The Origin of Speciousness (Darwinism is an intrinsically atheistic theory. If...)

The American Prowler ^ | 11/18/2005 | George Neumayr

[qam1]

That's the lamest Dodge I've seen

[RunningWolf]

Do you know how to use the word 'tenets'? In this case I use that term in relation to the Chicoms adopting some of the ideas & philosophy of darwinist evolutionism as a component of their agenda to eradicate religion, and ensure the victory of marxist atheism as follows

A.the basic knowledge about life
1.the origin of life
2. the rule on human evolution ie; (man descended from ape etc)
3.the universe,

I know more than you will ever give me credit for, and I wish you could address what I wrote without doing an 'IOW' on it (among many other things).

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

I don't think it is necessary to chose between what stalin did as opposed to mao, when we have documents to what the ChiComs are doing from late 2004 .

Wolf

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Do you know how to use the word 'tenets'? In this case I use that term in relation to the Chicoms adopting some of the ideas & philosophy of darwinist evolutionism as a component of their agenda to eradicate religion, and ensure the victory of marxist atheism as follows"

Evolution is agnostic as to the existence of a creator.

" A.the basic knowledge about life
1.the origin of life
2. the rule on human evolution ie; (man descended from ape etc)
3.the universe,"

The origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. How does having basic basic knowledge about *the universe* facilitate the ChiComs? Why is there a problem with it? As for point #2, universal common descent is a fact. Why would one not teach it? Why would one have to lie about it and say that it hasn't been well supported?

"I know more than you will ever give me credit for, and I wish you could address what I wrote without doing an 'IOW' on it (among many other things)."

What you haven't done is tell us what the tenets of darwinistic evolution are. 2 of the above 3 very vague points are not even about evolution. And HOW are the ChiComs using these *tenets*? The only thing you have listed is their misuse of science in general to erroneously say there is no God. Science can neither say there is or there isn't a God. It's not a scientific question. They seem to be almost as ignorant of evolution and science as you are. And scientists are not responsible for the ignorant ways that some people use their theories. That in NO way speaks to the validity of the theory as science (a subject you have willfully ignored).

[Quark2005]

I don't think it is necessary to chose between what stalin did as opposed to mao, when we have documents to what the ChiComs are doing from late 2004 .

Exactly. Neither has to do with the validity of evolution as a scientific theory. Care to say something that actually pertains to this topic? Communist political tactics have nothing to do with the validity of science.

[muir_redwoods]

"The theory excludes God as a cause of nature, he writes, and any "rapprochement" between science and religion is not "desirable" and not consistent with Darwin's thought."

For what should be (but won't be) the last time, neither Darwin nor his theory discusses the causes of nature. He discusses the origin of speciation. The beginnings of life and the origin of the universe are quite outside of the Theory of Evolution. Honest people should stop conflating the two wholly different ideas. Dishonest people and fools will continue to not recognize the difference.

[Quick1]

I consider myself more of an agnostic, but one of my favorite quotes sums up why I don't believe that the Christian God is necessarily the "right" God.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts

[RunningWolf]

google then read the sources that you choose from these searches

Results 1,820,000 for darwinism evolution

Results 107,000 for marxist atheism darwin evolution

Results 813 for darwinism evolutionism tenets

Results 349 for darwinist evolutionism tenets

Results 161 for darwinistic evolutionism tenets

I have work to do, out.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Go to the document I put up, and you will see how they are using it. I took the text right out of their document.

Wolf

[Quick1]

A.the basic knowledge about life 1.the origin of life 2. the rule on human evolution ie; (man descended from ape etc) 3.the universe,

Congratulations, you got all three completely wrong! Bob, what do we have for our winner?

If you are truly interested in finding out what the Theory of Evolution ACTUALLY is, I suggest a good place of starting out to be here: Definition of Evolution. Here's a snippet:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I already knew how to use google. I asked YOU to give me some of the tenets of evolution (you know, what the theory says scientifically). You obviously can't. Or won't; if you did try to address the science, you would actually have to back up your bluster with facts and logic. And you know you wouldn't do so well then. Any shmoo can yell, *You're a member of the Evo-Cult!*. That takes no effort, no knowledge, and no courage.

[Quick1]

*crickets chirping*

I hope the silence means you are reading my linked article.

[RunningWolf]

I'm starting my quarterly shampoo of carpets, but will read your article and get back to you.

To guitarman, you know that most on all sides are guilty of the name calling.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" To guitarman, you know that most on all sides are guilty of the name calling."

Even most of the creationists will at least attempt to address the science though. I have yet to see you do so.

[Gumlegs]

The fact that Survival of the Fittest was used in Nazi political thought, however, is very topical.

And God ... ?

[Tench_Coxe]

"And God ... ?"
Is claimed to fight for both sides in a war. While a nice attempt to misdirect my reply, it fails.
Since we're posting links, here's a nice bit on eugenics and its origins: Eugenics . Since it is a Wikipedia link, maybe you can rush over there and change the entry in a manner similar to using the eraser on a white board. Then again, just using a search engine turns up many more links, so I suspect you'll be pretty busy.

And just in case you're interested, there is a Holocaust site that has put online Robert Jay Lifton's book 'The Nazi Doctors'. Because of copyright, I cannot post some interesting tidbits from that book ( although I do have it in hardcopy ).
The fact that the Nazi biomedical community ( and the socio-political arena ) adopted 'science' that found it's basis in Darwin is irrefutable. At least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that.

[Imnotalib]

Darwin never meant his theory to preclude God, and specifically acknowledged God's existence in Origin of Species.
What I think is very interesting is the modern idea that if science can explain it, then God had nothing to do with it, as though God has to have waved a magic wand in order to have accomplished anything. He's not allowed to have used anything explicable.
For example, several years ago, scientists announced the discovery of a Nova at the right time and place to have been the Star of Bethlehem. The feeling was, another myth explained!!! My own thought was, how incredible that God could cause a star to go Nova at exactly the right time for its light to arrive on earth just before the birth of His Son.
I certainly hope doubters will examine the evidence before (or even after) they reject God. A couple of things worth reading are Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". The former examines the theory of evolution from a biochemical standpoint in great detail. It is a great book. The latter is a classic that most people have heard of but don't read. It makes some great points.

[Gumlegs]

The fact that the Nazi biomedical community ( and the socio-political arena ) adopted 'science' that found it's basis in Darwin is irrefutable. At least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that.

Fine. Now will you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that the misuse of a scientific theory has no bearing whatever on its accuracy?

My point in posting the "Gott mit uns" picture is to illustrate that the Nazis used everything they could, God included.

[Tench_Coxe]

"Now will you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that the misuse of a scientific theory has no bearing whatever on its accuracy?"

I have stated such on another thread ( that the theory of evolution is misused). Accuracy is a different argument.