claim evolution is about the origins of life are either ignorant or liars. I know you have been told about the limits of evolutionary theory. That doesn't put you in the ignorant camp.

---

Let's at least get THIS straight, YOU disagree with the premise that evolution includes the origins of life.

However, HARVARD does not agree with you. But then again, you MUST be smarter than all of those stupid Harvard professors.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-14-harvard-evolution_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8959763/

But then again, what do those stupid Harvard Scientists know about evolution anyway!! (Tongue in cheek of course)...

[WildTurkey]

You mean you DON'T believe it? Then how do YOU explain it?

[GSHastings]

Some do. They always rely on faith when they can't understand science.

And the mistake you are making, is assuming that people who believe in God do not "understand" science. They understand it plenty well. Well enough to realize that evolution doesn't have any chance what-so-ever of being the explanation for living things.

But, if you have enought "faith" you can continue to believe it :-)

[GSHastings]

"Actually I think I understand random, as well as the meaning of "is"." Your post says otherwise.

Then 'splain it to me Lucy :-)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Let's at least get THIS straight, YOU disagree with the premise that evolution includes the origins of life.

However, HARVARD does not agree with you. But then again, you MUST be smarter than all of those stupid Harvard professors. "

Again, you post the misguided opinions of AP journalists. There is no quote from a Harvard scientist saying this will in any way support evolution, because unlike you and the ignorant AP, the Harvard scientists know that Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. I already told you this but you refused to take heed. Is *Lying for The Lord* supposed to put you in good for that final judgment day?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Ok, real slow for you. You said,

" Nothing occured by chance. An intelligence direct the outcome of every random result. "

You claim that someone directed every random result. If someone directs the result, then it wasn't a random event. It was a random result though, as the designer did not know what was going to happen. Therefore, you don't know what random means. Ok Ricky? :)

[Oztrich Boy]

In the long run, if people of faith are wrong, they are no worse off than the evolutionists. If, however, the atheistic evolutionists are wrong, they have a hell to pay.

I duuno about that. Most gods seem to get pretty ticked off with people who choose the wrong faith. Maybe it's safer to be an overlooked non-believer.

[GSHastings]

"My favorite was the response to the article that HARVARD, that "conservative" and God-loving bastion of support for all things conservative (tongue in cheek of course), notes clearly that evolution includes the origination or "genesis" of life itself."

This is a lie. Only the MSM article alluded to this study supporting evolution. The Harvard scientists made no such claim. Because some journalist made an ignorant claim it is true? You really WILL believe anything.

Which is why Darwin title his book "Evolution - The Origin Of Species (except the first one of course)".

[woodb01]

This is not a debate over the existance of God.
It is a debate over the continued existance of science.

---

I'm truly puzzled now. I have often heard that evolutionists have tried to call evolution "science" but I have never quite had anyone say that science itself IS evolution. In other words, evolution is the highest order and if evolution falls, then science also falls?

How can challenging the validity of evolution be the end of science? Now I'm TRULY puzzled by these wierd types of circular logic...

ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com

[King Prout]

why not IS an answer to why. just because you don't like it does not make it any less a common motive for human behavior.

You make a very serious basic error - you assume humans are largely rational. We are not. Your solipsism/existentialism argument would apply IFF humans were entirely rational. We are not, not even close, so your argument fails.

Whether or not there is a larger purpose to being alive than simply being alive, we have an innate tendency to value our own lives and a desire to establish patterns on the world around us that please us at least temporarily.

Basically, your nonsense is the equivalent of saying "Why rearrange your furniture, why vacuum? You'll just rearrange it again sooner or later, and the dirt will always come back"

so? so what?
Most of us LIKE a clean house, and prefer to have furniture arranged in a manner pleasing to uis at the time in question. What has passed and what is to come are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

[porkchops 4 mahound]

ROTFLMAO!!!!

"...Opiate of the Atheists."

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Which is why Darwin title his book "Evolution - The Origin Of Species (except the first one of course)"

Does it say, *The Origin of Life*? No, just species. He specifically says he doesn't know how life started. Thanks for supporting my argument! :)

[woodb01]

"My favorite was the response to the article that HARVARD, that "conservative" and God-loving bastion of support for all things conservative (tongue in cheek of course), notes clearly that evolution includes the origination or "genesis" of life itself."

---

This is a lie. Only the MSM article alluded to this study supporting evolution. The Harvard scientists made no such claim. Because some journalist made an ignorant claim it is true? You really WILL believe anything.

---

This is too funny. Unlike evolution, at least I'm relying on DOCUMENTED RESULTS rather than pure faith based supposition :-) Oh, and I might add from multiple sources too for validation :-)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-14-harvard-evolution_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8959763/

And there are lots more references too :-) Problem is that the evolutionary fundies, the secular fundamentalists can not stand that even HARVARD recognizes how silly it is to try to dodge the origins of life.

Evolution is the opiate of the atheists...

[pending]

I do not disagree with you in principle,here.

Teaching it to the kids is a good idea,
but not in science class.
ID requires a leap of faith, it cannot be demonstated, as in 2+2, or an analysis of the properties of
water, or the speed of light.
It is not compatible with the scientific method.
So it is taught outside of science class.
That is my point.

I do not see why this is a problem for people.
I know avowed atheists and the ACLU would fight having it taught in school, that there are people who believe this way.
But why would people of faith be concerned about which class it is taught in?
I would choose to trust the minds of the youth. I was raised
on heavy science/math, ended up with a strong faith. There is no conflict.

The conflict, is that the folks at the center of this are neo-creationists in a disingenuous attempt to do an end around a Supreme Court decision they do not like.
I do not think that is what you are doing, but this is why the movement will fail. Reason number two.

The first is that darn leap of faith...

[bobdsmith]

Nothing occured here that was outside of intelligent design. An intelligence created a piece of software. An intelligence set a goal. An intelligence determined how to differentiate results that moved closer to the goal, from results that did not. An intelligence invented the algorithyms necessary to achieve the desired results. An intelligence created the hardware that was necessary to make use of the intelligently designed software.

Yes an intelligent designer produced an evolutionary process which in turn produced a complex design that said intelligent designer could not understand the workings of.

You asked for an example of an evolutionary process creating a complex design. I gave you one. Now you are quibbling over the origin of that evolutionary process as if that even matters. It doesn't matter because regardless of the origin, it is still an evolutionary process.

Look at it from the point of view of nature - Even if a Creator built cells (the hardware), DNA (the software), laws of nature (the algorithm, fitness function, etc), in order that an evolutionary process upon life occured, that would still be an evolutionary process wouldn't it? Just because the evolutionary process is intelligently designed doesn't make it any less an evolutionary process. If apes turn into man that is still evolution is it not? Even if a God-Researcher type wrote nature to do it.

[DennisR]

Intelligent Design just says that God created everything in the universe with a purpose and intent - that man would glorify God. Natural selection does not conflict with Intelligent Design - they are two absolutely different things. Natural selection is seen every day and is scientifically observable and provable.

[woodb01]

Cool! Thanks for the additional link to another article source!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/14/AR2005081401070.html

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"This is too funny. Unlike evolution, at least I'm relying on DOCUMENTED RESULTS rather than pure faith based supposition :-) Oh, and I might add from multiple sources too for validation :-)"

That's a lie. Show one quote from these articles from a Harvard scientist saying this will help support evolution. Your *multiple sources* are the SAME SOURCE! They are all the same AP story, word for word! The journalist who wrote this piece is the one who has inserted evolution into it, not the Harvard scientists. Why must you Lie for the Lord? It is not even a good lie.