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 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 761-780 next last
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 1-20 ... 461-480481-500501-520 ... 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