The Relgion of the New World Order : Darwinism

I have other thoughts about this and Im going to attempt to share with everyone.

Darwinism is real and accurate in the animal kingdom, if it wasn't the natural world would collapse.

Darwinism is very much alive in our human society as well, as this thread has shown, but are humans supposed to be above the beasts? I think so. Lets say we make a line at Darwinism and this line in nature is neutral, humans living as one with nature as in taking and giving equally are IMO living above the rule of the jungle and are good. Humans living below this rule are evil, as our waist full society clearly is.

A society that lives in harmony with it's environment, will last theoretically forever, but a society that does nothing but take from the environment will eventually fail as they will consume or they will move and consume until all environments are used up.

I find it interesting we have all of these forecasts of a up in coming NWO world just as we have prophecy of impending doom.

I know which world I would like to live in.

reply to post by LDragonFire


I have to agree, to live at one with nature, to be stewards of the earth is the way to go!

What a complete fail of a thread.

Here we go for the win!

What you’ve essentially done is take parts of articles from this website and used them as your own....wow how original of you.

www.reasons.org...

reply to post by andre18

Star for your find.

But if it wasn't that site, it would be another one saying exactly the same thing. They're all alike, those sites: the same old stinking, clapped-out zombie arguments, rotten and falling to pieces, pushed out one more time to do futile battle against evidence, reason and honest truth. Animated by a fear of death so pervasive and unreasoning it cannot accept that what must be will be, but must hide itself unter the Linus blanket of faith in life everlasting.

The reason why some see atheism and Darwinism as religions is that religion is the only mental paradigm they have to function with.

I could not be in more agreement to anyone on Earth than Dawkins. This guy is the last great hope for Humanity. Anyone with half a brain knows if we don't follow the path he proposes we are beyond doomed. It is THAT simple. Removal of religion from humanity and the embracing of rational thought in it's place will see us living in a beautiful world.

Oh yeah one more thing LOL

If you think there's any merit to bigwhammy's vids, if you think they have any truth to them well think again. On youtube bigwhammy's been utterly owned by the youtuber FearsEdge

Check out this vids to watch bigwhammy getting owned hard.

reply to post by contemplator


Sorry for my ignorance, but where does Darwin suggest we should rid ourselves or religion and replace it for rational thinking? I would argue there isnt much different between the two, apart from the fact that religious leaders twist and manipulate the mass followers?

Thinking about it, all religion is, is philosophical thoughts on why we are here and how we should live with one another. Philosophy is a rational subject. If a philosopher isnt rational with his/her arguments then they arent a very good one

Brad

reply to post by Toughiv

Darwin would have been the last man to advise anybody to give up their religion. He was much disturbed by his own loss of faith and only confessed it in confidence to those he was close to. He was very far from being an advocate of atheism.

People seem to need religion. I mean this in a biological sense. Some studies appear to show that prayer itself has healing effects, even if you don't believe in whatever it is you're praying to. But of course, religion serves many other purposes than this: it promotes civilization by making a common family out of people who are not related by blood: it unifies the tribes. Sometimes it does so by fire and sword, because for many peoples faith and nation are one and the same. That, unfortunately, is the downside of religion; and as populations have come to enclose congregations, religion has turned into a threat to further progress in culture and civilization. Yet until it becomes a threat to life itself, it will not, according to Darwin's own theory, be weeded out of our genes.

You don't think the religious impulse is an evolved trait in Homo Sapiens? I do. If it isn't part of our 'extended phenotype', how come it's so universal, and so natural to us? Being an atheist isn't a one-time life-choice; inside every human is an instinct to believe, and reason often has a hard time of it.

[edit on 30/5/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Well said. It has been proven by scientist, that our genes instinctively promote thought of a higher being, a creator. Look it up, im sure the conclusion is better written

Originally posted by Toughiv
It has been proven by scientist, that our genes instinctively promote thought of a higher being, a creator.

I beg leave to doubt this; I can't see how it can be proved.

Perhaps the claim is some popular-media misrepresentation of real science work. Could you post a link? I'm curious.

[edit on 1/6/09 by Astyanax]

lol i just realized the last video of the three wasn't a reply to bigwhammy .....lol oops...
meh it's still a good vid so watch it......

Originally posted by Astyanax

Originally posted by Toughiv
It has been proven by scientist, that our genes instinctively promote thought of a higher being, a creator.

I beg leave to doubt this; I can't see how it can be proved.

Perhaps the claim is some popular-media misrepresentation of real science work. Could you post a link? I'm curious.

[edit on 1/6/09 by Astyanax]

en.wikipedia.org...

You were quite right to doubt actually, reading in more detail, the Gene has been found to be PART responsible for our natural inclination toward the divine, but it is not 100% a conclusive answer. By all means, look it up, tell me what you think. Id be glad to hear your opinion

Thanks!

Brad

reply to post by Toughiv

So a respected geneticist has rushed in where angels fear to tread. Well, well. Thanks for telling me about this, Brad. I doubt I would have heard about it otherwise.

I don't think any one gene will ever be identified as the God gene. Genetics is slipperier than that; most features and traits result from the interaction of several genes with one another and with the environment. But whether or not it is coded for by a single gene, a predisposition towards 'transcendent' states of consciousness and belief in things unseen could well be heritable to some degree.

And yes, I do believe that a religious instinct of some kind - whether or not it accords with the psychometric definition used by Hamer et al. I cannot say - is naturally selected for.

None of this is to say we are programmed to believe in a god or gods. I have my own theory of the evolution of religion, which unscientifically invokes Jung and flirts with the concept of meme heritability as discussed by Dawkins towards the end of The Selfish Gene. We can talk more about it if you like, though probably not on this thread.

And so, to bring it back on topic. Once again Religion of NWO : Darwinism. As the OP says, this is not referring to evolution but darwinism's affirmation that design is illusion, all characteristics have come about by evolution.

Then the OP moved to explain Karl Popper and his stance with regards to scientific theories. All have to be tested to be labelled as a scientific theory. However, when we look at "the beginning", Darwinists speculate we came from microbes.

Their argument holds no more weight than that of design does it?

Cheers

Brad

reply to post by Astyanax


Saying that scientist can make the building blocks of life equals Abiogenesis, is like saying a tree can make wood which equils a house.

In order for this to be a valid scientific claim 1+1 needs to equal 2. But what you have given us is 1+1=?

reply to post by NRA4ever333


Where did astynax suggest that scientists could do this? Quote please !

Astynax im going to attack you if you did. En Guarde!

reply to post by contemplator


Dawkins, the last great hope for humanity??? I have watched many of his lectures, and fail to see the correlation between him and humanities salvation. He is a biologist, yet has been continually stumped by relatively simple questions on biology and genetics. Most of his scientific understanding is outdated, and the fact that he clings to primitive scientific understandings, is more indicative of a priest than a scientist.

His Idea that faith is a delusion is laughable when the source is considered. Our understanding of the universe is limited at best, and the notion that when it is all figured out there will be no evidence of an Intelligent designer sounds a lot like “faith” to me. In fact a great many things in modern science could be viewed as “faith”.

reply to post by Toughiv


Page 2 of this discussion, about halfway down.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

If you're afraid of imaginary beings it stands to reason that the real world would scare the bejesus out of you. That's why they're afraid of evolution, that and it hurts to think about such difficult concepts.

I am reminded, as so often, of Nietzsche:

Moral judgment and condemnation is the favorite form of revenge of the spiritually limited on those who are less so, likewise a form of compensation for their having been neglected by nature, finally an occasion for acquiring spirit and becoming refined—malice spiritualizes. Deep in their hearts they are glad there exists a standard according to which those overloaded with the goods and privileges of the spirit are their equals—they struggle for the “equality of all before God” and it is virtually for that purpose that they need the belief in God. It is among them that the most vigorous opponents of atheism are to be found.

Beyond Good and Evil 219

Anyway, the creationsts' last straw - the supposed impossibility of abiogenesis in the absence of a Creator - is now being gently pried from the poor fellows' desperate hands. See here [2] [3] on ATS and pretty much all over the Web today. This Nature News story is probably the most informative and least speculative of the coverage.

Silly argument. Creationists only need to hold Mankinds position as not derrived through evolution. We still have no missing link. Scientists have tried to suggest a Lemur I know. However, this is far from the missing link between Ape and Man. (as for not being able to create life, have we not already done this by cloning?)

Secondly, I dont find what is so surprising that DNA can be reproduced in the science lab, i mean, it did come about in the first place...why shouldnt we be able to reproduce the same conditions that made this?

Astynaxx, since we have been talking about the big bang etc a lot lately, im sure we can both agree there is a huge level of unknowns. Who are we to say that the Big Bang wasnt "God's" intervention, and the laws of nature that exist today are part of his creation. These laws of nature have eventually brought about the Evolution of Man. When it says in the creation stories that man is made in Gods image, im sure you can symbollically interpret that to define what distinguishes us from other animals.

What other animal on this planet has the intelligence, logical reasoning and resourcefulness that we portray? Do any of them exhibit moral reasoning? If you read the Genesis stories again God actually says lets make man in our image after our likeness. Meaning whilst we may look and show the same characteristics as God we are "After His Likeness", something which we strive to grow toward. Hence, the two dipictions of mans role with Eath, firstly we have dominion, and secondly mentioned as Stewards.

Cheers

Brad

Originally posted by Toughiv
Where did astynax suggest that scientists could do this?

Of course I didn't suggest anything of the kind. NRA4ever333 is a creationist, so he interprets things in a 'special' way.

The post he links references some recent work on ribonucleotide formation under simulated Hadean Earth conditions. The results suggest favour the RNA world hypothesis over certain other models of abiogenesis. No-one by but NRA4ever333 is claiming that they are equivalent to abiogenesis itself.