Is There A Conspiracy Of Atheists To Overthrow Christianity?

Originally posted by melatonin
Science doesn't give a damn about your religion. That's the beauty of it. It just doesn't care. It allows people of all faiths and non-faith to study nature and advance knowledge.

No but Atheism gives a damn and thats what I am against

Science is not attacking religion in schools. This is quite the projection here.

No but Atheism does and they use this science like a sword

Nope, I gave you my motives. Isn't that what you asked for?

No, I never asked you what your motives were, you assumed what mine were first.

Come on, con, give me a break. So far you've spouted all kinds of nonsense about atheists from Dawkins wanting to wipe out religious education from schools, to Dover being an atheist crusade.

You want me to show you what Dawkins says and does? It isn't a problem I should be able to get enough off my backup files to upload and you can see what I am talking about.


I have reviewed the scopes trials and have seen Darrow's arguments as nothing more then typical deceptions used in Debates for years. I see the strawman being setup before Bryan when Darrow asks about the whale that swallowed Jonah and wince while wishing it was me he tried pulling that trick on.



I know quite a bit about this science called evolution Mel, I know its sordid sick and disgusting history as well. I was once like you,, cocky arrogant using all kinds of tricks setting up strawmen so I could burn the foolish church mouse down to a crisp.


The Bible talks about a man named Saul of Tarsus who persecuted Christians with impunity until he was blinded on the road to Damascus. He became the most prolific author of the Bible or the Apostle Paul whose keen intellect and skills in Debate and writing served the lord our God in ways you may never understand but they remind me of people like I used to be before the lord actually confronted me and convicted me in my heart.


I didn't ask for it hell I didn't even believe in it but Ill tell you this my friend,, if he wants you,, he is going to tell you and you WILL listen and listen well. You are someone if you have even noticed that I pay a little more respect to in my posts.


I respect your intelligence and I respect the fact that I might be one of the links in a long chain of other Christians providence has brought about in our paths crossing in the hopes that you feel the lord calling you. To someone like you, the postulate on its face is moronic I know but to me,,,

to me I would say that if he didn't I wouldn't be having this conversation.

That isn't up to me.

People like us ex-atheists have more of a burden to live down knowing what we have done what we did to hurt others claiming a science as our own and using evolution as a tool box filled with lies that ridicule people of faith while keeping those that might otherwise find the lord from seeking him.


Whats really hard for you to acknowledge is that you do it without even knowing it for you do not know, what you do or who you serve. We all serve a God Mel, to some it is Drugs, others it is Porn or money then some serve science and like drugs that can make you an addict or make you well, so science has its evil side and that side is evolution.


Their are many like us who are ex-atheists and I sometimes wonder if he doesn't allow people like us to get so good at destroying Christians just so he can use us as a tool to defend those same Christians whose very standards of social behavior don't allow them to learn the dishonesty and deceptive tools used by people like us.


I was talking to sizzler last night in a pvt message telling her how I sometimes would like to re-invent Christianity to make it more appealing and to change many of the standards of behavior allowing for more latitude in the way they treat others who are antagonistic.


The lord is very hard on me for saying such things, you have no idea and I suppose I will be reminded of that again by playing as dirty as Atheists when it comes to exploiting them in their true beliefs their very real agendas.


Yeah I'm crazy all right,, crazy like a fox.


It takes a lot to knock someone down like me. Formally educated with a degree in communications, I travelled all over the country giving seminars as a keynote speaker, Master of Ceremonies one of the top educators in my field. I spoke on everything from how to be successful in my industry on subjects like Chemistry and Marketing making as much as a $1000 a day including per diem. I had the world by the ass so to speak.


So lets begin by using the same attacks on Atheism that Atheist use on Christianity shall we?


Lets see how well it stands up to the truth where this time when you ask for proof, you know yourself exactly what I am talking about and substantiating it isn't a problem but by all means,, call my bluff in this debate.



You know all that garbage atheists spew about Hitler being a Christian?
Well lets examine that on behalf of Christianity only the WAY atheist do and see if we can't use that to benefit the religious. I mean after all,, Whats good for the goose I always say.


Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."


Henry Osborne, who was professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, said that blacks were further back on the evolutionary ladder (nearer the apes) than whites, and "The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens."


Darwin's disciple, T. H. Huxley, wrote, "It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man."


s103.photobucket.com...


Gee I wonder how many of the Black community would take to this or what it's doing to students in public schools as they are taught they came from animals and are without any purpose in life? Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of a Darwinian Science called Evolution?


Tell me Mel?


was Darwin even a real Scientist?


I'm sure you know the answer to that.


If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that blacks were closer to man's ape "ancestors" than the white race and behind closed doors it is STILL as racist at the Atheist meetings I've been to as it was when it started.


Should I go on?


Edwin Conklin, professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said that "Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of the white race to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of the races, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of the white race will be"


Wow this is Science is it? No wonder Intelligent Design seems so much more palatable. At least we know that EVERYONE was ,, like nature, perfect in that delicate balance and all are without so called imperfections.


It seems quite the contradiction in terms of Sam Harris saying wouldn't it be nice when things like Race are no longer an issue.
It makes me wonder just what he means by that.


I know most people that applauded him either "knew" what was implied or they didn't but Race has nothing to do with the intelligence where Bigotry and Prejudice are well known to be beliefs that are taught.

Do you see prejudice in Science when Atheism says keep your hands off it?


Why is that? You INSIST it is for religious motivations and I will tell you it is not for I too think Religion has no place in the classroom but Science is politically polluted with self serving egomaniacs who exalt man while at the same time picking out so called imperfections as negative mutations or to criticize the Zebras rear leg bone structure in ways They say can be improved when God knew what he was doing creating the Zebra.


Improving the efficiency of the Zebras speed by re-designing its rear legs doesn't improve it when it keeps a lion from catching its next meal. Atheists continue to spot flaws in everything and are blind to the absolute perfection seen in the delicate balance of nature.


The major haters of the last 100 years have been evolutionists. Men like Nietzsche (who often said God was dead, called for the breeding of a master race, and for the annihilation of millions of misfits), Hitler, Mussolini, Marx, Engels, and Stalin were all outspoken evolutionists, and these people and their theories have been responsible for the slaughter of multi-millions of people, and the destruction of freedom all over the earth.


It is amazing that so many liberals, radicals, fascists, communists and the easily impressed worship the Racist Darwin and his phony science that gets Continually less elegant as they keep groping for more ways to obfuscate the scientific vernacular to fool an unknowing public hungry to be told its intelligent by agreeing to their evolution as Science.


When I see posts like I have seen already laced with the same bigotry and the same prejudice but now it isn't blacks but the religion they were drawn to because it answered the prayers to a God that brought about Civil Rights and freedom from slavery. So now it is to attack Religion using the same silly metaphors regarding the brain and who is less intelligent.

What I find so ironic is that all the things Atheism has accomplished using evolution as a tool to "substantiate" their ideas. What they blame Christianity for in acts they are so guilty of in deeds.


From Genocide to those silly offhand comments made about us being child abusers by teaching our children about a loving God and that they were created for a reason and NOT the end result of some shapeless mass of undulating flesh at one time.


is it any wonder why Partial Birth Abortion is ok with most Atheists who say they are rational in morality. That using the same old un-religion to separate politics with religion the same way you wish to do in science as with every single aspect of our world is not just the sick and twisted fantasy of Atheists long term goals, but the actual agenda they are currently seeking funding to bring to fruition.

That and the final removal of it from our Government and its constitution.


The Science of evolution is a big part of that eventuality and knowing its history and its beginnings, what it intends to do, by the comments I see used by them already. I spent many years as one of the best agent provocateurs for its Grand Designs on our society to finally bring science to its proper place.

That is playing God in some Frankenstein pitri dish where people are created customized and without imperfection. Like the Hitler Youth and the Aryan race the visions and ideals of Atheist and reminder that a monster like that was also a wonderful orator like Dawkins, Hitchins and Harris. They have more reason to keep the idea of a designer out of his science class then I do to put one in let me tell you.


I don't expect you to understand the difference there is between the two but I do the rejection of such an idea that if it was true, that you could be proven wrong unequivocally absolutely wrong that there is in fact a creator, your willful desire to think there is nothing more life has in store for us except a certain death is, for you anyway, the only thing I will agree with you about.


You can say my motives are religious and what motivates me but I have more reasons to know why Atheism and Evolution are one in the same, in purpose and in its Agenda for our Country


THAT is what motivates me Mel


and Religion has got nothing


to do with it.


- Con



[edit on 19-1-2008 by Conspiriology]

Gah! cant get this video posted here right

- Con

[edit on 19-1-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by Conspiriology
No but Atheism gives a damn and thats what I am against

No but Atheism does and they use this science like a sword

No, I never asked you what your motives were, you assumed what mine were first.

I'm getting confused now, con...

Atheism I suppose you could say cares. Not all atheists do though.

You want me to show you what Dawkins says and does? It isn't a problem I should be able to get enough off my backup files to upload and you can see what I am talking about.

OK. I don't get your Dawkins obsession, but I suppose we all have our cross to bear

I know its sordid sick and disgusting history as well. I was once like you,, cocky arrogant using all kinds of tricks setting up strawmen so I could burn the foolish church mouse down to a crisp.

Awww, schucks :blush:

I didn't ask for it hell I didn't even believe in it but Ill tell you this my friend,, if he wants you,, he is going to tell you and you WILL listen and listen well. You are someone if you have even noticed that I pay a little more respect to in my posts.

I respect your intelligence and I respect the fact that I might be one of the links in a long chain of other Christians providence has brought about in our paths crossing in the hopes that you feel the lord calling you. To someone like you, the postulate on its face is moronic I know but to me,,,

Well, I do respect you myself, con. It might not appear so sometimes, but I do. Although, I think you're well off target half the time in your efforts to denigrate evolution, and even atheism.

I don't see why your bothered though, con. As you say, if your heavenly father dude wants me, he knows where to find me. He's meant to be quite capable. It always amazed me that this omnipotent superhero thing needed little humans to run around converting people for him, it's almost as if it's actually more a case of impotent, maybe even absent.

People like us ex-atheists have more of a burden to live down knowing what we have done what we did to hurt others claiming a science as our own and using evolution as a tool box filled with lies that ridicule people of faith while keeping those that might otherwise find the lord from seeking him.

Don't think I agree. If you claimed a science as your own, I guess you were wrong. As for evolution and lies, I guess you never understood anyway, many people don't, it doesn't care about your faith. It describes one aspect of nature, and it does so quite successfully.

so science has its evil side and that side is evolution.

Dunno, thought that would have been quantum mechanics....have you ever tried to derive schrodinger's equation? Now that is evil...

That statement of yours is pretty sad, con. Evolutionary theory is as evil as the theory of plate tectonics.

allow them to learn the dishonesty and deceptive tools used by people like us.

Don't speak for me. Cheers. I take my integrity seriously enough.

I was talking to sizzler last night in a pvt message telling her how I sometimes would like to re-invent Christianity to make it more appealing

I find the CofE quite endearing if that's any help.

as Atheists when it comes to exploiting them in their true beliefs their very real agendas.

I dunno, what is the agenda? I might have missed the memo.

I guess it would include seeing organised religion lose power in society. Cool.

You know all that garbage atheists spew about Hitler being a Christian?

He was certainly no atheist.

Edward Simon, a Jewish biology professor at Purdue University, wrote, "I don't claim that Darwin and his theory of evolution brought on the holocaust; but I cannot deny that the theory of evolution, and the atheism it engendered, led to the moral climate that made a holocaust possible."

Heh, yeah, all those Nazi germans with 'gott mit uns' on their belts were atheists.

Could the incredible number and depth of our social problems be the result of a Darwinian Science called Evolution?

Tell me Mel?

I dunno, I don't see why it would be. The south of the USA with all those evolution deniers is as violent and ridden with social issues as the more liberal evolution accepting areas. Indeed, it is these areas that were most fervently supporting slavery.

As for eugenics, you think your own sort of evangelicals were so guilt free? Heh.

Evangelical engagements with eugenics

In an age when upstanding Congregationalists and Unitarians were urging Americans to produce Fewer and Better Babies (Eugenics Publishing House, 35th edition, 1929), Sanger was in step with the times. By mid-century, most mainstream Protestant leaders agreed that the nation needed to calibrate carefully the number and type of babies—and immigrants—allowed.

www.christianitytoday.com...

Eugenics was supported by all kinds of people from all kinds of philosophies. It wasn't even a new idea, been around for thousands of years. It was just bad science. Evolution would actually suggest keeping a large and varied gene pool, not a streamlined one. It even happened during a lull in scientific support for Darwin. At a time when US states were legislating against Darwin in schools, and for eugenics in society.

was Darwin even a real Scientist?

Yes.

If Darwin were alive today, he would be hooted out of the scientific community because he was not a trained scientist and because of his outrageous views about black people. Darwin thought that blacks were closer to man's ape "ancestors" than the white race and behind closed doors it is STILL as racist at the Atheist meetings I've been to as it was when it started.

Look, even if he did, it wouldn't matter. He was actually a supporter of abolition even before your southern brethren were fighting for the right to paaaarty with negros in chains. Abraham Lincoln had similar attitudes, and so did George McReady Price (the first major pseudoscientific creationist of the 20th century). So did numerous people during that period, christian and otherwise.

And I love that you quotemined Huxley's piece arguing for emancipation, heh.

This is purely an argument from consequences. And a pretty naff one at that. It has no impact on the scientific validity of evolutionary theory. None at all. Even if evolution supported unequality between social groups, it's like whining about Germ theory because it means that people die of plagues.

Should I go on?

Oh, please do. I like a bit of entertaining sophist rhetoric on a saturday afternoon. I think Augustine was actually worried about your type of approach though...

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn.

When I see posts like I have seen already laced with the same bigotry and the same prejudice but now it isn't blacks but the religion they were drawn to because it answered the prayers to a God that brought about Civil Rights and freedom from slavery.

Of course, heh. Your god actually liked to tell people how to best keep slaves, is that the sort of civil rights you mean?

The fact you say Stalin was a big fan of evolutionary theory is quite funny. He actually had his own scientists with their own theory.

Mendeleyev's "periodic system of elements" clearly shows how very important in the history of nature is the emergence of qualitative changes out of quantitative changes. The same thing is shown in biology by the theory of neo-Lamarckism, to which neo-Darwinism is yielding place.

www.marx2mao.com...

Eventually he had his pseudoscientist Lysenko with his own Lamarkian theory. It actually ruined his big plans, as the application of the bunkum theory led to massive crop failures.

And as for Hitler, yeah, evolution said to kill jews, nothing to do with the anti-semitism fostered by years of christian attitudes like those of Luther.

I have more reasons to know why Atheism and Evolution are one in the same

And every one of them is wrong.

Hwyl fawr.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by melatonin]

Without having to rehash all of the mighty arguements that invalidate atheism, I would say that there is always going to be a struggle between the atheist and the Christian. Both are as religious as the other eccept that atheists won't admit to being religious. They have their learned scholars, their teachers, and their scriptures, they just don't like the thought of being religious. But they are. So it is impossible to bring together to separate schools of thought in such opposition to each other. So the struggle goes on.

reply to post by Maya432


You know I went from being religious to atheist to agnostic. On that journey I learned a few things. Atheism is based just as much on faith as is Theism. The Theists take the existence of a god 100% on faith. Atheists BELIEVE in the non-existence of a god 100% on faith. 2 sides of the same coin. Both get pretty irrational when their stance is challenged. I find is really funny that the Atheists in their wisdom fail to see the flaw in their reasoning. It's pretty easy to poke holes in any religion. Most are full of contradictions. They fail to see it is impossible to know or even prove the non-existence of a being which is supposed to exist OUTSIDE of our reality. We are limited to physical reality and as such can't see beyond it. Is thee a god or gods? Maybe and then again maybe not. Is there life after death? The same answer applies here. Only way to truly KNOW is to die. It's hilarious that both sides are 100% sure they are right.


[edit on 1/19/2008 by norman619]

Originally posted by norman619
Atheists BELIEVE in the non-existence of a god 100% on faith. 2 sides of the same coin

Heh, no they don't. I don't doubt some do. Very few in my experience.

Continuing con's Dickie Dawkins obsession, even he doesn't.

Atheism and its related philosophies are necessarily popular on sites like ATS. This board is dedicated to conspiracy, and the essential core of conspiracy is that the "establishment" is up to something, and the theorist is therefore against the "establishment." Of all the myriad institutions of human existence, religion is a extremely popular establishment to target. This is because the historical actions of religion make those who oppose it feel superior - for they are "against" the "religion" which has "enslaved" mankind.

In reality such crusaders against religion would be better off targeting their hatred toward the men and women who have abused religion to their ends. They are the same men and women who have done the same thing to political institutions, educational institutions, and all the other varied institutions that make up common society. But doing so would cause them to have to be introspective of their actions - to realize that the world is not black and white, and no societal institution (including - gasp - religion) is "evil." The people who use the institution to their advantage are, but it says nothing about the substance of the institution itself.

But I have to say reading some of this thread has been very revealing. Atheism is a dogma that is becoming increasingly fashionable as its adherents proclaim its "reason," "logic," and virtues over religion. But when you read the posts by some atheists what do you see?

- A zealotry of hatred towards any belief system other than atheism.
- An utter abhorrence for any institution of religion, and a continual hasty generalization of selected religious followers to the entire religion.
- Complete intolerance of everything that disagrees with them.

I would offer that these selected atheists have much in common with the crusaders or islamic extremists.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

As an atheist i have nooooo problem with anyones religion. My main problem is that in many places, such as the mid-east it set the foundation for the growth of radicalism, which is the real problem. I also believe it should be kept out of public schools, and that issues such as stem cell research should be decided by rational discussion not religious ferver.

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
I would offer that these selected atheists are no worse in their ideology than the crusaders or islamic extremists.

So some atheists posting in this thread are 'no worse' than groups of religious fanatics who murder people they view as enemies?

Rather a flaky comparison methinks. I agree they are no worse, but I'd go further, they are not even in the same ballpark.

In one, we have blood-thirsty religious fanatics supposedly doing god's will by murdering heathens. In the second we have some atheists with rather firm opinions about religion posting on the intertubz.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Please define Atheist for me. Last I checked Atheists believe there is no such thing as a god.

reply to post by melatonin


(The Crusades had nothing to do with religion except a religious facade, and everything to do with politics. But its easier to bash religion.)

Fanatical hatred against religion does a disservice to reasonable and logical atheists who do not spend their time bashing everyone else's belief system, and it puts those with such hatred on the level of religious fanaticism.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

There is a consparicy to overthrow christianity. Actually there are several.

Some or by other religions.

One is by God.

Originally posted by norman619
Please define Atheist for me. Last I checked Atheists believe there is no such thing as a god.

A person who doesn't have a belief in deities. A position of non-belief in gods.

A- (without)

Theism (belief in deities)

Originally posted by LightinDarkness
(The Crusades had nothing to do with religion except a religious facade, and everything to do with politics. But its easier to bash religion.)

Yup, that's what some like to say. I think they had both religious and political aims. Indeed, some of the real-world aims of most organised religions intersect with politics.

Fanatical hatred against religion does a disservice to reasonable and logical atheists who do not spend their time bashing everyone else's belief system, and it puts those with such hatred on the level of religious fanaticism.

But I don't really see any fanatical hatred towards religion in this thread. I see people who don't like it at all, and maybe suggest it has negative impacts on society, and would like to see it 'overthrown' (or christianity in particular).

But to compare such positions to crusading murdering christians and suiciding bombing islamofascists is a bit remiss. If you want to say 'militant' or perhaps dogmatic atheists, OK, I disagree but it's more bearable and less histrionic.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by melatonin]

Who cares? Thank God the christians are just too strong.
Resistance is futile. Surrender to the unconditional love
of the Lord Jesus Christ. It is your destiny.
Wecome home to heaven. All of your questions will be answered.

[edit on 19-1-2008 by Eurisko2012]

reply to post by melatonin


Actually the historical evidence shows the crusades were completely political, but a religious facade was used to cover this. You are yet again confusing the followers of religion with religion itself. I have already talked about this, so I won't go over it again.

I am not going to go through and quote line by line the numerous examples of people in this thread who have done nothing but bashed religion. Its quite obvious. You even said this, there are people who want to "overthrow" religion - this is not fanatical? WHAT IS? Of course, this deep hatred of religion and desire to overthrow multiple systems of belief for BILLIONS of people has no relation to religious zealots who overthrow opposing systems of belief.....

...oh wait. But there is a relation.

Originally posted by sizzle
I have been involved in several very heated discussions lately, here on ATS, between Christians and Atheists. I must say that it troubles me very deeply. I have found myself lashing out at others in defense of my beliefs. This is out of character for me. In the REAL world, per se, this never happens to me. I do have friends who are either Atheist or Agnostic, and we are able to discuss things amongst ourselves civilly.

The links to Atheist websites that have been introduced in these topic threads, are frightening. They seem to be trying to incite some type of action against believers of Christianity. Is this really necessary? The thing I look at is; Most of us are deeply troubled at being at war with Iraq. I believe that most of us can agree on that., Christian and Atheist alike. The other is that there is wide-spread belief that the affairs of our government is in serious trouble. Can we agree on that? There is a lot of troubling things going on, such as the possibility of a police State and/or a NWO. As the old saying goes, "A house divided against itself, cannot stand."

I would like to propose that we stop the bickering on this issue, and band together on the more important issue of saving our country. I think that this is the most serious issue that we have at hand. I apologize for any statement that I might have made that would have seemed offensive to anyone. Can we start over?
I would like to propose here that we start reconciling valid, deeply thought out ways to stop this runaway train, called the U.S. Government, as it now stands. I know that there are some very fine and intelligent minds here on this website. I have seen it over and over. Let's stop tearing each other to bits and start trying to fix our country. This invitation goes out to members outside the country as well. Because I have seen their concern many times, and some of their viewpoints. So how about, let's get them all together in one place?
Folks, the condition of our country is too important for us to be fighting amongst ourselves. Let's call a truce on this type of fighting and try to do something constructive. Any ideas?

Don't worry, your just being paranoid, there are no such actions taking place to over throw christians. Athiest are just expressing their selves, just like how christians express themselves on tv and say harry potter, halloween and most things are evil. I'm not an athiest, some of my fiends are. There's no such plan.

Rush is right in one respect and this is where morality comes in

mfile.akamai.com...

This was very interesting and in just 150 years we see the most diverse breed of animal in a story that just has science groping for answers especially with one Biologist that contends all breeds had these adaptations existing in there DNA to begin with. He says breeding by humans didn't start the process but happened quite by accident


www.pbs.org...

Does it really make more sense to state that dogs "have evolved a spectacular diversity of mandible shapes" instead of saying "dogs were created with a spectacular diversity of mandible shapes"?.

People like Dawkins are simply handing us a piece of evolutionist dogma, and we are to blindly accept it. This is the result of the dumbing down process of feeding our schoolchildren evolutionist propaganda practically from the time they pick up their first textbook on science on into their college years.

Our public education system is made up of special interest groups designed to discourage individual thought and critical analysis on topics such as evolution, which still remains a vaguely defined pseudo-theory that all creatures mysteriously descended from some primordial soup. I find that as big a pile of,, whats the word you use for it Mel?? Oh yeah Pfffl!

By the time they reach college they have become so indoctrinated into the dogma through this process of group-think that they sit spellbound in a science class and automatically accept anything that the professor will say to them: "Please check your brains in at the door and pick them up on the way out. Now class, take my word for it, dogs evolved."

As is human nature, the majority of men who tested this theory were out to prove what they already believed to be true. They are kind of stumped with the Dog however.


Where they differ is how this process works. The evolutionist would postulate that the earliest dog would have less genetic information, and that through chance and natural selection all of these other species of dogs evolved with new genetic information to suite their various living situations.

The creationists, on the other hand, would postulate that the original dog ancestor (actually ancestors, male and female) had a greater amount of genetic information given to them by design, and that through natural selection various breeds of dogs through migration branched out into the different varieties that we see today, with each different breed having a selection of the original genetic gene pool suited for their mode of life according to their particular geographic and climatic conditions.

The evolutionist believes that all the different families of organisms have descended from some one common ancestor of all of life millions of years ago through these fortuitous chance variations, while the creationist would postulate that there are distinct barriers between the different families of organisms that have never been crossed, that descent from an original ancestor has limits, probably at the Family level of organisms, and that even this descent is not evolution by the standard definition, since no new genetic material is produced

Maurice Richardson, a world wide authority on reptiles, has written of snakes: "The unique feature of snakes is their limblessness., There is no doubt about their evolution from some four-legged, lizard like ancestor, though precisely how this happened we do not know."
(The Fascination of Reptiles, Maurice Richardson, pp. 14,)


Again this all based on the presumption of evolution, known as circular reasoning, i.e. attempting to prove something by using the conclusion itself as proof. Evolutionists again and again commit this error, while criticizing Christians for believing blindly in dogma.

Evolution has become a "magic" word, explaining everything, while telling us nothing, with statements such as "evolution has produced the remarkable ability of the for this to do that", yet never stating just how evolution accomplished this.

The longest 11 seconds he ever agonized was Dawkins being asked a question about DNA I posted the video to above is just another example of questions that to this day he has not answered with anything other then pure pfffle

evolution has had its rabid supporters who have set out to “prove” it by all possible means. It supports their atheism and I understand that.

Naturally I would for the same reasons he wants to keep any other ideas out. It's easier to keep up then catch up, it is easier enjoy a monopoly on Science in the same way.


Unfortunately for Darwin, just like what happened to Aristotle, the initial scientific “proof” appears to be unraveling in the face of an expanded scientific base of knowledge and understanding.

Scientist Eugenie Clark has studied sharks for 26 years. Of the 350 species of sharks, she wrote that they "have inhabited the seas for much the same form for 300 million years." Thus no evidence of evolution at all among the sharks. They have not changed in the supposed three hundred million years of their existence, but have remained quite like the sharks that we still have swimming around us today

Then we can look at the modern cockroach and again millions and millions of years later they are STILL the SAME

I have heard Dawkins answer such querys with words like "it must be assumed" or that we can not go back in time to prove such a observable changes but goes on to explain they happened anyway! We are just to take his word for it! You know as well as I do that evolution is rife with such utter speculation.

Evolution, as it was put forth by Darwin, was not science at all, but natural philosophy, just like the theory of the geocentric universe Aristotle promoted. There is no trace of the scientific method, no experimentation, no mathematics, nothing contained within The Origin of the Species that even hints at evolution being of actual science.

Mel speak about empiracle this testable that yet I have never seen anything that comes close to a logical explanation for natural selction that is remotley plausible much less easy believe in any sense of the word.

Had evolution been presented today in its original form no scientific journal, no publisher of the sciences would have accepted it for publication.

The scientific method was well established in Darwins day. The work of men such as Louis Pateur would be publishable in moden scientific journals because they followed the scientific method. Darwin did not follow the scientific method at all.

Let's review the scientific method shall we Mel,,


1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

teacher.pas.rochester.edu...

NOTE: I think it is safe to say that one who rejects the existence of such things as Gods would be just as likely to fudge their data in one direction or the other is another reason I have a problem with people like Dawkins. Afterall it is why HE has a problem accepting theist views as well and has even suggested they not be considered for such areas of academia as Medicine etc.


While I can say Darwin had other ideas that were wrong. He believed other races and women were less developed evolutionally.

You would say He may have believed that men were superior to women, but this was probably due to his Victorian upbringing.

While authors of the Bible are not given this same consideration for societal considerations of there day.

You can say keep Religions mucky hands out of Science and I would agree but what does that have to do with possibilities?

If it is Possible Science can show such evidence as the possibility of a master creator,, I would think they would want to get a closer look and even find out more about it.

That is,, unless of course,,


I had a problem with it

Issues with God?

Naaaah


- Con






[edit on 19-1-2008 by Conspiriology]

i hope there is a conspiracy to over throw Christianity. that would be one hell of a good day

Originally posted by alli3


Don't worry, your just being paranoid, there are no such actions taking place to over throw christians. Athiest are just expressing their selves, just like how christians express themselves on tv and say harry potter, halloween and most things are evil. I'm not an athiest, some of my fiends are. There's no such plan.

This is a quote from the Atheist agenda website
BY A MEMBER it is on the front page this week. They used to reassure the jews in Germany there was no plan to remove them too.

Sometimes I wonder if all the holocaust deniers want us to forget the lessons of history on purpose.

The vitriolic tone in atheism is well known now and it even has its own wondering what they are doing. I edited out the long version of this letter but you can read the full verion on the link below it.

This gives you an idea that not only is it happening but thank God (no offense Mel heh) they have some in the ranks who still value a modicum of civility.

One must wonder what is wrong with the Atheist Agenda people. Is it just one member who is an asshole, trying to ruin everyone else's day with their unnecessary attacks on people with religion, or is the entire group too stupid to realize their hate tactics are not winning people over?

I have watched this group since its founding, having gone to one meeting (yes I am an Atheist, surprised?), and I am amazed at how zealous some of its members are.

These lunatics are frightened by people who have a religion, and decide to try and remove it from their lives. Many of these "Atheist Agenda" members seem to get pleasure from angering those with religion, going so far as to put up posters that state "F_ck Religion." Before anyone calls me a liar for this, you can ask any member of this organization, and they will tell you that they did indeed hang up such a poster, but it was quickly removed. The fact that anybody would want to do such a thing, thinking it will spread open mindedness (yes, that is what many of the members will claim they are trying to do), worries me as an Atheist.

unlike these other atheists, who seem to have stuffed their heads so far into Richard Dawkins ass, they don't seem to realize how close minded their needlessly aggressive actions actually are

media.www.theindependentutsa.com...

- Con


[edit on 19-1-2008 by Conspiriology]