Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

--> The Cult of Evolution the Opiate of the Atheists
NoDNC.com - STOP Democrat Corruption ^ | NoDNC.com Staff

Posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:20 AM PDT by woodb01

The Cult of Evolution – the Opiate of the Atheists
evolution is based on superstitious religious secular fundamentalism

for the week of August 15, 2005 - NoDNC.com staff

ARTICLE LINK - | | | - DISCUSSION LINK
(New Discussion thread, membership is free but required)

Evolution’s basic premise is that all “life” on the planet miraculously “emerged” through a bunch of accidents.  Current evolution teaches that “natural selection” is how we continue to “evolve.” 

Unfortunately for evolutionists their recent beliefs have been challenged on interesting grounds.  A new theory has come about to challenge the blind faith orthodoxy of the evolutionists, that theory is intelligent design. 

Think of it like this, evolution believe that if you have a deck of 52 cards and two jokers, and then shuffle the deck thoroughly, and throw the entire deck up in the air as high as you can, that eventually all of the cards will land, in perfect order, and perfectly aligned.  The probability of this even happening one time in a billion years approaches zero.  Then, to believe evolutionary "theory," you have to accept on blind faith that this same miracle of perfect order from total chaos has repeated itself millions of times to account for each of the plants, animals, and life on earth.  We'll leave it there for now.  It gets a WHOLE LOT MORE COMPLICATED for the evolutionary cult.  On the other hand, intelligent design says that after the evolutionist throws the cards up in the air and makes a mess, the intelligent designer comes along and carefully picks up each card and stacks them all up together, in sequence, and properly aligned.

Stepping back from evolution long enough to use critical thinking skills not taught much in public education these days, it becomes quickly apparent that evolution is nothing but a silly religious belief – a type of “secular fundamentalism” – demanding cult-like superstitious faith in the impossible.  If I have your attention, let’s take a careful look at what evolution requires us to accept on complete blind faith:

These are just a few of the major problems for the cult of evolution.  They are certainly not the least of the problems.  For example, under the “accidents” of evolution, where do emotions come from?  Where does instinct come from?  Why do humans have the ability to reason and understand right from wrong?  And the list goes on.  None of these innate characteristics can be explained by evolution.

Evolution is not science, because it can not be tested, verified, and there are no “false results.”  The only “false result” to evolution is Intelligent Design (ID) because the theory of ID proves that evolution is false and therefore evolution adherents attack ID proposals with zealous fundamentalism.

Has anyone ever seen how zealously these evolutionary “secular fundamentalists” irrationally attack competing theories without answering the underlying problems with their beliefs? 

Evolutionists routinely dodge issues like the origins of the universe because they know that if you stop and think hard about these issues, evolution falls apart as nothing but a widely held religious belief.  If you can't explain where the raw material for the inputs to the "evolutionary process" come from, then you have no process.  If you can't tell me how life started, and where its components came from, what the specific components were, what specific “accident” created “life,” then you have no process, only religious belief.

When you refuse to evaluate the inputs to a process, you have an incomplete process, it is unverifiable, and therefore un-provable, un-knowable, and an un-testable theory from a scientific perspective.  You MUST at that point insert your suppositions and BELIEFS (i.e. secular fundamentalist religious beliefs) into the process.  This is where it is no longer science, but superstition and blind religious faith.

It is understandable evolutionists would avoid many of these difficult questions because it exposes the preposterous "blind faith" required to accept evolution.

The cult of e
volution is the opiate for the atheists. 

Evolution is an atheist’s way to excuse their denial and rejection of god, it is their religion.  To the degree that evolutionists dodge the difficult questions, like the origins of life's raw materials, how the five senses came about (how did one-celled organisms get the "idea" that “senses” were even needed?), how or why or where emotions come from, or a whole host of other questions, proves that it is not science, but secular fundamentalism.  To the extent that evolutionists challenge competing theories such as Intelligent Design rather than answering the difficult questions or admitting that their “theory” has holes, it is not a scientific theory subject to the scientific process, but a cult based on zealous secular fundamentalism.

And on one hand, evolutionists expect you to believe that through a bunch of "accidents" life happened and "evolved" and then later, just the OPPOSITE takes place in the form of "natural selection."  In other words, the "accidents" of life lead to deliberate selection.  Under "natural selection" the "great god of evolution" decides who is the strongest and smartest and everyone else must be subjected to the superior race.  Sounds a lot like what Hitler's National SOCIALISTS believed to me.

No amount of proving atheism, er, I mean evolution wrong will ever satisfy the secular fundamentalist religious cult of evolution.  Even when those who support the theory of Intelligent Design are willing to engage in a dialog on the issue, the secular fundamentalists come out of the woodwork and shriek from the high heavens about how they refuse to prove one iota of their religious philosophy, but demand that ANYTHING that dares challenge their orthodoxy must be proven beyond any doubt.  This is the essence of religious zealotry and blind religious fundamentalism--, it is the opiate of the atheists...

If those who adhere to evolution are genuinely interested in science, then they must evaluate the whole process, and if the inputs to that process, or many of its components such as the senses or emotions do not support the process then they must reject that theory (evolution) as unworkable.  To do anything less is no longer science.  But then again, evolutionists are not really interested in science.

Call me weak minded but I just don't have the blind, zealous, fundamentalist faith to believe that nothing created everything (the "Big Bang") and that life just spontaneously erupted from rocks, water, and a few base chemicals (evolution) through a bunch of "weird science" accidents.  Step back, stop and actually THINK about the leaps of un-provable, totally blind-faith that evolution requires and unless you're one of its religious zealots, you too will reach the conclusion that evolution is a FRAUD!

Evolution, the opiate for atheists and the biggest hoax and fraud ever perpetrated on the Western World in History...


Additional Resources:

DNA: The Tiny Code That's Toppling Evolution (DNA is PROVING that evolution is a hoax)
The controversy over evolution includes a growing number of scientists who challenge Darwinism. (The fraud of Darwinism...)
Einstein Versus Darwin: Intelligent Design Or Evolution? (Most LEGITIMATE Scientists do NOT agree with Evolution)
What’s the Big Secret? (Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania)
What are the Darwinists afraid of? (The fervent religious belief in evolution)
The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism (Evolution may be proven false very soon)
 



TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; awwcrapnotthisagain; crevolist; enoughalready; evolution; evoscientology; evoshavetinywinkies; idiocy; idiots; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 761-780 next last
To: CarolinaGuitarman
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? :)

The machine made random propositions, just as it had been created to do. God (the programmer) decided whether it was good or bad (algorithm). God, did so even before He CREATED the machine, and before he breathed the breath of LIFE into it (software). GOD, being omniscient (sp?) knew the answers to every question, even before they were asked by his creation. Alas, his creation did not posses(sp? spell check thinks it's ok) free will.

The machine created nothing. The machine said how about this? GOD said, nopeth, or yupeth. And so it came to pass according to HIS wishes. Do I hear an AMEN? :-)

461 posted on 08/16/2005 9:22:48 PM PDT by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 448 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings

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.




If you nitpicked evolution as aggressively as you whine over an article that you don't agree with, evolution would be DEAD already. Stick a fork in it please, it's done already...

Evolution is dead, evolution is the opiate of the atheists...

Let it die and stop trying to defend the indefensible. Do you realize how silly it is that you will "nitpick" something that YOU have not contacted the story author about the Harvard article on, but you insist because the detail that YOU are looking for is not clearly spelled out that it is not true.

Using YOUR OWN LOGIC, there are so many holes in evolution it is plainly not true. And willful belief in defiance of the truth that evolution is a lie, is nothing but fundamentalist religious fanaticism...

Evolution is the opiate of the atheists.

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


462 posted on 08/16/2005 9:23:29 PM PDT by woodb01 (ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
"GOD, being omniscient (sp?) knew the answers to every question, even before they were asked by his creation."

No, as has been pointed out to you, the results were RANDOM. The designer had no way of knowing what the final results would be. You still don't know what random means.
463 posted on 08/16/2005 9:25:19 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 461 | View Replies]

To: woodb01
"Let it die and stop trying to defend the indefensible. Do you realize how silly it is that you will "nitpick" something that YOU have not contacted the story author about the Harvard article on, but you insist because the detail that YOU are looking for is not clearly spelled out that it is not true."

Nitpicking over your blatant lies is not a vice. You said the Harvard scientists claimed this study will support evolution; you knew this was false but said it anyway. Lying for the Lord will not get you a good seat in heaven.
464 posted on 08/16/2005 9:28:20 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

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.




Why are you getting so upset? Come on now, I'm relying on multiple sources and you MUST accept them as absolutely true because *I* believe them and the authors agree with me. The media publications are from professional organizations so that is irrefutable proof that you are wrong and I am right.

It is absolutely incontrovertable proof now YOU PROVE they're wrong. And by the way, you can't prove that they're wrong because I say you can't prove it. It's the truth and all you're challenging the very existence of Harvard and of the media outlets themselves by this crazy talk...

I think I got the evolutionary lines down now. See, I'm even practicing natural selection by selecting the arguments and issues that I want to believe and ignoring anything you say that I don't agree with! I think I'm getting the hang of this.

And let me assure you of one more thing, God is big enough that he doesn't need me to lie for him... He can do as he wants. I speak for me, and for my own conclusions. I'm sorry you're so fixated on religion, and do you hate religion and God that much that you think I speak for God?

I'm not that foolish! I do NOT speak for God... Creation does that for me :-)


465 posted on 08/16/2005 9:31:30 PM PDT by woodb01 (ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 460 | View Replies]

To: Pete
So, again, why do care about anything? All is vanity. I fail to see how existence is preferable to non-existence. How does one who is an atheist and an evolutionist not become a secular existentialist? Back to specifics, what do you hope to achieve by coming on FR and debating? Given that any such argument is ultimately completely meaningless, I wonder why you show up?

Who's going to win the Superbowl? The Oscar? The Nobel Prize? Why care? Ultimately All is vanity (I think somebody said that once).

But we're on a journey, no reason we can't have fun on the way.

In spite of this awareness of fate, or perhaps because of it, the picture of man's quslities which emerges from the myths is a noble one. The gods are heroic figures, men writ large, who led dangerous, individualistic lives, yet at the same tome were part of a closeky-knit family group, with a firm sense of values and certain intense loyalties. They would give up their lives rather than surrender these values, but they would fight as long as they could, since life was well worth while.
Men knew the gods whom they served could not give them freedom from danger and calimity, and they did not demand they should. We find in the myths no sense of bitterness at the harshness and unfairness of life, but rather a spirit of heroic resignation: humanity is born to trouble, but courage, adventure, and the wonders of life are matters of thankfulness, to be enjoyed while life is still granted to us.
The great gifts of the gods were readiness to face the world as it was, the luck that sustains men in tight places, and the opportunity to win that glory which alone can outlive death - H R Ellis Davidson Scandinavian Mythology

466 posted on 08/16/2005 9:31:44 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Natural Selection is the Free Market : Intelligent Design is the Centrally Planned Economy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Does it say, *The Origin of Life*? No, just species.

How's this for the title then?

"Evolution-The Origin of All Species Except One, And Don't Think That I'm Explaining That One, Because I'm NOT!"

467 posted on 08/16/2005 9:31:59 PM PDT by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: dartuser

BTTT


468 posted on 08/16/2005 9:36:13 PM PDT by 185JHP ( "The thing thou purposest shall come to pass: And over all thy ways the light shall shine.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: WillMalven; narby
Yeah, why isn't life a multiple choice test instead of an essay?

Worse, it's a first draft essay: no rewrites allowed.

469 posted on 08/16/2005 9:38:28 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Natural Selection is the Free Market : Intelligent Design is the Centrally Planned Economy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Worse, it's a first draft essay: no rewrites allowed.

Kind've like the article at the top of this thread, then.

470 posted on 08/16/2005 9:40:02 PM PDT by malakhi (Gravity is a theory in crisis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

"Why are you getting so upset?"

Because you are lying.

"Come on now, I'm relying on multiple sources and you MUST accept them as absolutely true because *I* believe them and the authors agree with me. The media publications are from professional organizations so that is irrefutable proof that you are wrong and I am right."

No, they weren't multiple sources, they were the same source. But you are a practiced liar for the Lord, so why should that stop you.

You got caught in a lie and now are trying to turn it around. Pathetic.

"And let me assure you of one more thing, God is big enough that he doesn't need me to lie for him"

And yet you try.

"I'm sorry you're so fixated on religion, and do you hate religion and God that much that you think I speak for God? "

I don't hate religion, just liars.



471 posted on 08/16/2005 9:40:04 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 465 | View Replies]

To: js1138

oh, I dunno... I think a case can be made for the true machine screw being a fundamental technical innovation which has benefitted the well-being of countless billions of people ;)


472 posted on 08/16/2005 9:40:38 PM PDT by King Prout (and the Clinton Legacy continues: like Herpes, it is a gift that keeps on giving.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

"How can challenging the validity of evolution be the end of science?"

You are challenging science with a leap of faith, with a proposition that is supernatural, untestable, unverifiable.

You are free to criticise TOE. You are free to not believe it. But within science, you must adhere to the rules of science. If the fundamental aspects of the scientific method are abandoned, to a leap of faith, science and Reason itself is in fact undermined.




Would you be against teaching ID in another class?
Do you insist ID is science?

Calling the combined scientific community at Harvard University idiots is an absolute Troll Classic, BTW.

I am sure you will be cut and pasted all over the leftist blogosphere to demonstrate how really stupid freepers are.

Well done.

I still think Mr Robinson should have vaporized your a$$.


473 posted on 08/16/2005 9:42:16 PM PDT by pending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
" How's this for the title then?

"Evolution-The Origin of All Species Except One, And Don't Think That I'm Explaining That One, Because I'm NOT!""

It would acknowledge the fact that evolution has never been about the origin of life. A little awkwardly worded though; an editor you are not.
474 posted on 08/16/2005 9:44:12 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
No, only YOU and other creationists have that fetish

You have a poor memory. You know, as I have told you before, I'm an atheist... (It is the result of your obvious connection to zealotry in defending of marijuana.)

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

Humans and apes share a common ancestor; this much is certain from all the available evidence.

No it is not. No “missing link,” no evidence. Dr. Leaky never found any. Humans did not evolve from apes, nor is there evidence, as of yet, of common ancestry, none.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-

But thanks for showing your ignorance! :)
Thanks for showing your ignorance! :)

You are a Marxist with a poor memory. That is a typical Marxist response, as is your first quip attacking me as a creationist. Standard Marxist tactics.

475 posted on 08/16/2005 9:47:46 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 409 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Humans did not evolve from apes, nor is there evidence, as of yet, of common ancestry, none.

Hey its beyond doubt. Here's a certain part that convinces me: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

476 posted on 08/16/2005 9:51:29 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: woodb01
Evolution is the opiate of the atheists.

Evolution is the opiate of the Marxists. It is a theory that is their immaculate conception.

477 posted on 08/16/2005 9:53:41 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 462 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
No, as has been pointed out to you, the results were RANDOM. The designer had no way of knowing what the final results would be. You still don't know what random means.

Nope. Sorry, the results were not random. The results occured according to design. The machine was programed to generate hypothetical circuit designs. The algorithm determined if it was a good proposition, or a bad proposition, and that was strictly a function of INTELLIGENT DESIGN with a predestined goal in MIND. If the process had occured manually, with the programmer directing the flow exactly as his algorithms compelled the flow to occur, the results would have been IDENTICAL. It would have taken a lot longer. But the results would have been identical, each and every step of he way. And that fact is due entirely to the INTELLIGENT DESIGN which was directing the flow of the program.

Depending on how the random function generator was "seeded" it is possible for the program to generate exactly the same circuit design, running through all the same sequences, exactly the same, each and every time.

The only thing that was "random" were the proposed circuit elements. But it was INTELLIGENT DESIGN that SELECTED them according to a GOAL. (which, coincidentally, is probably how life works):-)

478 posted on 08/16/2005 9:57:56 PM PDT by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 463 | View Replies]

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

That would be a more logical title as applied to those who have such a reverence for the religion of evolution.

Evolution is their immaculate conception... you blasphemer, you! ; ^)

479 posted on 08/16/2005 10:00:02 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Evolution is the opiate of the Marxists.

That's an insult.

A very ill informed insult from someone who has no idea who he's addressing and what their reasoning for accepting evolution really is.

480 posted on 08/16/2005 10:01:14 PM PDT by narby (There are Bloggers, and then there are Freepers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 477 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 441-460461-480481-500 ... 761-780 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson