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 evolution 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)
"Then you must PASSIONATELY HATE all those evolutionists!"
No, just people like you who feel it is OK to lie for God. :)
"morality is a delusion of the religious morons"
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"
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.
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.
Take any typical public school textbook that deals with the subject, and let's see where the fantasy resides.
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.
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.
If we shut our eyes and say "there's no such thing as evolution" placemarker
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.
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!)
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.
And O.J. is still looking for the real killer.
Well, as a matter of fact, the cards WILL exhibit patterns.
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.