|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Why I Don’t Believe the Theory of Evolution 2
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 youtu.be …posted in the “Limitations of Atheism” thread is the statement that 89% of biologists are atheists. And the theory of evolution is the only non-supernatural explanation for the origin of species. So why is it noteworthy that most biologists support the theory of evolution? How could they not? Dr. Sy Garte mentions the link between atheism and the theory of evolution in the first few minutes of that video. Like I’ve said for months, if you’re only looking for a naturalistic explanation for the origin of species and the actual explanation is supernatural, you’re never going to get the right answer. For an atheistic scientist, atheism trumps science. It did for Darwin and it does for countless scientists today. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 24-Oct-23, 23:19 |
I am afraid you have the concepts here all wrong. Some scientists may indeed 'confront' science against religious faith. Even very well known individuals like Richard Dawkins. In parentheses, I would not describe him as a particularly successful scientist. He is a good debatteur and book writer. Most serious scientists do not make such a confrontation because we realise that the two are really immiscible as is water and oil. So, among serious scientists you'll find a spectrum of opinions; this includes even quite devoted religious people although they are in a minority. But in the science community they are fully accepted, because that basic belief cannot be answered by science. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Scientists who believe the Big Bang already believe in the supernatural because time, space and matter had a beginning that was not natural in origin. And as Stephen Meyer points out, we know minds exist and we know what minds are capable of, but scientists exclude the possibility that a mind is behind the creation and design of life. Why? To believe the complexity of cells and DNA arose by chance is ridiculous and just a bias against the supernatural. And it’d be helpful if you just stuck to expressing your opinion and not saying I have concepts “all wrong.” Science and faith don’t need to be in opposition to each other. Some of the greatest scientists in history who made some of the greatest discoveries in history and who won Nobel prizes were Christians. The origin of science vs. religion came from that atheist and racist who proposed the theory of molecules-to-man evolution when he had zero evidence to back it up and a lot of evidence against it. The damage he did not just to science but to humanity in making foolish people believe man is an accidental animal is hard to overstate. He was, imo, easily *one of* the most evil men of the past 200 years. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Editor’s note: The following is excerpted from the Introduction to Richard Weikart’s new book, How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism.>> In their own words… <<The Darwinian Background Those wanting to distance Darwinism from the Nazis need to stop ignoring the fact that the racial inegalitarianism of the Nazis in the early to mid-20th century was not all that distant from the racist attitudes and theories of many leading Darwinian biologists, anthropologists, and physicians. Darwin himself was racist and exulted in the European extermination of the “lower races,” which he integrated into his theory of human evolution. Many other scientists likewise promoted racism on the basis of their understanding of evolutionary theory. If the Nazi perspective was a misinterpretation of Darwinism, it was a misinterpretation fostered by the Darwinian biologists themselves, not by non-scientists or fringe publicists. Indeed, long before the Nazis came on the scene, Darwinian biologists, anthropologists, and other scholars — including Darwin himself — were insisting that Darwinism provided intellectual support for racism and even racial extermination (and some also saw it as justification for militarism, economic competition, abortion, and euthanasia). For instance, the leading Darwinian biologist in Germany, Ernst Haeckel, stated in 1904, “The distance between the thinking soul of the cultured human and the thoughtless animal soul of the wild natural human is extremely vast, greater than the distance between the latter and the soul of a dog.” Haeckel believed that Europeans had evolved to a higher level than other human races, and this view was quite common among scientists.>> evolutionnews.org About the author… <<Richard Weikart is Emeritus Professor of History, California State University, Stanislaus, and author of seven books, including From Darwin to Hitler, Hitler’s Ethic, The Death of Humanity, and Hitler’s Religion. His most recent book is Darwinian Racism: How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism (2022). His PhD dissertation, Socialist Darwinism, earned the biennial prize of the Forum for History of Human Sciences as best dissertation in that field. He has lectured at many universities and other venues in the US and Europe. He also has been interviewed on dozens of radio shows, podcasts, and TV, and appeared in seven documentaries, including Expelled. Some of his lectures and interviews are available on YouTube.>> www.discovery.org It’s not hard to see how mass murder can be rationalized when one believes Darwin’s lies - that humans are evolved animals; some races are superior to others; species are in a fight for scarce resources; and no accountability exists off the earth (Darwin was an atheist, having abandoned the faith 20 years prior to publishing his fantasy novel.) Evolutionists will either pretend not to see the link between Darwinian nonsense and genocide or are so blinded by their evolutionary and atheistic dogma they can’t see the link, but the link exists. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 25-Oct-23, 08:58 |
Says a descendant of the most efficient slavery system in the modern world, and one cannot deny that those slave keepers would not also have been very faithful Christians. So, the Bible must also support superior races, and this was not invented by either Darwin or Hitler. |
|||||||||||||||
|
What are you talking about? Freedom is found in Christ - freedom from the power of sin, freedom from condemnation, freedom from the law, freedom from fear and worry, freedom from anxiety, etc. It’s atheists and other Christ deniers who are in bondage. <<and one cannot deny that those slave keepers would not also have been very faithful Christians.>> Huh? Are you trying to draw a parallel between 18th- and 19th-century slave owners and Christianity? First, slavery in the Bible was more akin to indentured servitude than the slavery in America in the 18th- and 19th-centuries. Second, the Bible never endorsed slavery but gave guidelines on how to deal with an existing system. Nowhere in the Bible is the kidnapping of people from other countries and enslaving them endorsed. <<So, the Bible must also support superior races, and this was not invented by either Darwin or Hitler.>> Indentured servitude in the Bible is not at all similar to slavery that existed in America. “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<Roots of Genocide INTERVIEW: Richard Weikart on how Hitler was Darwin's ideological grandson by Marvin Olasky [This interview was originally published in World magazine in April 2005 and is available at their website: www.worldmag.com/subscriber/displayarticle.cfm?id=10552 Phillip Johnson, leader of the Intelligent Design movement, writes, "The philosophy that fueled German militarism and Hitlerism is taught as fact in every American public school, with no disagreement allowed." That philosophy is Darwinism, and its influence on Adolf Hitler has been much debated, but Richard Weikart, a professor at California State University, Stanislaus and a Research Fellow at the Discovery Institute, should close the debate with a well-researched, scholarly book, From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). He shows how Darwinism made abortion and racial extermination keys to progress rather than reversions to barbarism, and convincingly argues that Hitler built his view of ethics on Darwinian rather than nihilistic principles. WORLD: When late 19th- and early 20th-century Darwinians examined the value of human life through their new lens, what did they tend to find? WEIKART: Not all Darwinists agreed, but many leading Darwinists, such as Ernst Haeckel, claimed that the descent of humans from animals overthrew the "anthropocentric fable." In their zeal to explain all human traits naturalistically, Darwin and Haeckel denied that humans have a soul. Because of this, many Darwinists rejected the Judeo-Christian sanctity-of-human-life ethic. Further, since the human struggle for existence produces mass death, many Darwinists saw the death of the "unfit" as a means to evolutionary progress. Some even took the next step to propose that killing the "unfit" (i.e., the disabled and inferior races) would benefit humanity. WORLD: How did Darwinism contribute to moral relativism and make evolutionary progress, supposedly brought about by racial struggle, the greatest good? WEIKART: Darwin argued that morality evolved from "social instincts" of animals. He explained that moral characteristics, such as loyalty or honesty, are biological traits favoring groups who possessed them in the human struggle for existence. In his autobiography Darwin confessed that one "can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones." Ironically, while relativizing morality, many Darwinists inconsistently made evolutionary progress a new moral goal: Whatever contributed to the health and vitality of the human species was morally justified, and whatever led to biological degeneration was evil. WORLD: What are the major historical connections between Darwinism and Hitler's ideology? WEIKART: German biologists, anthropologists, physicians, and other scholars used Darwinian theory to promote eugenics, euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination long before Hitler arrived on the scene. Many of these thinkers would have been aghast at the Holocaust, since few were as rabidly anti-Semitic as Hitler, and some were even Jews themselves. Nonetheless, their philosophy of death for the "unfit" had a strong influence on Hitler's ideology. The world-renowned geneticist Fritz Lenz even bragged that Hitler's worldview was shaped by Lenz's writings on human heredity, eugenics, and racism. WORLD: How did Hitler's Mein Kampf reflect a belief in an inescapable Darwinian struggle for existence? WEIKART: Darwinist terminology and concepts are prominent in many of Hitler's writings and speeches. In Mein Kampf he stated, "If reproduction as such is limited and the number of births decreased, then the natural struggle for existence, which only allows the strongest and healthiest to survive, will be replaced by the obvious desire to save at any cost even the weakest and sickest; thereby a progeny is produced, which must become ever more miserable, the longer this mocking of nature and its will persists. . . . A stronger race will supplant the weaker, since the drive for life in its final form will decimate every ridiculous fetter of the so-called humaneness of individuals, in order to make place for the humaneness of nature, which destroys the weak to make place for the strong." This quotation illustrates my assertion that Hitler promoted an evolutionary ethic.>> www.csustan.edu I really think it’s hard to overstate the destructive legacy on humanity of Darwin and his fraudulent theory, which had holes big enough to drive a truck through but which “got rid of God” and so caused atheists to embrace and defend it beyond all reason. It’s only now, 160+ years later, that so-called scientists are waking up to the fact that Darwin was full of it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 29-Oct-23, 07:00 |
You give readers a truly mistaken impression of facts. There is nothing fraudulent about Darwin's theory. It is ca. 160 years old and has required a lot of specifications, and amendments, but it is still the leading theory (with amendments) in evolution science. What Darwin, as a person, thought about God is something different and not part of his theory. Racism was very common 160 years ago, not least in the USA, so your accusations of Darwin in this respect sound like true hypocrisy. Your own ancestors in USA practised slavery to a great extent - actually a lot of the economy was based on this in those times. They definitely figured it out all by themselves without the help by Darwin! It is interesting that you now - 160 years later - blame a foreigner for racism, which flourished well into the 1950's and 1960's ín YOUR country, i.e. even after the deeds of Hitler - - and please, don't say that it was because of Darwin. If someone is 'full of it' it is YOU! |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<You give readers a truly mistaken impression of facts. There is nothing fraudulent about Darwin's theory. It is ca. 160 years old and has required a lot of specifications, and amendments, but it is still the leading theory (with amendments) in evolution science.>> From scientists at the Third Way of Evolution, who are far more knowledgeable about evolution than you: <<Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems without a real empirical basis.>> <<The DNA record does not support the assertion that small random mutations are the main source of new and useful variations. We now know that the many different processes of variation involve well regulated cell action on DNA molecules.>> www.thethirdwayofevolution.com <<What Darwin, as a person, thought about God is something different and not part of his theory.>> Atheism was the driving force behind Darwin’s pseudo-science. Much support for that assertion can be found in this thread: m.gameknot.com Here’s just one of many excerpts: <<Darwin claimed to have developed his theory of natural selection without any preconceived notions, but his writings indicate that his newfound materialistic faith was foundational in its development. On finding a theory that “worked,” or at least worked better than the other theories he entertained, he then searched for the facts that supported his theory, ignoring and explaining away all contrary evidence. Scholars such as George Grinnell, who have studied Darwin for years, are also coming to a similar conclusion: “I have done a great deal of work on Darwin and can say with some assurance that Darwin also did not derive his theory from nature but rather superimposed a certain philosophical world-view on nature and then spent 20 years trying to gather the facts to make it stick.” The popular understanding of Darwin’s beliefs and his practices as a scientist is contrary to the facts. Darwin’s theory was never meant to be compatible with a Creator. Its purpose was to remove God from the last sphere of life He had so dominated. It was an attempt to demolish Paley’s argument from design and give atheism its own “creation” story.>> www.equip.org <<Racism was very common 160 years ago, not least in the USA, so your accusations of Darwin in this respect sound like true hypocrisy.>> Darwin was not only a virulent racist but his crackpot theories envisioned the elimination of what he considered to be lower races (i.e. other than white Europeans.) <<Your own ancestors in USA practised slavery to a great extent - actually a lot of the economy was based on this in those times.>> As far as I know, my ancestors weren’t living in America in the 1800s. But your claim that my ancestors were slave owners is completely unfounded. Not everyone alive in America today had ancestors in America in the 1800s nor did everyone living in America in the 1800s own slaves. Just another of your ubiquitous lies… <<They definitely figured it out all by themselves without the help by Darwin!>> Darwin was a racist - no doubt about it. But I fault him more on the fact that his pseudo-science inspired genocides. <<It is interesting that you now - 160 years later - blame a foreigner for racism, which flourished well into the 1950's and 1960's ín YOUR country, i.e. even after the deeds of Hitler - - and please, don't say that it was because of Darwin.>> Like I said, I blame Darwin more for his crackpot pseudo-science inspiring genocides. And I’ve provided the evidence for that in this thread. <<If someone is 'full of it' it is YOU!>> You’re too intellectually lazy and dogmatic to open your eyes about Darwin. And for all your talk about racism in America decades upon decades ago, Finland - YOUR country - is considered one of the most racist countries in Europe TODAY. <<Finland = One of the most racist countries in Europe Research makes it unmissable that Finnish society has an issue with structural racism. The Being Black in the EU report revealed that Finland is one of the most racist countries in Europe. The findings disclose that 63 % of Finnish respondents were subject to racist harassment and 14 % reported experiencing racist violence in 5 years before the survey. Similarly, the report confirms high occurrences of ethnic profiling and discrimination. According to the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), nearly 40 % of people with foreign background in Finland experienced discrimination within a year.>> www.amnesty.fi |
|||||||||||||||
|
Reuters reported that 17,000 Russians made the crossing that weekend, citing information from the Finnish authorities. This was an 80% increase from the weekend before it. The Finnish Border Guard then imposed restrictions on the entry of Russian citizens to curb the surge. Russian tourists were banned from entering Finland on September 30, the AP reported. Finland's Prime Minister Sanna Marin said in October that the fence is not only being built for symbolic reasons, Yleisradio Oy reported. Marin said that month that the border fence will prevent a wave of illegal migrants crossing from Russia into Finland, the AP reported. This sounds like legal grounds for political asylum. If not for racism, why keep them out? www.insider.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 29-Oct-23, 21:12 |
Softaire But since you don't care about fact (and nobody else here cares), I won't spend my valuable time correcting such obvious mistakes. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Here's a fascinating interview from last year between reputable individuals. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Wait A Minute! These last couple of posts sounded very interesting! What exactly is it that Softaire doesn't understand. I think we're onto an interesting subject here. I would like to see where it goes, please? |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 08-Nov-23, 06:07 |
Softaire's post is dated 29 Oct 2023. He implies that this happened 'in September' and 'in October', i.e. this year. He doesn't understand that this happened more than one year ago. Starting from such an inaccuracy it is not worth discussing, but generally what's wrong about effectively keeping out illegal immigrants? Escaping a legal draft into the army is no ground for poitical asylum. |
|||||||||||||||
|
................................................................................................. How convenient for Stalhandske that he defines political asylum that way. My link was to a post made Oct 1, 2023. So, it would be referencing things that happened previously to that. So??? |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 08-Nov-23, 07:19 |
It is not my definition, it is Finnish Law. |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Vic That's where the free flowing conversation shifted. I simply added on to it. Is that a problem? |
|||||||||||||||
|
@Softaire I was wondering how it happened (I only read the beginning of the 10:39 post.) Thanks for explaining it. |
|||||||||||||||
|
stalhandske 08-Nov-23, 20:32 |
everybody I myself don't think it is a big problem if concepts change within a thread, as in this case. This is supposed to be a spontaneous exchange of ideas and then - strange things may happen since we are after all human |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtube.com Video is 34 seconds |
|||||||||||||||
|
<<What was Charles Darwin’s educational background? Written and fact-checked by The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Growing up, Charles Darwin was always attracted to the sciences. In 1825 his father sent him to the University of Edinburgh to study medicine. There he was exposed to many of the dissenting ideas of the time, including those of Robert Edmond Grant, a former student of the French evolutionist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. He transferred to Christ’s College, Cambridge, in 1828, where his mentors mostly endorsed the idea of providential design. A botany professor suggested he join a voyage on the HMS Beagle—a trip that would provide him with much of his evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection.>> www.britannica.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
Darwin had no training to be a scientist. <<Charles Darwin Perhaps surprisingly, Charles Darwin did not study biology or “natural history”. He enrolled at the University to study medicine in 1825, when he was just 16 years old. Darwin’s father and grandfather had both studied medicine. Edinburgh had the reputation of providing the best medical education in Britain, but Darwin did not enjoy his studies. He left after two years without graduating.>> www.ed.ac.uk. I think Darwin then went to a seminary because his father wanted him to be a priest. He left the seminary to putz around on a ship. You might wonder why so many seemingly intelligent people lionize Darwin. It’s really not hard to answer - Darwin and his theory of molecules-to-man evolution enables atheists to be intellectually fulfilled. That’s why they react so violently when anyone criticizes it. This is an interesting excerpt from the same source… <<We now know that Darwin came up with his theory of evolution by natural selection soon after his return home from the Beagle voyage, but it was many years before he had accumulated enough evidence to publish his work. Four other men with Edinburgh University connections assisted Darwin before and after the publication of The Origin of Species. Hewett Cottrell Watson, who studied natural history at Edinburgh was acknowledged several times in The Origin of Species. Two other naturalists who assisted Darwin during the two decades that he worked on the manuscript, were Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker FRS and Edward Forbes.>> www.ed.ac.uk. So Darwin came up with his theory of molecules-to-man evolution “soon after his return home” from putzing around on a ship and then spent “many years” looking for evidence to support his conclusion and two decades working on a book that presented it? I thought evidence came before conclusions - not after them. Sounds like Darwin had his mind made up and then looked for evidence to support his conclusion. And Darwin was such an egotist that when the fossil record didn’t support his evidence-free wild guess, he didn’t blame his idea, but blamed the fossil record. |
|||||||||||||||
|
youtube.com Video is 55 seconds |
|||||||||||||||
|
College and University Drop-Out, Huh? Unless they get a lot of support and backing from other college and university loosers I guess. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Usually these quitters do not succeed at anything, later on, do they? Unless they get a lot of support and backing from other college and university loosers I guess.>> My understanding is Darwin’s father wanted him to be a doctor and sent him to a university for that purpose. But Darwin didn’t like being around dead bodies and so dropped out. Then his father wanted him to be a priest and sent him to a seminary, but he didn’t like the idea and dropped out. Then he putzed around on a ship looking at beaks on birds and dreamed up his theory of molecules-to-man evolution. He then spent the next 10+ years trying to find evidence to support it. When he couldn’t (even the fossil record didn’t support his idea) he published his book anyway. Those who supported it tended to limit their focus to evolution within a common-sense definition of species, which no one disputes, and ignored Darwin’s completely unsupported claim that millions of species of plants, animals, and humans, could be traced back to a single-celled organism in the ocean. Where did the incredibly complex single-celled organism come from? Don’t ask. That’s one of many 800-pound gorillas in the room when it comes to Darwin’s theory. But none of the skepticism mattered. Atheists swooned because they finally had their own creation story. And they’ve been genuflecting in front of Darwin ever since. |
|||||||||||||||
|
"You Can Not Serve Two Masters" - Jesus 200 years after the birth of Charles Darwin, his theory of evolution still clashes with the creationist beliefs of some organized religions. For him personally, it meant the end of his belief in creation by God Editor's Note: This article originally appeared in Spektrum, and has been translated from German. We are publishing it as part of our tribute to Charles Darwin on his 200th birthday. www.scientificamerican.com |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
