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

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

[Bellflower]

I not implying anything. I am asking. Specifically, I am asking why an atheist and evolutionist would prefer one over the other. I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.

Pete, do you love life. Do you enjoy the beauty and pleasure of life's existence? Every good thing in this life is an expression of the goodness and wonderfulness of God. Each drink of cold water, the blue sky, the green grass, the love we know for one another. Every good thing comes from God and is an expression of His wonderfulness. It is the LORD God who knows all that provided you with this life. If you love life I would think you would want to live forever. The Bible says that everlasting pleasure is at the right hand of God. The LORD loves us and derives pleasure from our pleasure. He derives pleasure from our love of Him. Have you ever felt this way about your children or maybe even a pet?

I think part of your analogy is right. God is so completely all knowing that we are truly stupid compared to the one who knows everything. What we know we know only partly from our finite and imperfect perspective. Not only are we stupid compared to one who knows all but we are completely impure and sinfully disgusting compared to one who is absolutely perfect and righteous. But still He cares for us. He cared enough to give His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ to be the sacrifice to pay the blood price the sins we commit require.

The Bible says those who hate God love death. Conversely those who truly love life love God. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the LIFE. No man comes to the Father but by me." Are you one who loves life and would like to live forever or do you hate life so much you would rather cease to exist? No one ceases to exist. We will go on in the presence of the glory of God or out of the presence of His glory. In heaven or in the only place we are suited for apart from His forgiveness and cleansing, in the lake of fire. Choose life or choose death. Death is separation from God.

God is seen in every good thing you have ever experienced or seen in this life. Remember when you choose to reject God you also choose to reject experiencing His eternal blessings. Imagine spending eternity in a place where not one good thing exist because you have rejected them when you rejected God. When you wake up tomorrow to the smell of a fresh cup of coffee and fill your lungs with fresh air and gaze out the window at the blue sky remember who made it all and don't reject Him. Worship Him because He is worthy of our praise. Love Him and this day choose and love life rather than death.

[GSHastings]

Do you have an argument against evolution that isn't based purely in semantic games?

What are you, athiest, or just Anti-Semantic?

that was a joke :-)

[GSHastings]

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.

That depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

If by "is" still evolution you mean a process by which a series of events take place, and they are controlled by an intelligent being, with purpose and design, than YES.

If by "is" still evolution you mean, a process involving time, chance, natural selection, with no intelligent involvement or intent, (sort of the classical interpretation of "is" Evolution), then NO.

[DaveTesla]

FPGA are one of the things I design.

FPGAs are not circuit boards but macro cells composed of
flip-flops etched on a silicon substrate just like any other I.C.
Their akin to dynamic memories or state machines.
Their logic algorithms are usually written in Verilog
or a graphical state timing cad language such as Modelsim
(by a human designer).

By leaving some of their MOS inputs un-terminated
they may react to random external electro magnetic stimulus.


The algorithm (state) is stored in a serial flash memory
and loaded into the FPGA on initialization.

With out a clock their serial flash could never load their
algorithm nor could they toggle their flip-flop CLB and output latches.
They are so dependent on clocking most contain a digital clock manager (DCM).
While this may work with a gate array it simply will not
with a FPGA.

Which leads me to to my point.

Your article (post 400) is complete bunko.....

If I were you I would refrain from using it in the future
since even the first sentence is in error.


BTW as a scientist and design engineer I am also a Christian and believe in GOD's creation.

I get along fine. And I have faith and hope..

[muir_redwoods]

Natural selection is not a philosophy, it is a mechanism that can be observed in nature. No one called me to ask my opinion about it and I don't think it is subject to opinion anyway. You might want to acquaint youself with the difference between natural selection as an observable part of the natural world and the political notion commonly called social Darwinism. Since the first is an observable fact of nature and the second a set of policies, I don't think I understand your compulsion to confuse the two.

[woodb01]

"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.

---

Then you must PASSIONATELY HATE all those evolutionists!

[woodb01]

"You are challenging science with a leap of faith, with a proposition that is supernatural, untestable, unverifiable."

** Just like evolution is supernatural, untestable, and unverifiable... :-) But then again, we don't dare talk about the secular fundamentalism of evolution.

"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."

** Again, just like evolution? This isn't just a criticism of an unsupportable theory, but the exposing of a zealous fundamentalist religious belief. It takes TOTAL BLIND FAITH to accept evolution...

**As for calling Harvard Scientists idiots, that was meant as a satirical, scoffing response at all of the evolution geniuses and brilliant minds that dismiss the things they can not support because it proves evolution is a cult-like con. Saying that the genesis of life is not part of evolution is disingenuous at best, but I understand why evolutionists hold this position. It certainly shows how silly evolution is, that it requires complete and total blind faith to believe it.

[doc30]

My point relates to the blatant abuses, misrepresentations and distortions of other fields of science by many people, primarily in the ID and creationist camps. There hasn't been too much of that on this thread, but I've seen it frequently on other threads and I've seen it thoroughly in the ID and creationist websites. Evolution does a good job of standing on it's own. Having said that, it is important to remember that all fields of science are inter-related at some level or another. Corrupt something well established in one field and, like ahouse of cards, everything else will crash around it. If you want to attack evolution, you still must accept the scientific understandings gathered from all the other fields of science and your alternate explanation for why we have biodiveristy must still be consistent with those fields, too.

The problem I see is that too many IDer and creationists aren't gethering evidence and building a body of knowledge to support their idea. Evolution has had over a century's worth of evidence. More and more evidence is found every day and what is found fits within the framework of evolution. If ID was science, then there should be an equally developed body of self consistent knowledge. There isn't. Instead, they are trying very hard to discredit evolution. That is not science. My biggest pet peeve is when they get the basics of chemistry, physics and biology wrong. It is still irksome that many people believe evolution explains the origin of life, which it does not. It is also irksome how people use the word 'theory' in a layman's sense and not in the strict context of science. That is the origin of my comment that undermining evolution undermines science - people need to change the basic scientific definitions in order to try to get traction against evolution.

[DouglasKC]

Well there are a lot of differences because it is only an analogy. One key difference is that decks of cards don't reproduce like organisms do. So in order to make the analogy work a person must manually simulate the reproduction and mutation. Of course a better idea is to get a computer to do it.
Most uses of evolutionary algorithms on computers involve a mathematical based problem to be solved in which the desired result (the solution) isn't known beforehand. Running the same algorithm multiple time can yeild many differnent results. Sometimes the result can be suprising.

So is it fair to say that the theory is untestable without inserting some type of intelligence into the testing?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Pretty difficult, actually. I believe that the very first living thing was a species, bless it's little heart."

And that would be abiogenesis, not evolution that would deal with that. Demanding that evolution explain the origin of life is willful ignorance.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Stuff it homo..." (Dashboard)

---

" So you don't actually have any real arguments against the theory of evolution, then." (Dimensio)

That WAS his argument, didn't you know? That's the best one he has put forth so far. lol And remember, he's a so-called atheist who believes that morality is a delusion of the religious morons, and that rights don't exist, only power does. 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! :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Then you must PASSIONATELY HATE all those evolutionists!"

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

[RadioAstronomer]

So what part of the posted commentary is smelly?

Just about all of it I am afraid. Sigh. Someone needed to do a bit of research before publishing that.

[bobdsmith]

I am well aware of what a FPGA is.

With out a clock their serial flash could never load their algorithm nor could they toggle their flip-flop CLB and output latches. They are so dependent on clocking most contain a digital clock manager (DCM). While this may work with a gate array it simply will not with a FPGA.

They never claimed a clock wasn't part of the FPGA. This is not the clock they are talking about. They are talking about a clock being used when the algorithm is running. The software contains no clock, nor are external clocks used as input.

The paper is found here: http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ices98/node1.html

The logic layout (of the final design):

[Dataman]

Hey, DU lurkers: If you're looking for solid evidence that conservatives are retards, please use this thread's lead article as Exhibit One.

Pinging your vacuous friends for support again?

[furball4paws]

It's a silly question. If you are any living thing, existence is preferable to non-existence.

[Sam's Army]

"...solid evidence that conservatives are retards..."

Folks have been banned for much less, no doubt.

[mikeus_maximus]

This sums up beautifully a basic point I like to make:

Evolutionists like to semantically cast the debate as "science vs. religion' or "science vs. faith", when in reality it's faith vs. faith. Honest evolutionsists know that.

Even Gould admitted that all of macroevolutionary theory is based on 3 things; (1) 1 observable event (intraspecies limited adaptation by inherent variable traits), extrapolated into an unobservable assumption that this would create new critters, (2) assumptions from similar homology and assumed structural defects, and (3) assumptions about the fossil record. Evolutionists try shoehorn any actual experimental observations into that framework of assumptions. But the farther down we look, the less logical that becomes. Ask Crick and his "little gtreen men" explanation for the DNA code.

It takes faith indeed to make these kind of assumptions and inferential leaps. Of course, it helps the True Believers to paliate their doubts and feel intellectually enlightened, when we throw in a few Latin terms and discuss the complex experiments that reveal observable facts-- facts which must then be interpreted through some interpretive model. Whether one choses MET or ID as their model is unavoidably a matter of faith. But faith should be based on logic, and I personally believe ID is much stronger in that respect. Kudo's to Anthony Few for finally being able to admit that to himself.

But most evolutionists I've talked with fail to recognize where observation leaves off, and interpretation begins. It takes a special kind of myopia to gloss over that distinction and accept Neodarwinism on faith. And I just don't have that kind of faith.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

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...

[DoctorMichael]

If the support for intelligent design continues to grow, it spells the end of the cult of evolution. The secular fundamentalist opiate for the atheists will cease to exist.

Thanks! You are inadvertently making my points for me. I suggest you actually READ Kuhn's book rather than blather on as the Creationists usually do. Nonetheless, I'll make the key point one more time (a point made numerous times, again and again on these worthless, yet insidious Threads): Science does NOT conduct itself through Democratic processes such as taking a vote; It deals in facts, observations and data, things that are missing in Creationist Theory.

Me: So what the author is saying is that "Evolutionary Theory" can be overturned by the mere postulation of an opposing "Creationist Theory".

You: do you extend the SAME assumption to intelligent design (rhetorical question here, evolutionists do not do so!)...

Once again, to be clear: The Creationist author FALSELY states that "Evolutionary Theory" can be overturned by the mere postulation of an opposing "Creationist Theory". QED - Thomas Kuhn's scholarly work.

Admit it, you don't like intelligent design because it explains the gaps............

No! I don't like it because it has not, to the present time, explained anything. In addition, the continued trumpeting of this crap (either by those unconciously too ignorant of the methodology of Western Science to see the falsehood and errors of Creationism, or those who are evil enough to want to conciously destroy Conservatism by posting this crap in Troll-like fashion again and again) destroys the credibility of this site and the Conservative Movement.

.........that evolution will never be able to address.

Evolution has explained these. I refer you to any of the Lists of Links on 'PatrickHenry' or 'Ichneumon' Home Pages posted ad nauseum on these Threads.

In conclusion, please STOP destroying the credibility of this site and the Conservative Movement by posting Creationist crap.

Best of Luck with your personal problems.