How the evolutionists will win.

Consider the elitists. I think the consensus is that the elitists are atheists and/or evolutionists. Consider the power that Stalin, Hitler and Tse-Tung had over their respective nations and people. They all were fans of Darwin and Huxley and in love with eugenics, evolution and control. Those people are gone but their ideas remain. Their supporters/followers were suppressed and dispersed when they were defeated but they only went into hiding, found protection, and kept silent to avoid persecution - their ideas never left them. We can see them today all over America. They have infiltrated yet another nation. A Christian nation full of vulnerable people whom were just enjoying their freedoms.

Now look at the elitists in the news today and that are the topic of many a thread here on ATS. The Rothchilds, Rockefellars, Morgan family, Bush family, Soros, Kissinger. The entire Bilderberg group. Understand that a person's belief system will determine their behavior. It is my opinion the elitists that claim a religion only do as a front, so not to lose their followers/people whom look to them for leadership, when in reality they are easily being controlled. I believe the elitists, or a majority, are evolutionists at their core. If they truly were people of traditional faith, how can they justify the world in which they live and will soon leave behind?

The NWO is founded in evolution. Their beliefs allow them to promote the idea of eradicating 95% of the world's population - leaving 500,000,000 people as the Georgia Guidestones state along with the known eugenicists within the NWO and American elitists like Ted Turner and Bill Gates. No one founded in religion would think of such an idea, although I believe evolution can be considered a religion, but that is besides the point.

Communism and Nazism are both rooted in evolution, are part of the NWO and have crept their way into America, our schools/universities, politics and culture without much resistance.

If America falls (eaten by Communism, fascism, a combination or whatever) and the NWO succeeds, then their beliefs will be forced upon the people. Many will die. America is still the only Christian nation in a position of great power. They know America must lose her sovereignty. If so, Christianity will be eliminated probably along with the religions of the Middle East, as we see the fracturing of nations there. The elite will take over in the chaos much easier and faster than if infiltrating the system over decades. Sure America and other parts of the world will have small pockets of Christians I would think, but with the technology today, I find it to believe that any organization against the machine will succeed. I believe if the elitists take over, then the evolutionists win. The winners write the history books. Evolution will become the major religion of the world in a few generations with the elite pushing their agenda and traditional religious groups being killed or held in camps til death.

I feel evolutionists may applaud their belief system taking over but they should realize it will only be by force. They should also realize that this does not prove evolution once and for all. They should realize that it will not prove the elite are more evolved than anyone else, only that they believe themselves to be. That is my theory of evolution.

Peace

reply to post by six67seven

Consider the elitists. I think the consensus is that the elitists are atheists and/or evolutionists.

Oh, I thought the consensus was satanic lizard men.

reply to post by six67seven


Maybe evolution is winning because they have a feasible scientific theory.

If you creationists want a say in our text books, I suggest you come up with your own theory and then get some real evidence to support it.

And if you want to argue that evolution is a control mechanism, I suggest we talk about all the rules in the bible and see who is making headway on that subject.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by six67seven

 

Maybe evolution is winning because they have a feasible scientific theory.

If you creationists want a say in our text books, I suggest you come up with your own theory and then get some real evidence to support it.

And if you want to argue that evolution is a control mechanism, I suggest we talk about all the rules in the bible and see who is making headway on that subject.

You missed the point completely. But that is not surprising.

I'm not a creationist in the purest form, but I do subscribe to some of their beliefs.

There is plenty of evidence to support Intelligent Design, again it's not the point of the thread.

If God exists and he created the universe, you're damn right we should talk all about the rules in the bible, as they would be the most relevant rules on earth.

reply to post by Miraj


If we could research with REAL equality, then maybe creationists should get funding at the same level as University and Government institutional scientists. Oh, no just small, Christian ministries and such.
If we are "Endowed by Our Creator with certain inalienable rights.." then there is no room for the governments to take away what THEY gave us, right? That's why the powers usually want us to believe in them as our salvation. No room for God for them.... Oh and Lucy was just an ape. Not a common ancestor.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by six67seven

 

Maybe evolution is winning because they have a feasible scientific theory.

If you creationists want a say in our text books, I suggest you come up with your own theory and then get some real evidence to support it.

And if you want to argue that evolution is a control mechanism, I suggest we talk about all the rules in the bible and see who is making headway on that subject.

Also, I never said evolution is "winning". But that is why you evolutionists are so sneaky, your play on words has evolved rapidly. Yet they are still words and not fact. Get it: your words evolve, but are still words = microevolution. Your words haven't evolved into fact = therefore no evidence of macroevolution. Just a little ban-wagon-Creationist joke.

reply to post by six67seven


I haven't seen notes about creationism in any of my biology textbooks.

I'd say evolution is winning.

reply to post by Clearskies


Again. Feasible theories.

Where are they?

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by six67seven

 

I haven't seen notes about creationism in any of my biology textbooks.

It's not allowed by the Feds!

"Separation of church and state," which hasn't turned out as Jefferson intended!

reply to post by six67seven


All the evidence I've seen was horribly manipulated..

And lets consider..
Intelligent Design is real. What makes your book right?

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by Clearskies

 

Again. Feasible theories.

Where are they?

In the Bible, epic of Gilgamesh (sort of), Hindu mythology (sort of), etc.......

reply to post by Clearskies


I'm a college student.

Maybe it's because there's no actual evidence.

reply to post by Clearskies


Not feasible theories.

God created the earth is not a theory, it's a faith.

reply to post by Miraj


Me too!

reply to post by Clearskies


Oh, does your University offer a Bachelors of Faith with a major in Biology?

Mine doesn't.

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by six67seven

 

I haven't seen notes about creationism in any of my biology textbooks.

I'd say evolution is winning.

That's because they aren't in the biology textbooks, genius!!

"Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25 "

By the evolutionists own words

67
I find your general sense concerning the plans the " elite" have for for the world to be very similar to my own though to understand them to be as monolithically attuned to atheism as I think you have stated in your post is to much of a stretch for me.

I see these folks as taking advantage of ANY belief system that will allow them to rise to the top of the local population and control it, be that ancient city state or global civilization. For every atheist one might pick as an example, there are three fold or better who rule in the name of religion. But that's only because athiests are relatively new to the scene.

Should this amorphous group succeed in their quest to cleanse the world of the unfit, clearly they will then turn on one another. But by then the gene pool, and brain pool will be so stunted that they will just cave in on themselves. That though is most likely their situation already. Inbreds.

I think that maybe we could be thinking about what will come along after them.

You realize that most scientists aren't atheists, right? That even most evolutionists aren't atheists.

Just because most atheists ascribe to the theory of evolution, doesn't mean that they own the concept.

I find it terribly manipulative that so many people try to reduce things to "just two things." Perhaps it is because they can't conceive of more than two things.

reply to post by Aeons

aeons. Thank you so much for that.

Originally posted by six67seven

Originally posted by Miraj
reply to post by six67seven

 

I haven't seen notes about creationism in any of my biology textbooks.

I'd say evolution is winning.

That's because they aren't in the biology textbooks, genius!!

"Evolution is Religion -- Not Science

Evolution is not a religion. Please stop using this non-sense argument as a scare tactic against gullible minds.

In no way does the idea of particles-to-people evolution meet the long-accepted criteria of a scientific theory. There are no such evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.

Nothing is perfect. It's better than the alternative of "god did it"

Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.

Theory, not fact. Maybe they decline debates because there is no point. Just because I don't stand around and argue with a homeless man that there's no pink elephant standing next to us, doesn't mean I secretely believe there is a pink elephant.

Scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm than good, but scientists still need to counter the creationist message.20

Scientists don't care about the creationist message. Creationism is faith, not science. These are separate institutions, and usually only bring bloodshed when combined.

The question is, just why do they need to counter the creationist message? Why are they so adamantly committed to anti-creationism?

They don't need to. I don't know any scientist that is out to destroy creationism. The only point at which I have found such a debate was during a religion class. And at some points during high school, where arguments were started by militant religious people during science classes.

The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and "new age" evolutionists place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man.

Of course we want to explain our origins outside of a creator. Unfortunately the creator has declined out interviews, and we cannot demonstrate his existence at this time. Maybe you want to consider that scientist seek for things that can be demonstrated and not simply believed.

The core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism -- the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own internal dynamics, without divine or supernatural control or guidance, and that we human beings are creations of that process. It is instructive to recall that the philosophers of the early humanistic movement debated as to which term more adequately described their position: humanism or naturalism. The two concepts are complementary and inseparable.21

Right.

Since both naturalism and humanism exclude God from science or any other active function in the creation or maintenance of life and the universe in general, it is very obvious that their position is nothing but atheism. And atheism, no less than theism, is a religion! Even doctrinaire-atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins admits that atheism cannot be proved to be true.

Of course. It's logical. We can't disprove something like the concept of God. There's no logical way to disprove it. There's also no logical way to prove it. Take that as you wish. This is the reason why the of god is excluded from these concepts. There's no facts to the matter, and faith is blind.

Of course we can't prove that there isn't a God.22

Therefore, they must believe it, and that makes it a religion.

Atheism is a religion. But those are just concepts of the universe, they have nothing to do with god, only what can be observed.

The atheistic nature of evolution is not only admitted, but insisted upon by most of the leaders of evolutionary thought. Ernst Mayr, for example, says that:

Darwinism rejects all supernatural phenomena and causations.23

Because they are going off of what can be observed. When they can watch god assembling the double helix, then they will include that in the theory of evolution.

A professor in the Department of Biology at Kansas State University says:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.24

Because it cannot be observed. Suggestion is not observation, it is faith.

It is well known by almost everyone in the scientific world today that such influential evolutionists as Stephen Jay Gould and Edward Wilson of Harvard, Richard Dawkins of England, William Provine of Cornell, and numerous other evolutionary spokesmen are dogmatic atheists. Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!

All creationists are dogmatic Judeo-Christians. Clearly there is a bias.

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion -- a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.25 "

By the evolutionists own words

No it is not promoted as more than science. It is promoted as a theory to how organisms developed. I think perhaps your own beliefs are making you read more than there is.