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

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

[woodb01]

"Then you must PASSIONATELY HATE all those evolutionists!"

No, just people like you who feel it is OK to lie for God. :)

---

I understand, you can't defend evolution so you resort to personal attacks. Can you show me one single post where I said anything about my speaking for God? Or is that more of the evolutionary mindset, when it doesn't exist, just make it up!

I understand, the psychological definition of someone who distorts reality and then believes the distortions is dementia... Can you point to where I said anything about speaking for God?

Have a wonderful day, really, I hope your day goes well... I would suggest that you're being dishonest, but that would presuppose that you are aware that you are misrepresenting things. I honestly think you truly believe your suggestions that somewhere I said I speak for God...

Scary... Is this what evolution does to people's minds?

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

[woodb01]

"morality is a delusion of the religious morons"

---

Morality is based on the presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior...

Rights? Define a right and the origin of such an idea...

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...

---

This my frieds is the crux of evolution... Evolutionary secular fundamentalism says there is no intelligent designer and that morals, etc., are artificial constructions. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, the law of the jungle, kill or be killed. This is all the basic premise of evolutionary fundies...

Hitler's National SOCIALIST "uber-man" or Aryans, or the "super race" are all based on crazy notions of natural selection. The National SOCIALISTS determined that Jews, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, etc., weren't as "valuable" as the rest of society and exercised their "natural selection" to exterminate them. Abortion supporters do the same thing today, babies are "inconvenient" and some of them may have gestational diseases so it warrants "natural selection" to "terminate them" because they are the weak and defenseless in society. The law of the jungle, the "me" law that says if I want it, I can do anything I want to get it and no artificial moral construction is going to stop me!

Evolution, the opiate for the atheists.

[bobdsmith]

Oh well how do you explain how Hitler was defeated then? Clearly Nazism isn't the fittest is it? It perished.

The fittest system is one with good morals. Evolutionary speaking a society that cooperates is stronger than one that works by "law of the jungle"

[mikeus_maximus]

Why are there no mammal fossils found in cambrian rock? The theory of evolution has a good explaination for this.

It has a "just so" type explanation, but not a good one. It has no explanation for the Cambrian explosion; it has no observed mechanism to cause transition; it has no record of inchoradtes w/ exoskeletons transitioning into endoskeleton forms (in fact, has few if any forms it can point to that can be called clearly transitional between any species, and logically there should be countless examples); it has no example anywhere in the world of the professed order of a chronological column (and in fact, it's exactly opposite in may places)-- just to name a few assumptions that must be made.

And on top of all that, it has yet to explain, how complex organic compounds (a) existed or (b) were assembled by chance less mathematically probable than throwing a box full of letters into the air to create code more complex than a Shakespearan sonnet-- Millions of times over and independently.

Again, I just can't swallow the magnitude of "coincidences" that Neodarwnism requires. But to each their own.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

You lied when you said that the Harvard scientists were claiming their study was a support for evolution. I asked for a quote, just one, and you said you had *multiple sources*. Except, each *source* was the same AP article. And that article never said any of the Harvard scientists had made any claim at all that this would be a support for evolution. Only the idiot reporter said that, and only to flame controversy. You had to lie in order to *prove* the creationist fantasy that evolution claims to describe the origins of life. You have been shown time and time again that this is not true, yet you persist, without addressing our objections. You are either a liar or very stupid.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not really as stupid as you come off. Therefore, you were shown to be a liar, a *Liar for the Lord*.

"I honestly think you truly believe your suggestions that somewhere I said I speak for God... "

I said you were lying for him, not speaking for him.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"This my frieds is the crux of evolution... Evolutionary secular fundamentalism says there is no intelligent designer and that morals, etc., are artificial constructions."

You DO know that it is Dashwood who makes this claim, right? The anit-evolutionist atheist. That reading comprehension thing isn't working out too well for ya is it? lol

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . creationist fantasy that evolution claims to describe the origins of life.

Take any typical public school textbook that deals with the subject, and let's see where the fantasy resides.

[Dimensio]

I think you're over-simplifying just a little... the only (or at least only one I've heard of...) guy making the statistical arguments is William Dembski, who has a masters in statistics and doctorate in mathematics. You may disagree with his reasoning, but I think he understands math.

The problem isn't with his math, it's with the underlying premises on which his math is based. He assumes a specific set of requirements for the first life form, but there's no actual basis for his assumptions. If his initial assumption is crap, it doesn't matter what math he uses because his results are meaningless.

[VadeRetro]

He calls evolution crap but says he is not a creationist; yet he won't say what he DOES believe happened. When you disagree with him, you are called a Marxist Homo. He expects us to to take him seriously? lol It's hard not to fall over laughing at his every post!

Somewhere in the ... let's call it evolution of a creationist or a socialist there comes the realization that many people will dismiss him out of hand if he labels himself up front as what he is. That, of course, won't do for getting the all-important message out. Thus the creationist or socialist must stop periodically in the middle of his rant and deny who he is. As if that will help.

It's all about reasonable-looking cover, but few people realize that reasonable-looking cover is blown in seconds if you don't sound reasonable.

Once you think you're in a Holy War against an Evil Dumb Conspiracy, you're lost. You're nucking futz. You've cut the connection to reality.

[Dimensio]

The National SOCIALISTS determined that Jews, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, etc., weren't as "valuable" as the rest of society and exercised their "natural selection" to exterminate them.

Ah, one of the retreats for those without logical arguments against evolution: blame it for the worst acts of slaughter in human history, as though a description of what happens in biological systems is an implicit directive for bad behaviour.

[bobdsmith]

It has a "just so" type explanation, but not a good one. It has no explanation for the Cambrian explosion

It isn't a "just so" explaination. It is a specific explaination that the origin of mammals occured in the early Triassic (where early mammals are reptile-like - yet another "coincidence" that supports evolution). The cambrian being long before this point must therefore contain no mammals.

If you were really confident that the theory of evolution was flawed you could go grab a spade, take yourself down to the grand canyon and route around in cambrian layers for mammal fossils. See the theory is testable. So what are you waiting for?

And on top of all that, it has yet to explain, how complex organic compounds (a) existed or (b) were assembled by chance less mathematically probable than throwing a box full of letters into the air to create code more complex than a Shakespearan sonnet-- Millions of times over and independently.

Irrelevant. The fact of evolution is that evolution on earth has occured in history beyond doubt. How it happened is the theoretical part, and a seperate question.

[Dimensio]

It is just another immaculate conception, a belief that life just evolved from nothing.

No, it is an explanation of life evolving from common ancestry. Common ancestry is not "nothing".

Like the “Big Bang” it relies upon a singularity, the DNA molecule.

I'm not sure where to begin with a statement so stupid.

They are inadvertently admissions the universe and life are immaculate conceptions and they are dependent on each other.

No, they're not. They start at a certain point that they can explain, and explain nothing before that. Anything outside of their range of explanation is not covered by the theory. The theory of evolution does not explain the ultimate origin of the common ancestor, so it can hardly be called "immaculate conception". Only those with no education on the matter actually claim as much.

[Dimensio]

Morality is based on the presupposition that some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior...

A response to a statement I never made.

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...

He didn't bring me into it. You said "stuff it homo" to him, which I think really defines the level of intelligence and courtesy of the creationist side of this discussion, so I commented on it.

[Oztrich Boy]

If we shut our eyes and say "there's no such thing as evolution" placemarker

[wallcrawlr]

Who is"trying to hold me accountable for my faith"
Other than God, of course, whch is no one else's business.

Thats not how we are to live.
Assuming you are a Christian...You might find a few pastors that disagree.
Christians should help each other, thats what congregations do, thats what bible studies do, thats what Christian friends do, that what God called us to do.
We are not talking about judging someones salvation, we (I) am talking about helping fellow Christians live as Godly people. I'm not sure how you could disagree with that (if youre a Christian).

ok, I found the thread:

post #395 is certainly tongue in cheek while at the same time poking fun at himself with humor
# 439 he states he's not boasting but even aknowledging what someone says
# 503 ?? not sure that relates

now going back to your original line:

Too many of the self-identified Christians I see on these threads are dishonest, use epithets in describing those with different views, and, most shocking to me, one even boasted about shaking the faith of someone else.

I'm afrid I continue to disagree with how you state the situation.

Take care.

[VadeRetro]

The cambrian being long before this point must therefore contain no mammals.

Indeed it does not, and one has to wonder why creationists don't wonder why not?

Supposedly, the Cambrian is a problem for evolution, even as we find deep roots and tiny prototypes for the Cambrian fauna, and multiple lines of evidence that some "independent" phyla evolved from some others. But what about how the Cambrian fits into creationism?

Yes, where are those mammals? Where are Adam and Eve?

Where are the land animals of any sort whatever? Amphibians seem to have crawled out in the Devonian, which is later. Where are the very earliest insects? Again, in the Devonian. Later. None in the Cambrian. Reptiles? After the amphibians, rather as evolution would suggest. (We think the reptiles EVOLVED FROM the amphibians, so naturally the amphibians should be first.) Birds? Later. After the reptiles. How about that? Anyway, none in the Cambrian.

Flowering plants? Much later. None in the Cambrian. All the insect types that need flowering plants? You guessed it. Later yet.

To be fair, fish of a sort have been found in the Cambrian, but what a sort! Looks like an Amphioxus just starting to grow a head, or one of those hatchling lampreys that looks like an amphioxus. IOW, very primitive and barely has the features that allow it to be classified as it is. One might almost say it looks like evidence that things are evolving.

We have a lot of new phyla (body plans) in the Cambrian, yes, but these forms are remarkably similar in size scale. They're simple and generalized relative to later forms. In evolutionary terms, they're not very diverged from each other yet.

Funny, that. When creationists mention the Cambrian, they don't talk about this stuff. You'd think enquiring minds would want answers. (Oh, wait!)

[js1138]

Like the “Big Bang” it relies upon a singularity, the DNA molecule.

I'm not sure where to begin with a statement so stupid.

let me try. I am interested in how creationists can be so certain about the steps needed to go from "mere" chemicals to life, when science is still scratching its head about the details. Granted, there are many scientists on record as believing it happened, but that is rather distant from asserting how it happened.

[RobbyS]

ID is basically an effort to show that the meachisms advanced by evolutionosts do not, in fact, explain as much as is claimed by iys most devout believers. Natural slection, as laid out by Darwin in Origin of Species, certain does not. That is why the present theory is known as neo-darwin. Overzealous application of the theory has led to some unfortunate conconclusions, such as Huxley's conclusion that we are close kin to apes and monkeys. From that was inferred that there is a close connection between other primates and "lower"--unevolved-- forms of humans who were identified with "primitive" human beings. This matter has NOT been settled, despite the egalitarianism of Julian Huxley et al.

[js1138]

This matter has NOT been settled, despite the egalitarianism of Julian Huxley et al.

And O.J. is still looking for the real killer.

[RobbyS]

Well, as a matter of fact, the cards WILL exhibit patterns.