Evidence for Design #2: How life began

[JoeBlow]

Oh, yeah?

Well, Youuuuu think that space aliens seeded Earth with DNA, and you're waiting for them to come back to abduct you!

At least I'm not a wussy weenie who's too ashamed to say what I believe, like you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

At least I'm not a wussy weenie who's too ashamed to say what I believe, like you.

So you admit you believe in the space aliens?

Are you hoping they'll pick you to travel aboard their intergalactic transport to mate with the queen of their planet after she shape shifts into a young Cesar Romero?

 

[Astrostar]

It's comical when the hyper-religious invent a scenario that has only one possible conclusion: ''The Gawds Did It''

Where did DNA come from under the gods? They just magically invented it?

Curious that the hyper-religious can announce with certainty that their conspiracy theories confirm the death of science and knowledge.

Who's ready to burn some old ladies at the stake? Gimme' that old-time religion.

The religious nut jobs will never give up; It's all part of their "war on religion." Besides, there is too much money at stake.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I wanted to ask you if evolution/natural selection has anything to do with atheism? I figure you're the leading forum expert on evolution from all the threads that you started. I think you will say yes. I think we can have natural selection as science and that does not have to with atheism. Is this part of the messy/biz you are referring to with evolution/NATURAL selection. With natural selection, I think it could be pantheism for example if you don't like creation.

With creation science, God must come in because we can't have creation w/o the supernatural and we have the Bible or God's autobiography to guide us.

Darwin's idea of natural selection originating species isnt by definition atheist. But it was seized on by atheists as a way to be "intellectually fulfilled" (Dawkins). Makes sense because before Darwin it was hard to reconcile a belief in pure naturalism with the complexity and apparent design of life on Earth.

So Darwin was grasped at by atheists the way a hungry baby will grab an empty bottle and suck at it like a pacifiar.

 

[Hollie]

Darwin's idea of natural selection originating species isnt by definition atheist. But it was seized on by atheists as a way to be "intellectually fulfilled" (Dawkins). Makes sense because before Darwin it was hard to reconcile a belief in pure naturalism with the complexity and apparent design of life on Earth.

So Darwin was grasped at by atheists the way a hungry baby will grab an empty bottle and suck at it like a pacifiar.

Fears and superstitions used by the hyper-religious to explain natural events have been overtaken by the knowledge promoted by science.

Thunder, lighting, disease, etc., are not evidence of design by superatural desgner entities.

 

[Ringtone]

The Bible is not an autobiography of your polytheistic gods. None of your gods wrote anything in the Bibles.

This is not the place for Jimmy Swaggert Bible thumping.

 

[Ringtone]

Fears and superstitions used by the hyper-religious to explain natural events have been overtaken by the knowledge promoted by science.

Thunder, lighting, disease, etc., are not evidence of design by superatural desgner entities.

 

[Hollie]

Well thought out post.

 

[Hollie]

Learned everything you know from Jimny Swaggert, eh?

 

[abu afak]

I wanted to ask you if evolution/natural selection has anything to do with atheism? I figure you're the leading forum expert on evolution from all the threads that you started. I think you will say yes.

NOTHING whatsoever.
the conclusion and consensus has been reached on every continent despite religion/s.

The only thing stopping one from agreeing IS LITTERalist religion. I posted a chart, and many religions in majority acknowledge evo.

With creation science, God must come in because we can't have creation w/o the supernatural and we have the Bible or God's autobiography to guide us.

"Creation Science" is an Oxymoron, you are a plain old Moron.

`

 

[abu afak]

Darwin's idea of natural selection originating species isnt by definition atheist. But it was seized on by atheists as a way to be "intellectually fulfilled" (Dawkins). Makes sense because before Darwin it was hard to reconcile a belief in pure naturalism with the complexity and apparent design of life on Earth.

So Darwin was grasped at by atheists the way a hungry baby will grab an empty bottle and suck at it like a pacifiar.

You're projecting your designest voodooism on science and people who believe/ACKNOWLEDGE (as its a fact) a pursuit that has given us all our progress.

In fact, YOU believe in/ACKNOWLEDGE (as its a fact) science except the small area where it contradicts your personal religion.

`

 

[Ringtone]

You're projecting your designest voodooism on science and people who believe/ACKNOWLEDGE (as its a fact) a pursuit that has given us all our progress.

In fact, YOU believe in/ACKNOWLEDGE (as its a fact) science except the small area where it contradicts your personal religion.

`

 

[james bond]

NOTHING whatsoever.
the conclusion and consensus has been reached on every continent despite religion/s.

The only thing stopping one from agreeing IS LITTERalist religion. I posted a chart, and many religions in majority acknowledge evo.


"Creation Science" is an Oxymoron, you are a plain old Moron.

`

Bingo! Thus, atheists have no science to base their religion on. I used to think they thought evolution backed it up, but atheism is just based on their wrong faith and logic. How I came to change my mind was that Hitler bought into Darwinism and eugenics. As a child, he was taught Christianity and became a Christian, but thought God was more based on nature than a supernatural being after reading and being influenced by Darwin.

"Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies. Hitler believed that the human gene pool could be improved by using selective breeding similar to how farmers breed superior cattle strains. In the formulation of their racial policies, Hitler’s government relied heavily upon Darwinism, especially the elaborations by Spencer and Haeckel. As a result, a central policy of Hitler’s administration was the development and implementation of policies designed to protect the ‘superior race’. This required at the very least preventing the ‘inferior races’ from mixing with those judged superior, in order to reduce contamination of the latter’s gene pool. The ‘superior race’ belief was based on the theory of group inequality within each species, a major presumption and requirement of Darwin’s original ‘survival of the fittest’ theory. This philosophy culminated in the ‘final solution’, the extermination of approximately six million Jews and four million other people who belonged to what German scientists judged as ‘inferior races’."

Darwinism and the Nazi Race Holocaust

Leading Nazis, and early 1900 influential German biologists, revealed in their writings that Darwin’s theory and publications had a major influence upon Nazi race policies.

answersingenesis.org

That said, Hitler didn't believe humans came from ape-humans. They would be considered a lower class in nature and would not survive according to Darwinism. It's stupid to believe in ape-humans as there is no evidence for them and only people SAF like you fall for it. Hitler's belief in Dawinism was more based on nature instead of a supernatural God and it made Hitler more of a pantheist. Einstein was probably a pantheist, too.

But Darwin did believe there was a superior and inferior race and men were superior to women being the inferior sex -- -- Darwin's Teaching of Women's Inferiority.

"Darwin was, after all, a man of his time, class and society. True, he was committed to a monogenic, rather than the prevailing polygenic, view of human origins, but he still divided humanity into distinct races according to differences in skin, eye or hair colour. He was also convinced that evolution was progressive, and that the white races—especially the Europeans—were evolutionarily more advanced than the black races, thus establishing race differences and a racial hierarchy. Darwin's views on gender, too, were utterly conventional. He stated that the result of sexual selection is for men to be, “more courageous, pugnacious and energetic than woman [with] a more inventive genius. His brain is absolutely larger [...] the formation of her skull is said to be intermediate between the child and the man” (Darwin 1871). Although female choice explains sexual selection, it is the males who evolve in order to meet the chosen criteria of strength and power; such nineteenth century differentiation between the sexes was crucial in providing an alleged biological basis for the superiority of the male.

Any attempt to separate a ‘good' Darwin from a ‘bad' Social Darwinist cannot be sustained against a careful reading of Darwin's own writing. He enthusiastically endorsed his cousin Francis Galton's view of hereditary genius transmitted down the male line, and nodded cautiously towards eugenics. During the 150 years since Darwin wrote such views on race, gender and eugenics, whilst sometimes subterranean, they have never entirely vanished; a sorry history, often told."

Darwin, race and gender

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Despite his belief in superior races, he married his cousin and was an inbred -- how many kids did charles darwin have - Lisbdnet.com.

If one really delves into Charles Darwin, you can see that he was full of contradictions in his writings, statements and how he lived his life.

 

[james bond]

If my opponents here do not realize, "It's stupid to believe in ape-humans as there is no evidence for them...", at least I hope they discovered what Charles Darwin and his friends were like.

 

[james bond]

The religious nut jobs will never give up; It's all part of their "war on religion." Besides, there is too much money at stake.

Are you poor, uneducated and lack money?

Why do you call it a "war?" Who are the religious fighting with? Aren't the atheists just as much part of this "war on religion?" Only the ags can be excused. Are you a biased POS?

There were "religious wars," but that was in the 16th and 17th centuries. Are you a senior POS?

Finally, your last comment goes to show that the Christian contributors can afford it. My local church thinks a commitment to pay $41/mth is acceptable to ask for. For you, just go back to my first comment.