The Manticore!
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)
The Manticore!
Piltdown Man.
The organism itself is the physical process. The biological processes of the organism determines how able that organism is at reproduction.
The biological processes of the organism are determined by its traits. Traits that hinder the organisms ability to replicate will tend to not be passed on and will reduce in number. Traits that aid the organisms ability to replicate will end up being present in more organisms.
Never mind that one, anyway!
Evolution would predict that the Manticore is impossible. Can ID do that?
From the site:
Topsel gives no indication that he considers the Manticore to be an imaginary beast, which is hard to explain, given his reticence about some other fantastical creatures. ‘This beast or rather Monster... is bred among the Indians, having a treble row of teeth beneath and above, whose greatness, roughness, and feet are like a Lyons, his face and ears unto like a mans; his eyes gray, his colour red, his tail like the tail of a Scorpion, of the earth, armed with a sting, casting forth sharp pointed quils’The Manticore, it is well known, has a fondness of human flesh, and Topsel claims that ‘although India be full of divers ravening Beasts, yet none of them are titled with a title of Anthropophagi, that is to say Man-eaters: except only this Mantichora’. His commitment to the idea that the Manticore is real is evident when he claims that ‘When the Indians take a Whelp of this Beast, they all to bruise the Buttocks and tail thereof, that so it may never be fit to bring sharp quils, afterwards it is tamed without peril.’
Looks intelligently designed to me.
" Have you remained pure . . . or did you screw up somewhere along the way?"
As I grew up I had the ability to make increasingly moral choices. Some were good, others not so much. I do not claim that I am perfect, only that when I was born I didn't have the capacity to make moral choices; I was innocent, as are all babies when they are born.
Your outlook re Elsie's post 395 disturbs me.
Would you also post "tongue in cheek" that you had caused someone to lose their faith?
Especially if the person referenced has said that he had lost his faith as a result of your actions (at least partially)?
It doesn't square with the rest of your post expressing warm concern for mine. Which, by the way I appreciate.
placemarker
Natural selection explains adaptation to a specific environment better than any of the effects you cited. It is the aggregate response of a species to the stimuli of its environment and the species' adaptation to it.
Species don't exhibit responses, individuals do...just as populations don't have physical traits, individuals do.
What you're essentialy promoting here is psychology, and psychology is not a science.
If natural selection can not explain physical changes within an organism, that are't already explained by mutation, drift, recombination, and heredity, then it has no business being in a scientific theory.
What is so hard to understand about that.
I'll tell, you guys have worn me out. Why is it so hard to answer a simple question about a mechanism, that supposedly is an observabble fact of nature.
I see what you mean. Thanks.
The biological processes of the organism are determined by its traits. Traits that hinder the organisms ability to replicate will tend to not be passed on and will reduce in number. Traits that aid the organisms ability to replicate will end up being present in more organisms.
...yet more nonsense.
Time to go back to lurker mode, and also spend more time with my Lowden. This is just a waste of time.
"My expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention," said David R. Liu, a professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard.
You've the least little bit of wiggle room here, if you want to bargain like a shyster. The professor did say that he believes origins can be explained without reference to 'divine intervention' but he did not explicitly endorse evolution, so maybe he thinks there is a "third way."
First again, I dont think what Elsie did was with malice so of course I would have no trouble using tongue in cheek humor. Each of us has different personalities. People are different, Christians are different. I especially will give my Christians friends the needle by stating...I better not listen to this music around you..I'd hate for you to lose your faith or stumble.
They understand it and they "get it".
I certainly could be in the same positition as Elsie...as someone being blamed for others loss of faith. Thats their perception then and it would be difficult to defend myself from it. I dont believe the premise and such dont believe his "blaming" is just.
Daily around here I may get insulted and even so much so that I lose all faith in humanity.
Should I moan, groan, whimper and cry each day blaming people for making me lose my faith in humanity.
Of course not, its silly...and so is this blame game narby and others have with Elsie.
Anyone in a similar position (who loses their faith) did not lose their faith becuase of a person...theyve decided to walk away from the Lord by their own choosing. Anyone can, we all have a free will. When you post a picture of Elsie twisting the arm of narby forcing him to sign a Christianity release card...well then I may get upset. It depends on how nice narby was to me that week. (joke, joke, joke)
And the mistake you are making is assuming you know what you are talking about. I never said anything like that. Lots of poeple that believe in God understand science. It's just the whacko creos that are lost.
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.