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 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 761-780 next last
To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Accepting evolution like one would accept Yeshua, maybe?

Hardly. No one accepts evolution based on faith. They accept it based on the evidence.

521 posted on 08/17/2005 7:13:13 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 487 | View Replies]

To: csense
If they're evolutionary mutations, then they must a have a physical component. I would love to hear your explanation as to what these physical processes are, and which gene, or genes, code for them.

Much of it is probably down to genes that specify the development of brain structures, such as the amygdala and the frontal lobes, that have been shown to be involved in guiding social behaviour and the emotions. Unfortunately, the start of the art in evolutionary neuroscience is way off having any kind of explanation of how that actually happens, so I doubt anyone can give you a more concrete answer that.

522 posted on 08/17/2005 7:14:25 AM PDT by moatilliatta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood; CarolinaGuitarman
Stuff it homo...

I guess we can take your juvenile insults as an admission that you don't actually have any cogent points to make in this discussion.

523 posted on 08/17/2005 7:15:02 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: Pete
I am asking why an atheist and evolutionist would prefer one over the other. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

Because I've evolved to be afraid of death. And because I've also evolved to find pleasure in many of the things life has to offer, so I want to keep on enjoying it. I've also evolved to find certain things painful, and if there was a preponderence of pain over pleasure in my life maybe I'd be tempted to see non-existence as the preferrable of the two.

(The reality is actually more complicated than that, because there are cultural factors involed in addition to the evolutionary factors. But in simple terms I think what I've said is enough to answer your question).

524 posted on 08/17/2005 7:23:36 AM PDT by moatilliatta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio
So you don't actually have any real arguments against the theory of evolution, then.

It is just another immaculate conception, a belief that life just evolved from nothing. Like the “Big Bang” it relies upon a singularity, the DNA molecule. They are inadvertently admissions the universe and life are immaculate conceptions and they are dependent on each other. Categorically, they are the same - - mythology...

525 posted on 08/17/2005 7:23:45 AM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 498 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
Hardly. No one accepts evolution based on faith. They accept it based on the evidence.

Only if you define "evidence" to mean extrapolations and assumptions, and not observed events. Read post 518. BTW, a number of MET advocates have admitted it's matter of faith. Google's our friend. :)

526 posted on 08/17/2005 7:26:15 AM PDT by mikeus_maximus (Hillary for Prez! -(The Whitehouse wants its china back; China wants the Whitehouse back))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 521 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

Thanks for your patience.

The relevant threads are:
New Scienctis Issue on iD posts 395, 439 and follow-ups

and

Let's have no more monkey trias to teach faith as science is to undermine both posts 209, 236, 248,280 and 829


527 posted on 08/17/2005 7:30:03 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman; GSHastings
Here are some other titles Darwin was afraid to use because if he had everyone would know what a house of cards the theory of evolution is:

"On The Origin of Species (but not Colors)."

"On The Origin of Species (but not Powered Flight, Which Hasn't Been Invented Yet But That's No Excuse)."

"On The Origin of Species (but not Continental Drift)."

"On The Origin of Species (but not Pi)."

"On The Origin of Species (but not Pie)."

"On The Origin of Species (but not Witches)."

"On The Origin of Species (but not Card Tricks)."

528 posted on 08/17/2005 7:30:26 AM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 454 | View Replies]

To: mikeus_maximus

Why are there no mammal fossils found in cambrian rock? The theory of evolution has a good explaination for this. In fact the theory of evolution requires this to be true. I can think of no reason why we shouldn't find elephant, horse, or human fossils in the cambrian if evolution were not true.

Just one example of coincidence that just so happens to allow evolution to survive as an explaination. Hundreds of such coincidences lead me to believe it is true.

This isn't an assumption. It is coincidence upon coincidence until it is simply beyond doubt.


529 posted on 08/17/2005 7:34:13 AM PDT by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 526 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
Stuff it homo...

My, my, my. We are in a lather, aren't we?

I haven't seen this level of creationist discourse since ALS was banned.

530 posted on 08/17/2005 7:40:18 AM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 496 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood
maybe he thought he might get some support...

Mayve he will.

531 posted on 08/17/2005 7:42:31 AM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: Sir Francis Dashwood

"As far as CarolinaGuitarman is concerned, he is just a Marxist troll, f--k him... I don't know why he brought you into it except, since he is so weak, maybe he thought he might get some support..."

Too scared to ping me? You're losing your edge there Dashboard.

Thanks for giving us a good laugh! :)


532 posted on 08/17/2005 7:43:37 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 519 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

I see a site URL that says "noDNC.com" and I think it's something I could support. Lurking under that banner is a rubbish heap of central casting stock characters attacking a scientific theory with about 150 years of accumulated evidence for it and none against.

I'm reminded how, forty years ago, I thought environmentalism was just Teddy Rooseveltian conservation and was of course a good idea. By thirty years ago, it was clear that environmentalists were a bunch of communists. That in turn led to my decision that the whales could go screw themselves if it came to that.

You guys are doing the DNC a big favor.


533 posted on 08/17/2005 7:43:55 AM PDT by VadeRetro (Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dataman

"vacuous"? "Homo"?

You guys have reached the zenith of your intellectual powers. You are on a roll.


534 posted on 08/17/2005 7:45:28 AM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: Pete

Satisfactory to you, perhaps, but not to them.

There they are, cheerfully posting answers to your post.

BTW, there are very few evolutionists posting, just scientists and interested amateurs.


535 posted on 08/17/2005 7:47:16 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: Dataman
I almost forgot to include f__k in the creationist arsenal of verbal weaponry.

We are under siege.
536 posted on 08/17/2005 7:47:35 AM PDT by js1138 (Science has it all: the fun of being still, paying attention, writing down numbers...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 515 | View Replies]

To: woodb01

Uh...this isn't going to help.


537 posted on 08/17/2005 7:48:32 AM PDT by Constantine XIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: From many - one.

See post 263 on that second thread you referenced.

You are overemphasizing or exaggerating the commentary.
He says himself he is simply "being over the top" and debating with the same style used against him.
To call it anything else than a friendly "needling" is a bit overly dramatic.
Be thankful someone trys to hold you accountable for your faith...if no one ever called you on it, you may be walking down the wide path without realizing it. No one wants that.


your first post must not be spelled right...i cant find it


538 posted on 08/17/2005 8:05:42 AM PDT by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 527 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro

I also remember the Teddy Rooseveltian form of conservation and, as a matter of fact, I remember when the left was trying to get national parks turned over to "the people" to squat or whatever.

Conservation got infiltrated and marxistified, then turned to environmentalism.

I'm still a conservationist. Can't find too many others, though.


539 posted on 08/17/2005 8:14:52 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr

I'm pre-caffeine, sorry.

New Scientist Issue on ID

posts 395, 439, 503

Who is"trying to hold me accountable for my faith"

Other than God, of course, whch is no one else's business.


540 posted on 08/17/2005 8:21:37 AM PDT by From many - one.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 538 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560 ... 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