Is the theory of evolution responsible for a toxic society?

Originally posted by Phoenix267

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

I was saying that because there is chance you have been expose to negative ideas and myths about evolution that many creationist spread around.

No.

But I have been exposed to the lies of evolution.

But what do you mean about "the lies of evolution?" This is new to me. I have never heard of any lies about evolution.

As an apetiser they use circular reasoning to date the gelogical column and the fossil's inside the geological column (I use this example first because it is such a serious blunder and an extremely obvious one).

This is just for starters. If I listed all of the phony evidence used for evolution I would need to clone myself 99 times over and dedicate all of my 99 lives to the subject of debunking the myth of evolution.

it matters, but doesnt impact on our genetic biology and make up.

note most children behave similar, so you cant really say " the theory of how we were created!" impacts on our social behaviours. Because they are there from the get-go ,our social behaviours that is.

Originally posted by Phoenix267
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

Did you view the links I have included in my post? I have shared information about the fossil evidence. Also a scientific theory is different from the stander English definition.

A fossil of a living creature shows evidence that it was once alive and at some point it died and was buried very quickly. That is the only evidence that can be used from a fossil... PERIOD. You can theorise that they evolved into different kinds of animals and preach your beliefs to others but don't call it science.

When you look up 'geologic column', 'fossil record' & 'circular reasoning' then I will check your links.

reply to post by gosseyn


To the point...

This thread only has merit if looked as an attempt at reverse psychology...

I would like that someone would use the same reasoning to look back at religion and see how most presets fail to account the time before any specific religious movement was stated, to me most religions fail the examination of "rule book not included" and the rationals to "rule book only become important/necessary when..." are extreme convolutions to distract from the fact that it only become important or necessary for those that came up with it as a sociological control measure and were enabled only by the technology of writing (permitting the disseminating ideas) and intrinsically linked to the evolution of complex societies.

Magic has always existed, it is how we use our imagination to explain the unknown, a tool to enable us to cope with it. Science is not good or bad, it is a methodology to deal with the unknown in a rational way, it will never fully supplant magic but it is slowly moving it to the real complex issues.

Magic is becoming unmanageable by simple minded power driven idiots, knowledge sets us free from cowering from the shadows of the unknown and permits us to identify the flaws on those that claim control over it.

there is genetic evidence of macro evolution en.wikipedia.org...
this is why some people are born with tails
scientists have actually activated dormant genes in chickens to force them to develop traits of of their theoretical ancestors (reptiles)

your argument falls flat on its face under the light of modern science and the ability to actually view the change in genetics over large periods of time and find the origins of those genetics

Originally posted by Panic2k11
reply to post by gosseyn

 

To the point...

This thread only has merit if looked as an attempt at reverse psychology...

I would like that someone would use the same reasoning to look back at religion and see how most presets fail to account the time before any specific religious movement was stated, to me most religions fail the examination of "rule book not included" and the rationals to "rule book only become important/necessary when..." are extreme convolutions to distract from the fact that it only become important or necessary for those that came up with it as a sociological control measure and were enabled only by the technology of writing (permitting the disseminating ideas) and intrinsically linked to the evolution of complex societies.

Magic has always existed, it is how we use our imagination to explain the unknown, a tool to enable us to cope with it. Science is not good or bad, it is a methodology to deal with the unknown in a rational way, it will never fully supplant magic but it is slowly moving it to the real complex issues.

Magic is becoming unmanageable by simple minded power driven idiots, knowledge sets us free from cowering from the shadows of the unknown and permits us to identify the flaws on those that claim control over it.

You are definitely onto something here. Human beings have a strong desire to undestand their origins. Unfortunately through our so called 'superior intellect' we have gone down the wrong rabbit hole with the theory of evolution. The evidence simply does not support the theory.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob


Unfortunately through our so called 'superior intellect' we have gone down the wrong rabbit hole with the theory of evolution. The evidence simply does not support the theory.

in your misguided opinion anyway.... see how easy that is (to just claim something is wrong)
......well it certainly is more comfortable to believe anyway (that there is somebody watching over you.... that will give you ever lasting life and burn those you disagree with for all eternity in a pit of hellfire.... that this is all just some kind of sick test and none of your problems really matter in the long haul.....and all your deceased loved ones are waiting for you somewhere)
but really despite your protests..... it seems the only one you are really trying to convince is yourself

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
there is genetic evidence of macro evolution en.wikipedia.org...
this is why some people are born with tails
scientists have actually activated dormant genes in chickens to force them to develop traits of of their theoretical ancestors (reptiles)

your argument falls flat on its face under the light of modern science and the ability to actually view the change in genetics over large periods of time and find the origins of those genetics

edit on 20-3-2013 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

No.

Human beings need their tail bones and all of the muscles associated with them. Certain activities are very hard to acomplish without them, namely reproduction.

Geneticist's can and do change the genetic makeup of animals. This in no way proves macroevolution. The theory of evolution is supposedly a self contained process within it's environment with no outside influence. In the case of the chicken the designer (geneticist) is modifying the design of the original deisgner. The chicken would never have these so called 'dormant genes' becoming active without the external influence of the geneticist. If science one day proves that macroevolution can happen in a self contained environment without the influence of the geneticist then I will become a believer.

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob


Unfortunately through our so called 'superior intellect' we have gone down the wrong rabbit hole with the theory of evolution. The evidence simply does not support the theory.

in your misguided opinion anyway.... see how easy that is (to just claim something is wrong)
......well it certainly is more comfortable to believe anyway (that there is somebody watching over you.... that will give you ever lasting life and burn those you disagree with for all eternity in a pit of hellfire.... that this is all just some kind of sick test and none of your problems really matter in the long haul.....and all your deceased loved ones are waiting for you somewhere)
but really despite your protests..... it seems the only one you are really trying to convince is yourself

Give me some evidence of macroevolution and I will believe you.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


I think you got lost. I was defending the theory of evolution, even if I agree that it is still a theory and even science has proven that are other factors at work, some understood (epigenetics, virus as cross species genetic pollinators, etc) and some still to be understood (like some mathematical constants or preferred pathways) that depend on our knowledge of physics and chemistry.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
there is genetic evidence of macro evolution en.wikipedia.org...
this is why some people are born with tails
scientists have actually activated dormant genes in chickens to force them to develop traits of of their theoretical ancestors (reptiles)

your argument falls flat on its face under the light of modern science and the ability to actually view the change in genetics over large periods of time and find the origins of those genetics

edit on 20-3-2013 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

No.

Human beings need their tail bones and all of the muscles associated with them. Certain activities are very hard to acomplish without them, namely reproduction.

Geneticist's can and do change the genetic makeup of animals. This in no way proves macroevolution. The theory of evolution is supposedly a self contained process within it's environment with no outside influence. In the case of the chicken the designer (geneticist) is modifying the design of the original deisgner. The chicken would never have these so called 'dormant genes' becoming active without the external influence of the geneticist. If science one day proves that macroevolution can happen in a self contained environment without the influence of the geneticist then I will become a believer.

tail bones....yes....tails.....no

and actually those genes very well could have become active as is the case with whales or snakes that have been found with hind legs and countless other examples that happened naturally and were observed......did you even read the article? (they did force it in the chicken but that does not in fact mean it could not occur natural as is usually the case)
as usual you take from the information provided what you want and scrap the rest.....not that i expected any better really

Originally posted by sirhumperdink

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
there is genetic evidence of macro evolution en.wikipedia.org...
this is why some people are born with tails
scientists have actually activated dormant genes in chickens to force them to develop traits of of their theoretical ancestors (reptiles)

your argument falls flat on its face under the light of modern science and the ability to actually view the change in genetics over large periods of time and find the origins of those genetics

edit on 20-3-2013 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

No.

Human beings need their tail bones and all of the muscles associated with them. Certain activities are very hard to acomplish without them, namely reproduction.

Geneticist's can and do change the genetic makeup of animals. This in no way proves macroevolution. The theory of evolution is supposedly a self contained process within it's environment with no outside influence. In the case of the chicken the designer (geneticist) is modifying the design of the original deisgner. The chicken would never have these so called 'dormant genes' becoming active without the external influence of the geneticist. If science one day proves that macroevolution can happen in a self contained environment without the influence of the geneticist then I will become a believer.

(they did force it in the chicken but that does not in fact mean it could not occur natural as is usually the case)

Prove that macroevolution could occur naturally.

reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob


deleted my post
im done for tonight.....theres too much stupid in the world for me to remain calm enough to avoid a ban (i cant even begin to describe how depressing it is to read through the countless threads filled with nonsense that have been popping up left and right.....i do believe in hell....your kind has made this world hell for the rest of us)

Originally posted by sirhumperdink
reply to post by ConspiracyNutjob

 

deleted my post
im done for tonight.....theres too much stupid in the world for me to remain calm enough to avoid a ban (i cant even begin to describe how depressing it is to read through the countless threads filled with nonsense that have been popping up left and right)

edit on 20-3-2013 by sirhumperdink because: (no reason given)

This seems to be the typical ending of most conversations I have with evolutionist's (but not all), some of them will have the courtesy of acknowledging that they cannot prove their belief.

"You are dumb because you don't understand evolution, I am smart because I understand evolution".

Next please.

Originally posted by Shark_Feeder

Originally posted by ConspiracyNutjob
No, but...

The theory of evolution certainly helps people justify crushing the weak. The theory of evolution is a Eugenicist's wet dream.

Evolution doesn't directly encourage strength anymore than it does intelligence. I am still not sure how you can claim that the idea of life adapting to its enviroment leads to genocide, or murder.

I know you are trolling, but I am bored....so one more time. Evolution is life adapting to it's surroundings...that has nothing to do with your simple ideas of strength, and weakness...let alone the start of the universe(which is in the realm of physics...not evolution), or the dawn of life(which is also a seperate field, and study than evolution). Evolution is simply how life changes over time...which we know to be true due to things like immunization, hereditary conditions, and genetic markers.

With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. 
[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168); 

(that at) some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races." [Darwin, Descent (1871), vol. I, p. 201.] The racist cast of Darwin's thought is difficult to deny.

In today's society, and on these very boards, many argue from "the survival of the fittest" brainwashing. Have you not noticed the huge belief that we are going to ascend (evolve) into some superior beings? Have you not noticed the direction science is taking with its studies supposedly showing that genetics ties into behaviours and beliefs? Are you not aware that occultists writings have stated for centuries the belief that man is going to combine science and esoteric knowledge to create that "godman" that they dream about? Have you never researched Freemasons connections to Darwin and his cronies? How could these men get a society, overwhelminging believing that Our Creator created all of us, to accept such horrific views of other races? In only one manner - you have no choice but to change their thinking...their fundamental beliefs in the origin of man.

You will see it all over these boards - the belief that breeding needs to be controlled amongst the poor and amongst those who display less than societally deemed acceptable traits. This THINKING stems from the the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest which is shoved down our throats. It reduces us to men and women with the same eugenic beliefs as expressed by Darwin above, because it IS EUGENETICS masquerading as a law of nature. Why can't we see the fruit of such teaching?

Saveragy is the base condition of all men. The only thing that has ever tamed societies is full faith in Jesus Christ and thus HIS presence on Earth. Child sacrifice, black magic, voodoo, superstitions, rain gods, harvest gods, penis worship, sex worship, temple prostitution, slaughter etc was removed from our lands and every land in which faith was brought. The light dispelled the darkness. Savage and heathen societies we're freed from such religious practices that oppressed its people.

But today, thanks to the forced teaching of eugenics, we are nearly back at square one. Our societal morals have been thrown out, child sacrifice has once again feared its despicable head, science is teaching that GENETICS is the root cause of undesirable traits instead of what Jesus Christ said - our inner spirit - and thus the western world is now fast on the horrific path of the wet dream of the entire occult world - eugenics. Deeming mankind everything from parasites to beasts, becoming once again swamped in superstitions, worship of angeels and demons, psychic helplines, palm reading, talking with the dead and dreaming of the day that we all miraculously "evolve" into some superior sort of being.

They could not have accomplished this in a society that viewed the origin of man as created BY OUR CREATOR.

reply to post by zonetripper2065

I feel it all went to sh*t when the hippies became parents.

What the hell are you talking about??

I'm one of those "hippies" and I became a parent 25 years ago - nearly to a day, I discovered I was pregnant in March of 1988. My two children are wonderful, loving people, who were never told that evolution was false.

Gha.

As for the OP - I really, truly can't believe you think this way. Astounding.

reply to post by WhoKnows100

You will see it all over these boards - the belief that breeding needs to be controlled amongst the poor and amongst those who display less than societally deemed acceptable traits. This THINKING stems from the the theory of evolution and survival of the fittest which is shoved down our throats. It reduces us to men and women with the same eugenic beliefs as expressed by Darwin above, because it IS EUGENETICS masquerading as a law of nature. Why can't we see the fruit of such teaching?

Uh, no.
Wrong.
The ancient Greeks - Plato in particular - taught Eugenics! They didn't know about evolution.
It's an ANCIENT idea.
Do your homework.

lol

So OP, you think that the theory of evolution is responsible for psychopaths committing horrible atrocities because they came to the conclusion that life is pointless and meaningless? Fair enough. If there is no creator then that would render life pointless and meaningless, yes. But... do you honestly think that religion is purely innocent?

I'll see your 'atheist/nihilist psychopaths' and raise you the countless religious zealots throughout history that have killed in the name of their religion.

AHHHHHHHHHHH!! ABIOGENESIS IS NOT EVOLUTION FOR 7 MILLIONTH TIME!!

For evolution to take place, life, a simple life such as bacteria should already be present.

While Abiogensis, still a HYPOTHESIS, discusses the idea of the Origin of Life.

Evolution cannot be observed directly because it will take millions of year, human started collecting information(that is still available now) only about 5,000 yrs ago.

One simple way but not exact is to put pressure on a growing bacteria, to make artificially cause environmental stress, which would force it to adapt different method of surviving, aka adaptation. That would be a miniscule scale of how evolution works, however, that is just the start, this adaptation after a while will start producing offspring that are already fit to the new adaptation(this could also be beneficial random mutation), which would grow up differently, then so onto slowly changing over many many generation.

Dogs and Wolfs are great example. Tho not big difference, Wolves are not Dogs. and Dogs will not survive in the wild, they are adapted to human life. Have you seen cows in the wild?

I completely agree with your post. I have a masters in philosophy and so I am open to both sides of science and creation, and I'm not equating creation with religion because I don't believe the two are related. Regardless of what the truth really is, teaching evolution as fact, is just as dangerous as only teaching religion as fact. There needs to be a balance of the two. Instead of being either a Christian or an Atheist, there needs to be a combination of the two. Right now we are moving back towards a Master morality which was before Christianity. This morality is the strongest survive, the teachings of Nietzsche directly influenced Nazism of the "Superman" . People think that a slave morality aka a Christian morality is a bad thing because it makes humans weak, but it also makes humans compassionate. Despite what your personal beliefs may be, wouldn't you want your children, grandchildren etc to be raised in a world that doesn't seem meaningless? Wouldn't you rather your loved ones grow up with wonder rather then at an early age being taught that you live and die so nothing else matters? I think children should be taught that we don't really know why we are here, that will leave them to be able to make up their own minds rather then having one particular belief shoved down their throat.