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 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 751-780 next last
To: pending

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


451 posted on 08/16/2005 9:09:10 PM PDT by woodb01 (ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 418 | View Replies]

To: Pete

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.


452 posted on 08/16/2005 9:10:36 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 397 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

ROTFLMAO!!!!

"...Opiate of the Atheists."


453 posted on 08/16/2005 9:10:43 PM PDT by porkchops 4 mahound (The razor's edge! LOL! OM LOL! OM LOL! OM LOL! OM their tears are sweet! LOL! OM LOL! OM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
" 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! :)
454 posted on 08/16/2005 9:11:32 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 450 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

"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...


455 posted on 08/16/2005 9:13:50 PM PDT by woodb01 (ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 421 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings

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...





456 posted on 08/16/2005 9:14:49 PM PDT by pending
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 442 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
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.

457 posted on 08/16/2005 9:15:30 PM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 423 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
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.
458 posted on 08/16/2005 9:16:48 PM PDT by DennisR (Look around - there are countless observable clues that God exists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Sandy

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

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


459 posted on 08/16/2005 9:17:17 PM PDT by woodb01 (ANTI-DNC Web Portal at ---> http://www.noDNC.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 427 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

"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.


460 posted on 08/16/2005 9:20:03 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies]

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]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"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"

Ah, the *Marxist* attack. Beautiful.

"(It is the result of your obvious connection to zealotry in defending of marijuana.)"

Another stunning comeback! Your intellect is truly staggering!


I said you were a creationist, I didn't say you were a Christian. Though being an Atheist and a creationist is not very consistent; not that you have ever been. If you don't believe in a natural process that guided the evolution of life, your only other choice is a designer. That is not atheism. That is creationism.

Let me clue people in; Dashboard believes that morality is a delusion and that might makes right. He thinks he is one of the supermen who can force others to do his bidding. He also attacks anybody who disagrees with him as a *Marxist* because he hasn't a clue as to what Marxism is. His namesake, the real Sir Francis Dashboard, led a life of decadence. He mocked the morality of the religionists, just as this Dashwood does.

"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."

Your willful ignorance is only matched by your dishonesty.
481 posted on 08/16/2005 10:04:02 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 475 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
It would acknowledge the fact that evolution has never been about the origin of life.

If a scientific theory is not true in every instance, can it be said with any certainty that it is true in any instance? If Evolution cannot explain the origin of every species, why are you so certain that it true about the origin of any species? All for now. I'm arf to bed |-)zzz

482 posted on 08/16/2005 10:04:13 PM PDT by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings

"f a scientific theory is not true in every instance, can it be said with any certainty that it is true in any instance? If Evolution cannot explain the origin of every species, why are you so certain that it true about the origin of any species?"

Because it's scope doesn't include the origin of life, and never has? How difficult is this for you to comprehend? It doesn't explain quantum physics either. Is that a deficiency in the theory?


483 posted on 08/16/2005 10:07:53 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 482 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings

"But the results would have been identical, each and every step of he way."

No, they wouldn't. They were random.


484 posted on 08/16/2005 10:09:51 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 478 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
If you don't believe in a natural process that guided the evolution of life, your only other choice is a designer.

False dichotomy is an informal fallacy in logic. I choose not to decide and I have other choices...

I've gone through this type of banter with you before, you are an a-hole Marxist, eff off mofo...

485 posted on 08/16/2005 10:13:37 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 481 | View Replies]

To: Hendrix
There is no specific definition for "scientific theory" in the dictionary.

Enough already! From the first & original 1828 Webster's Dictionary:

THE'ORY, n. [L. theory; Gr. to see or contemplate.]

1. Speculation; a doctrine or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice. It is here taken in an unfavorable sense, as implying something visionary.

2. An exposition of the general principles of any science; as the theory of music.

3. The science distinguished from the art; as the theory and practice of medicine.

4. The philosophical explanation of phenomena, either physical or moral; as Lavoisier's theory of combustion; Smith's theory of moral sentiments.

Theory is distinguished from hypothesis thus; a theory is founded on inferences drawn from principles which have been established on independent evidence; a hypothesis is a proposition assumed to account for certain phenomena, and has no other evidence of its truth, than that it affords a satisfactory explanation of those phenomena. (emphasis mine)

Even before Darwin; even before the ToE (that's not exactly true - there were Newtonian evolutionists too), there was a rather firm understanding of the meaning of 'theory' when used in a scientific context, as you can plainly see from Mr. Webster's efforts on the matter. Why you cannot come to grips with this simple understanding is beyond me.

Now, you've irritated not only every evolutionist on this board, but you've irritated this flinty old Presbyterian to boot. And, to what end? If you feel you have to bicker over the meaning of 'theory', an understanding that has existed literally for hundreds of years, then I cannot see the point of any further communication between you and anyone else on this board.

486 posted on 08/16/2005 10:19:39 PM PDT by YHAOS (Western morons are more dangerous than Islamic lunatics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: narby
A very ill informed insult...

You define insult much differently than I do... I define insult as a physical maiming, a severe one.

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

A very ill informed insult from someone who has no idea who he's addressing...

What makes you think I care who I am talking to? Was I talking to you?

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

...and what their reasoning for accepting evolution

Accepting evolution like one would accept Yeshua, maybe?

Give it a rest, you are no match for me, bootcamp...

487 posted on 08/16/2005 10:20:46 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 480 | View Replies]

To: narby

It's useless triyng to "discuss" with Dataman. Dataman will willfully ignore facts that don't correspond to what he wants to argue. When that isn't enough, he'll simply lie outright.


488 posted on 08/16/2005 10:22:16 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
"False dichotomy is an informal fallacy in logic. I choose not to decide and I have other choices..."

Please enlighten us, what are these other choices?

"I've gone through this type of banter with you before, you are an a-hole Marxist, eff off mofo..."

Ah, the totality of your argument. Ad hominem.

Your bullying only works when people take you seriously. I don't. I already you know you as the arrogant, amoral, SOB that you are. That is why you are so amusing :)
489 posted on 08/16/2005 10:23:06 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 485 | View Replies]

To: TomSmedley
Does the end product look more like an accident or an artifact?

What would an "accident" look like? Be specific.
490 posted on 08/16/2005 10:24:05 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: woodb01
How about this, ASSUMING that through some miracle of spontaneous accidental "evolution" a one-celled amoeba just "happened" to start existing

Evolution says no such thing.

If you don't understand the fundamental concepts, you can't be expected to carry any credibility when criticizing it.
491 posted on 08/16/2005 10:25:08 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Because it's scope doesn't include the origin of life, and never has? How difficult is this for you to comprehend?

Pretty difficult, actually. I believe that the very first living thing was a species, bless it's little heart. Don't you kind of feel sorry for it, all alone out there with no explanation )-;

It doesn't explain quantum physics either. Is that a deficiency in the theory?

No. That would be an imaginary deficiency. There are enough real deficiencies to worry about. :-)

492 posted on 08/16/2005 10:38:49 PM PDT by GSHastings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
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!"

I'll have you know I nearly ruined my keyboard I was laughing so hard when I read this, considering I was drinking something at the time :-)

493 posted on 08/16/2005 10:43:43 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

ping


494 posted on 08/16/2005 10:56:40 PM PDT by Bellflower (A new day is Coming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
See there you go. He asks a question of what the end product look more like an accident or an artifact, and then you cut in and demand what would an "accident" look like? Be specific

Well I'll cut in too then. An accident.. a train wreck, would look something like you! ha ha ha haha!

Now again you keep running off and never answer any questions. Whats up with that?
495 posted on 08/16/2005 11:00:26 PM PDT by mordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 490 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Stuff it homo...


496 posted on 08/16/2005 11:11:59 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 489 | View Replies]

To: GSHastings
I believe that the very first living thing was a species, bless it's little heart. Don't you kind of feel sorry for it, all alone out there with no explanation )-;

Do you have an argument against evolution that isn't based purely in semantic games?
497 posted on 08/16/2005 11:18:20 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 492 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Stuff it homo...

So you don't actually have any real arguments against the theory of evolution, then.
498 posted on 08/16/2005 11:23:14 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: woodb01
He didn't claim that evolution was science. He's claiming that in order for you to legislate that intelligent design is right, and evolution is wrong, and ignore any scientific evidence, and that ID is science, then the word of science holds no weight.
499 posted on 08/16/2005 11:34:40 PM PDT by KillBill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 451 | View Replies]

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


Just following along here. Great humor in your truth. Pretty much sums a lot of it up too.
500 posted on 08/16/2005 11:42:20 PM PDT by mordo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 467 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 401-450451-500501-550 ... 751-780 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