Darwin and Dawkins are both Wrong and Evil

reply to post by badmedia


badmedia, you have stumbled into my domain.. or maybe I stumbled into yours..lol

I am also a programmer. I work with object oriented programming frameworks and do very well in it because I think of *everything* as an object. So yeah, I totally understand inheritance (for those reading, it means when you create an object that is a descendant of a "parent" object and thus shares some of the same traits) as well as code reuse.

When I build large interworking systems, i have noticed the "ghost in the machine" phenomenon many times. The more complex the systems, the more apparent the phenomenon. I never intentionally write code to cause these things to happen, they just happen. That tells me that once a system reaches a certain level of complexity, the rules of engagement start to go out the window and the system can and often will adapt on it's own within the framework provided.

Now having said that, I will openly admit that I am not against the idea of an Intelligent Design aspect to the creation of DNA systems. In fact, I am very much in favor of the concept as a base working model, for many of the same reasons you are.. I see the patterns and complexities and how they logically fit together in a way that chance encounters may not fully explain. Even so, I strongly feel that any I.D. influence was back at the beginning of the process. Once the primitive systems were initially setup, they were left to run and have adapted to the ever changing environments ever since.

Of course, this doesn't necessarilly negate the idea of natural processes from the ground up. I have done the numbers and given the number stars, the age of universe, and the replication frequency of RNA systems, it is very possible that working systems could evolve on their own. In fact, the probabilitiy of a functional protien system being acheived through pure chance becomes more and more likely as the number of RNA systems in existance increases.

If you want to play with the numbers a bit, here are the facts I was able to dig out:

Estimated Age of Universe: 15 Billion Years
Estimated Stars in Sky: 10 Billion
Number of Amino Acid Replications per second for a human DNA Chain: approximately 50
(incidentally, mammal cells replicate much slower than bacteria)
Number of Cells in Human body: approximatly 50 Trillion

In 15 billion years time, there is ample opportunity in this universe for a chance configuration of chemicals to make a working self-replicating amino acid chain. One the base framework is completed and more and more copies (replication threads) are spawned, each thread has the same probability of evolving into something bigger and better. As this increases exponentially, so does the probablity of more stable complex systems evolving.

For the record, I believe that the OO programming model is a very good model to use for representing a life system. I actually tried to write a basic life system once in C# and let it self-replicate, but I came across some hurdles, including processor speed and memory, but I think the capability is there to model a basic system.

(Edited to fix a typo)

[edit on 7-4-2009 by rogerstigers]

reply to post by bwinwright


You lost me at David Wilcock. The man is not a scientist, he is an internet researcher. Yes, he gets his facts almost entirely from the internet.

Though I did like his song clip when it was played on C2C. He should stick to singing.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Yeah although if the universe is infinite... That means that life should already be infinitly evolved. What me might be seeing is built in self-distructive logic that are like hurdles for any evolving creature. making it harder and harder to reach the top of the pyramid of experiances. Maybe thats the purpose of the capstone... a symbol of this hurdle.






[edit on 4-7-2009 by Wertdagf]

reply to post by badmedia

I'm a programmer, and I see all the same basic ingredients and principles in DNA and organisms that I see in programming.

Is the programmer analogous to the watchmaker? Just curious...




reply to post by bwinwright

So, if Darwin was clearly wrong, making Dawkins clearly wrong, why hasn't this bogus theory been exposed to the world? Because it has never been about science. It has always been about religion. Darwinism is a twisted form of religion used to justify racism, genocide, imperialism, the Holocaust, and other forms of racial injustice.

Oh noes! Those evil, evil scientists are expounding upon the Theory of Evolution not to further the field of scientific research. Those evil, evil scientists are only interested in promoting evil things, like communism promotes fascists. (Wait a moment, that doesn't make sense... Oh, communism promotes communists and fascism promotes fascists. Glad that's cleared up.)

The point is this: Trying to equate the science of evolution to the atrocities of mankind is one of the lamest arguments ever. That would be akin to someone blaming the Spanish Inquisition and the Salem witch hunts on religion. (Wait, that last little bit is spot on.) Anyway, your particular line of logic stinks. If you're going to attempt to dispute the merits of evolutionary theory, at least have some solid scientific evidence to back it up.

Oh, and by the way, atheism has absolutely nothing to do with science. Just for your clarification and what not.

reply to post by Wertdagf


I stay away from infinite universe conversations. Steady State theory nearly drove me mad as a teen when I was first tackling these kinds of things.

Still, I actually agree with you on the built in caps. I tend to think that what we recognize as life (RNA based replication systems) are probably not the total of everything that is sentient. Maybe we just evolve to a point and then change into a differant type of life? Given some of the recent finds in the fields of neuroscience regarding the quantum nature of our brains, I can imagine we might grow to a point of being able to manifest our thoughts into reality through quantum changes -- including negating the need for a physical form. It's all highly speculative, but fun to consider.

Originally posted by maria_stardust
Is the programmer analogous to the watchmaker? Just curious...

You know, I was thinking the same thing! It's definitely a new twist on the old arguement, though!

Charles Darwins cousin was Francis Galton who in 1883 coined the term EUGENICS.
Galton wanted Eugenics to develop from a Science to a Policy to a Religion.
With Darwin, the apple didn't fall to far from the family tree.

I think what Darwin did to creation and God and what his cousin wanted to do to Humans , made both of them very evil men. But that's just my opinion.

This is a bunch of garbage nonsense. Also I see nothing in this that leads me to believe darwin and dawkins are evil, all I see is you appear to disagree with their viewpoints so you deem them evil.

So typical for religious people to disagree with something and deem that thing evil. Grow up.

And wow I just noticed that other guy who posted links to other forums of you posting this same garbage... lmao thats hilarious...

Don't go around preaching to people, people don't like preachers. Especially people who don't buy into religion and god.



[edit on 4-7-2009 by jeasahtheseer]

reply to post by Flighty


Nice try, however, Charles Darwin was not Francis Galton. Two completely different individuals, each with their own philosophies, ideologies and personal belief systems. It makes no sense to compare the two.

I can already see where this skewed line of reasoning is headed: Galton = Eugenics; Eugenics = Genocide; Genocide = Holocaust; Holocaust = Nazis/Hitler. It's a lame argument as the science of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do Hitler. Nice to see Godwin's Law hard at work, though.

Using the example of a Dolphin's Sonar, Tim Harwood demonstrates, undeniably, that
this complex organ could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications. DARWIN WAS WRONG.

How does he demonstrate that a dolphin's sonar couldn't possible have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications? Unless he examined every single way that the sonar could have come into existence, there's no way he can say that (you can't prove a negative).

only the last post even talks of tims research, anyone actually read the original post?

Analogies of computer programming to support theories of ID are flawed. Code has developed from a very basic state and demonstrates the tenets of evolutionary theory. Evidence of evolution is evident in all life forms...evidence of God or designers is absent or subject to interpretation.

Dolphin sonar is an argument for ID or God I haven't seen before. Let me guess how this one came to pass...God was in his workshop making lifeforms and giving each and every one a special gift. He looked down at the marine mammal 'dolphin' and wondered what gift he (it's always a 'he' right?) could give it. 'Echo location' would be a great gift! To confuse the 'evolutionistas' that he created to challenge his very existence (I know! Why would he do that?! Was 'he' a masochist as well as a sadist?), he decided to create almost 30 different types of dolphin! Plus an Orca. Still cross about the ungrateful evolutionistas...he went back to the bats and gave them echo location too. "This'll piss 'em off!" he thought, "And to really puzzle them, I'll give it to shrews and swifts too!"

And thus echo location came to be...

Usually it's the poor bombardier beetle that creationists exploit for their own comfort. David Wilcock? What a joke. Is he the same IDiot that claims to be the reincarnation of a guy who's 'prophecies' have failed to materialize? Hmmmmm...evolution is a lie but a guy that claims to be the reincarnation of Cayce with no more evidence than selected photos is a credible authority?

reply to post by maria_stardust


Galton was his cousin and they both wanted to create religions of their own.
Galtons form of religion was Eugenics, Darwins was the Theory of Evolution.
Having two men with similiar endgames come from one family, should at least raise a red flag OR make you wonder.

Like I said, that's my opinion and nothing anyone else says will change it.

I've done my research and find their family philosophy of us coming from Apes and also the disabled being bred out (as well as other Eugenic philosophies that Galton subscribed to ) both highly insulting to higher level thinking people who have even an ounce of humanity or spirituality.

And as I said in another thread on a similiar topic, if you feel you evolved from an Ape, you probably did. Doesn't mean we all did.

reply to post by Flighty
I don't wish to change your opinions...they're yours and you are welcome to them I'm curious about your claims that Darwin wanted to create a religion...can you provide a link?

Out of idle interest...are you aware that Darwin set out become a clergyman? His eventual disillusionment was an outcome of Christianity's failure to answer inevitable questions. It's a fact that's overlooked or ignored....Darwin was extremely well informed about doctrine and religious/ philosophical debates.

reply to post by cranberrydork


Yes, I am on a mission. Darwin was wrong and his false ideas have resulted in a lot of destructive behavior.

I am not a computer wizard but I contacted Tim Harwood myself and got this
link. Go to darwinwrong.tripod.com...

reply to post by fapython


Go to this site and actually do SOME research. Darwin actually believed a bear that spent a lot of time swimming could actually become a whale. DARWIN WAS WRONG

Go to: darwinwrong.tripod.com...

Perhaps, if you will do even a little reading on this subject you will awaken from your deep trance-like sleep. The Tavistock Institute uses people like Dawkins to brainwash people like you. WAKE UP!!!!!! THINK for YOURSELF!!!!!!

reply to post by bwinwright


That link to 'tripod' also mentions "Dr." Behe. He is another nutjob, sorry.

This YT link can help you get your feet wet, with the numerous videos by 'DonExodus2'. In one of his videos he actually reads email correspondence he had with Behe...not in this one, but in another.



I suggest following this, and other links to real science, instead of hocus-pocus fantastical imaginings of charlatans.

AND, for some levity:



HE (Huckabee) and his ilk are definately part of the problem. Intellectual dishonesty, blind devotion without any critical thinking skills applied.....

reply to post by Kandinsky


It wasn't that he wanted to create a religion. He was, as you pointed out, disillusioned with God. Apparently one of his children, or someone in his family, died unexpectedly and Darwin became angry with God for allowing this to happen.

It is my personal opinion that most people who deny God are those making a statement against organized religion. Tim Harwood's web page talks about the religious nature of Darwinism, because his theory is laughably false from a scientific perspective.

Do some research on the Tavistock Institute to better understand why and how they recruit folks like Richard Dawkins of Oxford University, the world's most famous atheist, to influence the mass consciousness. He has been very successful in selling millions the false idea of atheism.

Yes, I am on a mission to fight against such tyranny, such deceit, such outrageous and destructive behavior. DARWIN and DAWKINS are both wrong and their FALSE information has resulted in so much horror, like the Holocaust, racism, genocide, imperialism, and other forms of ugliness.

Go to: darwinwrong.tripod.com...

reply to post by bwinwright

Go to this site and actually do SOME research. Darwin actually believed a bear that spent a lot of time swimming could actually become a whale.

"research"?? From THAT site??

What a load of codswallop!!! Puppy poop!!!


Here, in addition to the excellent work offered by YT user 'DonExodus2', also this person 'cdk007' does fantastic videos.




Now, before this becomes a war of 'dueling videos', let me say that a quick perusal around the interwebs will find vids from both sides --- each will guide you to the other. In the over-arching 'battle of wits', however, the ID/creationists just cannot withstand the onslaught of sane, rational thinking.

reply to post by weedwhacker


I believe I said "virtually non-existent", not "none". And, you too need to do a little more research. You too have been successfully brainwashed by the Tavistock bunch, led by creeps like Richard Dawkins.

It amazes me how intelligent people like you can be so easily led to conform to the false belief that highly sophisticated and complex systems and processes,
which are far more complicated and sophisticated than ANYTHING humans have EVER been able to produce CAN POSSIBLY EXIST....WITHOUT ANY INTELLIGENCE having been necessary in this existence.

This is clearly irrational, therefore false. Harwood makes an undeniable case, establishing the FACT that DARWIN was WRONG, making YOU WRONG.


I am not talking about religion or YOUR definition of God. I am talking about a profoundly capable form of INTELLIGENCE which must EXIST in order to direct the design and manufacturing process of that Dolphin's Sonar.

Humans, using as much INTELLIGENCE as we have, still can not produce a SONAR system as sophisticated as the Dolphin's sonar system. The entire ARGUMENT centers around ONE point.

I say a Dolphin's Sonar is the product of intelligent direction AND

You, along with other Darwinists, believe such complex systems DID NOT require intelligent direction.

The Natural Law of this Universe is "Order Requires Intelligent Direction."

You reject this law and have ABSOLUTELY NO WAY TO PROVE YOUR FALSE BELIEF. All you can do is resort to name-calling, condescension, and ridicule. YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT DARWIN's THEORY.

Go to: darwinwrong.tripod.com...

Do some homework. Think logically. Stop the MADNESS!!!!

You are anti-organized religion, not an atheist. Atheism, like Darwinism, is FALSE.