Homosexual football player and evolution discussion

Discussion in 'Happy Hour' started by bearclaw500, Sep 12, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Carolina Speed

    Carolina Speed Master

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    3,904
    Great question!

    Isn't their some confusion or uncertaintity as to who Hillel actually was?

    I need more time to answer.

    I think we need to consider his teachings before Jesus and what 'the Law' meant, before Jesus. Not sure if I explained that the way I meant to.

    Really busy at this moment, but I will get back to you.

    What do you think?
     
  2. Carolina Speed

    Carolina Speed Master

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    3,904
    My short answer is no. Jesus followed no one. He said he fulfilled the law and the prophets!
     
  3. SchaafC

    SchaafC Guru

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    266
    The short answer here is, I don't believe in any of it.

    The story of Jesus, from his birth to his accompaniment by stars and three wise men, to his parents fleeing to Egypt, to his baptism by John, to his death and resurrection; is all just repackaged stories that existed centuries before Jesus is ever alleged to have walked this earth. I think it was propaganda from the beginning.

    I only use it as a proof because you accept it and attempt to use it as a proof to me. In short it is a flawed and contradictory work of man not the divine message to humanity.
     
  4. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    26,095
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I think the "theory of evolution" is the most absurd, illogical, anti-intellectual bunch of voodoo that ever came the pike.

    I do believe that over time, changes in species that are isolated geographically occur. Bears, big cats, and human beings are good examples out of many that could be cited, though of course the vast majority of evolutionists call anyone that observes differences among groups of people "racists," yet another reason why the theory of evolution is little more than another weapon of Cultural Marxism to convince people that they are merely another species of animals.

    But ameobas turning into fish, turning into horses, turning into human beings? :flypig:

    I've participated in a couple of our previous threads on evolution on this board and on others, and have never been given an answer to the following basic query. So I'll try again here:

    How did eyes (sight) "evolve"? If the theory of evolution is correct, at one time all living things had to be blind (without eyes). So what happened? Was a creature born one day with a set of eyes? Or say 1/8 of one eye? If it was 1/8 of one eye, then did the partial eye "evolve" eventually after millions of years into a complete eye, and then two eyes, or was it the miracle of being born with a set of seeing eyes that was then passed on to that creature's species and from there to all other sighted species?

    What about ears (hearing). Again, at some point in time, all living creatures had to be deaf, until miraculously one day one could hear. How did ears evolve from no ears, to ears?

    Same with the sense of smell (noses). How did certain animals develop poisons as self-defense mechanisms?

    How did sea creatures "evolve" into land creatures (or vice versa)? Was a fish born one day in the dim past with a pair legs, and the inclination to try to use them on land? How did gills "evolve" into lungs?

    Most importantly from my perspective, there is no evolutionary link between apes and human beings. Yes, there is the "we share 99% of our DNA with chimps" line, but there is such a jump between humans and apes when it comes to our ability to reason, and feel, and wonder and explore and build. In other words, our wonderful minds that are so flawed in some ways yet are still vastly superior to any animals.

    To believe in the theory of evolution is to cling to a stubborn belief in illogic and miracles that is comparable to the beliefs of the fanatics of any religion. The same true believers in evolution often also believe that the universe can be explained by a "big bang theory," in which a compressed ball of energy the size of a marble one day exploded and created the universe.

    The problem with atheism and science uber alles advocates is that, just like religious leaders, they admit no fallibility, no doubt. And yet, science textbooks from a century or two centuries ago wouldn't be used today, because they would be laughed at. My bet is that hundreds or thousands or millions of years from now, almost all of what today is pronounced as "scientific truth" will also be seen as comically inaccurate and just plain wrong. I'm all for the scientific method, but we are about as capable as amoebas at this point in time when it comes to understanding the mysteries and wonders of life and the universe and our attitudes should reflect that.
     
  5. SchaafC

    SchaafC Guru

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    266
    Science seeks to disprove itself as proof for it's hypothesis. All those text books that they laugh at now, are laughed at because science evolved. The understanding evolved, theories were either proven and accepted. Or disproved and discarded.

    There is no growth in religion, no learning. Just clinging to expired notions of the order of the universe.

    And as for the Big Bang theory, I don't get your problem with it. The universe is continually expanding, therefore if you run it all the back back what would you get?

    All of your questions about evolution and how each step occurred, have been answered for quite some time now. I don't know if you have ever actually tried to understand evolution. But you clearly do not.
     
  6. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    26,095
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Cool, since "all the questions have been answered," clearly evolution is no longer a theory but a proven fact. Why don't you enlighten me by answering one of my questions with known proven fact. Why am I surprised you would rather dismiss my questions than answer any of them.

    And so you believe the universe of trillions of stars and unimaginable vastness began from an exploding marble of matter? If you run it all the way back -- well, you can't, because at some point one has to admit that there was nothingness. So how did nothingness become the marble of matter that exploded and created trillions of stars?
     
  7. Anak

    Anak Mentor

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    771
    Yes, let us apply "logic."

    How did God separate the Red Sea? Is he magical? Where did he learn how to do magic?

    When God made fat people what was he thinking?

    Do you really think it's more logical to just say "God did it"? Or that it's fine reasoning to say, well, you have an abundance of evidence pointing towards "evolution" but there are some fine points that you can't say for sure therefore every bit of it must be complete bunk so therefore I'm gonna continue to go by the religion of desert savages because it's based on faith and not empirical evidence and is open to wildly different interpretations and so can't ever be disproven!

    The one simple answer for your questions is: UNKNOWN.

    You're wrong when you say those that advocate science/evolution don't admit fallibility. The finer points are always and continually debated, but when EVERY science corroborates with the OVERALL picture it's just stupid to debate it, especially with dumb creationist arguments and sophisms. That's why they call it a fact.

    Apes are capable of recognizing themselves in a mirror, this shows that they have awareness of the "self." Chimpanzees in particular are adept at using tools, such as fashioning spears by chewing on the ends of sticks to create sharp points and then using these spears as tools to hunt galagos. Also chimpanzees in captivity have used tree limbs to create bridges and then escape. They have also showed forward planning such as the zoo chimp that knew when he would be presented to tourists and so stored rocks for weeks in order to throw at the tourists. There's also documented cases where they have seemed to display "grief" over the death of a respected member of their tribe. There's many other instances where they have shown creativity, emotion, organized violence, and dissimulation skills. The leap isn't quite as far as you believe. This is not to mention the fossil record of more archaic species within the genus homo, ones closer to apes. IE, homo habilis.
     
  8. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    26,095
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Read my posts again. Where did I argue from a religious position or write that "God did it"? I asked some simple questions based on logic that are a hallowed part of the fairytale of evolution, and your answer is "unknown." And yet you hold to this theory, that can't answer the simplest logical questions with any kind of facts or evidence, as tenaciously as any zealot of any religion. When a "theory" can't explain its most basic components, then it isn't a theory, it's a load of CM crap posing as science.
     
  9. Carolina Speed

    Carolina Speed Master

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    3,904
    Don, if you look at my posts I've also asked questions to evolutionists to which I don't get answers. I only get smart@$$ comments that degrade people of faith! No matter how polite I try to be, I get the same smart@$$ comments. Sometimes SchaafC will debate, but not always in an honest way.

    Don, the reason you and I won't get the answers is because they don't have the answers. No human being will ever have all the answers. No matter how hard they try or how intelligent they think they are they will never have all the answers. Sorry, SchaafC, Anak, etc. you will never, never, ever ,ever have all the answers no matter how smart you think you are, period!

    I believe SchaafC stated, there's no growth in religion? What are you talking about? I don't believe Jesus would be against science. Where do you get that?

    Don, however I have to disagree with you about religious fallibility, if I understand you correctly.

    Fallibility is the whole basis behind Christianity. The Bible says, all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Romans 3:23

    There are none righteous, no not one. Romans 3:10

    Sadly, most stubborn prideful man does not and will not admit this.

    But just because we're flawed does not handcuff us from carrying on with our lives learning, teaching, or whatever it is we choose to do. SUPPORTING WHITE ATHLETES! Thank God for giving us free will!

    The Bible predicts and says what so called intellectuals will do.

    Professing themselves wise, they became fools. Romans 1:22

    Who changed the truth into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the CREATOR, Romans 1:25

    I will never get a serious answer from evolutionists or atheists as to what this means. These are powerful words. If you go on to read the rest of Romans 1; it talks about the vile things that are homosexuality, acts that all of US here on CF believe and understand are wrong!

    Don, whether you believe in Christianity or not; what is wrong with obeying your mother and father, what is wrong with being honest and not lying or stealing or cheating on your wife or coveting? These are all moral laws in the Bible, you'd think we have Satanic worshippers on this site, maybe we do.
    But again, you and I won't get answers to these questions.

    But Don the good news is, "But God commandeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Romans, 5;8

    Someone tell me another RELIGION,(Christianity is not Religion), where God did what Jesus did. There is none. Only Jesus did, not Allah, not Budah, not Aliens, not the flying spaghetti monster, etc.
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2012
  10. Anak

    Anak Mentor

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    771
    That's one point. How did vision began. There are well thought out ideas on how it could have happened that you can look up for yourself but it's not been replicated or shown extensively, therefore it is unknown how EXACTLY it happened. Macro evolution still has a mountain of data supporting it, every find has supported it, every new find in all branches of science supports it. That's why it's a scientific theory. To say it's "CM crap" is silly when all of the supporters of evolution were big time racists before it became taboo due to the Frankfurt School and the Jewish owned media, especially the Eugenicists. By the way, mainstream Christians are all anti-Racist too. Brotherhood of Man and all that malarkey.

    You can say there was a designer, whatever, there's no way of proving that so why even bring it up? Its fodder for fiction, not intelligent rational debate.
     
  11. Don Wassall

    Don Wassall Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2004
    Messages:
    26,095
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    I rest my case, I'm still waiting for an evolution advocate to answer any of my simple logic-based questions. Evolution is at best a belief system not supported by evidence when it comes to its most basic tenents.
     
  12. Anak

    Anak Mentor

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    771
  13. Anak

    Anak Mentor

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    771
  14. jaxvid

    jaxvid Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    7,247
    Location:
    Michigan
    Actually if you read the google entry on the "evolution of the eye" it turns out that animals with sight suddenly appeared in the "Cambrian explosion" with no animals with eyes before that. Not really a story of evolution, more like "eyes just magically appeared" and then there is some conjecture on "how" it might have happened. But no evidence. Fill in the blanks I guess. Sounds like a biblical passage. :suspicious:
     
  15. Bk21

    Bk21 Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Messages:
    300
    Location:
    Dijon - France
    to Don Wassall (you just came to the post!) and Carolina West: The forum is evolving (low budget pun intended) too quickly and there is no time just to WRITE the beginning of an answer, when another pops and we finish with DW stating that "no matter what I ask" I get no answer. (questions are at 7:56 - I rest my case it at 8:56)you rested your case when most of us didn't have time read your first post.

    CW you posted yesterday an article about "the evolution of whales" I bearly got the time to read, to organize my writing (I'm not a natural english writer like the most of you here) when Don came up with 3 or 4 other questions, wanting a complete and understandable answer in the following minutes.

    So, for now (for me it'll be JUST the first question/article you posted):

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/inte...ion-ancient-whale-jawbone-found-in-antartica/

    The mechanisms of evolution aren't infallible, and scientists aren't always agree on HOW evolution proceeded in such and such particular case. Having the evidence that evolution occured, doesn't mean we know Everything about HOW it did occur. Questions like How and How long this event took to happen are subject of studies all the time, and it's subject of every day researchs. it's like coming to a crime scene, you have a dead body and you have clues to understand how the murder went: you may (or may not) solve the mystery, but if you didn't, that doesn't mean that there is no dead body at all.
    to go back to the whale evolution, the article shows multiple steps of the evolution of whales in the article, but was thrilled to see that it "occured faster than previously thought" - the previously calculated amount of time needed is taken from a research of "Richard Von Stenberg", and the article says that he "over estimated" the time it took to happen.

    So in conclusion: all these "intermediates" are just separate extinct animals (created separately), that, if they wanted to copy a full intermediate serie between the ancestor and the whale, couldn't do better - so good that even actual whales carry the vestiges of atrophied hind legs!
    the article finishes with: "another bad day for evolution".
    In fact, this article shows exactly what creationism (again, by creationism I mean the all-at-once creation, not theist evolution, which is also a creation, but not creationism) is searching for: they're jumping on a time misconception (according to A research made by Stenberg) to state san mistake that evolution of whales must be false and ipso facto, all evolution is wrong.

    I may add a paragraph to this article, the evolution scheme predicted a common ancestor between whales (mammals) and land animals (another mammal) - which is the hippopotamus. If the two are cousins, there must be some evidence to support that: well molecular and genetic analysis of the genomes of whales and hippos gives evidence about their common past. - (Testable Prediction)
    You may say (and I understand) that you are not fully aware of HOW genetics could prove that two species are related (or not) (it's not just a mere percentage of the genome, it's way more complex than that -that's why I suggested Francis Collins book) - there are some informations that are impossible to get by skimming the internet.

    in the future post I'll try (as much as possible) to give a study about just ONE similarity between human and chimps genome, (it's not just that sharing percentage like you would expect ;) ) in reply to one of Don Wassall's multiple questions. you'll see that NOT considering the evolution is putting some randomness odds incredibly low!! in other words, you need a huge leap of faith NOT to beleive in evolution.
     
    Last edited: Oct 5, 2012
  16. Bk21

    Bk21 Guru

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Messages:
    300
    Location:
    Dijon - France
    An answer to Don Wassall- chimps and human common ancestor: genetic analysis.

    If we take a chimp DNA and compare it to Human DNA, we find that they are quite similar :

    [​IMG]
    The (majority) of genes align in the same order

    clip_image002.jpg

    And around 98% (number depends on the studies, but it’s in that order) of our DNA is identical to chimp’s : is it because we share common ancestor with them??

    For the theologians, this DNA matching is just a proof that there is one conceptor for all beings.

    Now Let’s suppose that the THEORY OF EVOLITION IS WRONG:

    We do not share only FONTIONNAL parts of our DNA with chimps, (genes and genes regulators), we share also what is sometimes referred to as "junk DNA" (non-coding)
    Take for example the short arm of the 10[SUP]th[/SUP] chromosome, it presents the relic of a viral infection: the sequence is known as an Endogenous RetroVirus RVE.
    What’s an RVE? a virus stores its genetic information in RNA and not DNA. When they infect a cell, they convert their RNA genome into DNA, a phenomenon called reverse transcriptase. This DNA inserts randomly in one of the site’s chromosome.
    If it happens that this RVE infects a germ cell, and you reproduce, this DNA will be transmitted to the next generation, and the next and so on.
    Strangely, at the same place in the chimp genome (tenth chromosome, same place) there is an RVE: it could be just a coincidence! but chances that an infection is in the same place randomly in two different species is 1/3.000.000.000
    Otherwise: on the short part of the chromosome 1, there is a vestige of another RVE infection, and exactly on the same place we find a viral infection in the chimps DNA. Chances that 2 RVE get in same places in two different species is around 1/ 4.500.000.000.000.000.000.000
    - At the long arm of the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] chromosome, there is an RVE (also corresponding with chimp DNA)- another RVE at the short arm of the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] chromosome, and the long arm of the chromosome X- probability that 5 places match is 1/ 10(40)- in fact there is 16 different RVE infections corresponding to the exact location of chimp DNA. Chances go down to almost zero.
    And these are only class K RVE’s!
    Our genome contains around 98.000 RVE the majority of them appearing in chimps, gorillas, ourangutan, and macaques. Chances that these insertions happens randomly at the exact location is ridiculously small!

    Now supposing that the THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS TRUE:

    A RVE infection of the common ancestor of chimps and humans will be inherited by chimps and human, by reproduction. The probability of that happening is 1 – ONE.

    How creationists (again -not be mistaken with all kinds of creation beleifs, such as theistic evolution) respond to that?

    1- the RVE are not viral infections:
    we know that this is false for 2 reasons: RVE sequences resemble exactly to RVE genome.
    We can actually SEE RVE forming (in lab), when it infects a cell
    2- the RVE didn’t came from viruses, viruses come from RVE:
    it’s like saying that a ship comes from a shipwreck and not the other way around! (??)
    this is completely illogical because: RVE are mutated and are not-functionnal
    a lot have entire genes deleted from their sequence (so they cannot make viruses!)
    3- RVE were inserted by God exactly at the same places to imitate what evolution predicts (no comment)

    So: either evolution is wrong, and such infections happened randomly in odds extremely low 2x10.138zeros.
    OR humans and chimps share common ancestor.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  17. dwid

    dwid Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,237
    Location:
    Louisiana
    don't know how this instantly turned into "live and let live" and evolved into this.

    Penn St just trying to overcome the Sandusky thing. A football program has an 18 year old with a 65 year old man in the film room? Yes, 18 is legal, barely, and being around people that age all the time, I assure you they are still mentally KIDS.

    Speaking of evolution though, if we evolved from apes, where does rh negative blood come from? I cannot find a definite answer ranging from a mutation (blood mutations extremely rare and no definite positives for the mutation, only negatives with negative women killing off their own offspring in the womb) all the way to conspiracy theories of "interbreeding with aliens". So from what I have looked at, no answer. (btw rh negative blood can NOT be cloned) One of the many holes in the theory? Regardless, still interesting to think about.

    I think what Don is saying hits it the best. We don't know absolute truths no matter where you stand on the issue. All of it requires some faith, or some humble pie to admit that you don't know everything which seems pretty arrogant when you seem you are absolutely sure of your beliefs. Religious people admit it requires faith, people on your side who seem to think the issue is black and white (creationist theory vs evolution), not so much. Scientists will tell you the more they find out about life, universe etc, the more they realize how much the actually DON'T know. So the logical thing is to believe that we really don't know and aren't even close.

    I mean it is probable that our brains increased in size, by like what? didn't they double in size in such a short time period as far as evolution is concerned? no, not really probable, but it doesn't rule it out, so no definite answers.

    As far as these online resources to prove your point, be careful of what you use. I had a crazy professor who wound up at my smaller university because of problems, even though a very bright man. He lost that job after stabbing a man after during a period of road rage. I caught up with him not too long ago, his son plays on a local team. He was let go because of the incident and says he spends his days corrupting online information just for the fun of it. It may look legit but a lot of garbage put in there, not much different than many of the books that I have read but still something to think about. Plus, you cannot eliminate personal bias when writing about these types of issues.

    As far a the Big Bang, there are different theories, but didn't the Big Bang originate from a priest? So you back religious thought when it suits your beliefs?

    btw bk, what is your first language?
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  18. Anak

    Anak Mentor

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    771
  19. dwid

    dwid Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Messages:
    4,237
    Location:
    Louisiana
    When did I ever advocate not looking into things further? Then there would be no progression, but to say that your word is fact and that is it, is arrogance. You cannot progress when you focus on one idea without an open mind. Also, never mentioned anything about religion being the all cure or suggested that scientific research stop to rely on praying. Those are your words put in there, to try and stereotype my beliefs without even looking into them, when you have no ****ing clue as to what I believe.

    bacterial resistance has little to do what we are talking about. We know of the mutations we know that we become resistant to antibiotics over time, which is why there have been so many different ones put on the market. Not using antibiotics to cure a virus is just common sense and not sure what it is still practiced today. I never give them to my kids (unless it became some serious emergency and a known bacterial infection with not much other treatment), the doctors just prescribe them "just in case". It seems the link is talking about smaller adaptations rather than evolution in the sense we are discussing. You spray chemicals to kill mosquitoes, a small amount survive and are resistant and they reproduce at a higher rate. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Everything adapts to survive, please connect how this relates to the questions asked by other members such as Don where we are talking about major adaptations from amoeba to chimp to human.

    but hey if you want to focus on genetic testing so that rich jews can procreate without the numerous genetic disorders such as Tay Sachs in their offspring and consider that progression and somehow relate it to a different issue then go ahead. They seem to be the group benefiting the most from this. Don't see how it is benefiting those in South America with Huntington's because most of these people don't have the resources to get screened for this for this before reproducing. Hopefully this will progress into something better to help eliminate the disease but not so much right now. Their solution for this current problem is to hand out birth control basically telling them not to reproduce if the disease exists anywhere in the family, sounds more like population control. You wipe out the disease as well as the people (although I doubt they are following that advice), while jews can spend tons of money to see if either the potential husband or wife is a carrier of numerous genetic diseases to decide whether they should have kids, managing to avoid the disease (although still can remain carriers) and still reproduce...progress? It doesn't eliminate the disease, just allows for people to reproduce, even though those offspring might not be suffering from the diseases they are still passing on the genes, allowing for it to keep existing. Who receives the best HIV care? When an old neighbor of mine (homo) makes roughly 300k a year under the table as an interior decorator but is on medicaid or medicare(get the two confused) because his salary isn't enough to pay for his HIV care just doesn't seem right. Scientific progress but it just doesn't seem like the best for society as a whole the way this is set up.

    Admitting we don't know everything promotes progress. It allows us to further research into things, to keep searching for answers and solutions. I don't see how pretending to know everything benefits us.
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2012
  20. The Hock

    The Hock Master

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2008
    Messages:
    3,241
    Location:
    Northern California
    Well, I read the article, finally. Didn't see anything about evolution or religion in the story. I did note that the erstwhile linebacker was kicked off the team not for being homosexual, or even the smooch necessarily, but for lying to the coach about it afterward. His initial explanation to the coach was that the man he was with (an internet hook-up) was his grandfather.

    Now, I know there's some old line about kissing you grandmother, but could it be that in the "gay" world they turn it around to...oh, never mind.
     
  21. DixieDestroyer

    DixieDestroyer Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    9,464
    Location:
    Dixieland
  22. Awake in America

    Awake in America Mentor

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2012
    Messages:
    996

    I'd be interested in hearing how that's not a perfect example of a straw man fallacy. Perfection is so seldom observed, but this looks pretty close to it. If you are right, you shouldn't have to resort to fallacy.
     
  23. Anak

    Anak Mentor

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2010
    Messages:
    771
    You guys are saying evolution is "anti-intellectual," okay, what should be taught to students then because the only alternative is "god made everything" and scientists should stop interpreting the data apparently because they don't have every piece of the puzzle.

    You guys try to imply that since we "don't know everything" that creationism could have happened. Sorry, but Christianity has long been known to be a load of crap.
     
  24. Rebajlo

    Rebajlo Mentor

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2009
    Messages:
    1,520
    Location:
    N.S.W. - Australia
    Don -

    Great post. I've just read through the entire eight-page thread (which has managed to "evolve" to the point of Jaxvid having to alter the original title) and intended to post something along similar lines but You obviously beat me to it.

    I don't normally bother to involve myself in the well-worn and ultimately futile debates revolving around evolution, creationism, and religion (for, after all, nobody is about to change their minds, are they?) but after slogging through those posts I feel compelled to drop in a comment or two.

    Let's begin with the attitudes of hard-core proponents of evolution, a number of which have been on prominent display in this very thread: superciliousness, scorn, self-righteous shock that someone would actually possess the basest of base temerity to disagree (can You believe it, disagree!) with that almighty macro-evolutionary theory which should be religiously accepted as an axiom.

    Today's atheists exhibit charming traits similar to those of the medieval, bonfire-loving churchmen they so delight in despising. Anyone who fails to concur with their flawless worldview is a heretic, a benighted creature beneath contempt. Their staggeringly perfervid faith in evolutionary theory would undoubtedly make a medieval Inquisitor or Puritan witch-hunter blush with envy.

    When we look at academia, we can observe plenty of "closed mindedness" and "rigidity" (incidentally, any bona fide poofters reading this would do well to contain their excitement at the potentially salacious double-entendre...), especially in the ubiquitous "climate change" debate. In the latter case, if a scientist dares to contradict the prevalent "accepted" views (the adherence to which mysteriously happens to be linked to the obtainment of government / university funding...), he is unhesitatingly labelled a fraud, a charlatan, or a drooling ignoramus.

    The so-called credibility of those "prominent", award-winning climate scientists goes straight out the proverbial fenestra when they attribute blame for any variations in "global" temperature solely to the evil White man's industries. To that end, they generally omit to publicly mention the sulphurous 19th century-like smog generated by the contemporary dark, satanic mills of the eternally "developing world", with the Chinks to the coal-incinerating fore. A bit convenient, isn't it?

    Another thing about such "eminent" scientists' selective application of "evidence": one may notice that the frighteningly exponential non-White population growth and the obvious need to curb it never appear to be issues in discussions about the impact of humans upon the planet. No agendas here - it's just pure, "impartial" science. Trust us, we're scientists, we know it all...

    Speaking of knowing it all, remember thalidomide? Splendid stuff, eh what? Unfortunately, that particular wonder drug can no longer be ladled out in those asbestos-panelled clinics, can it now. Who's in that photo hanging on the wall, I hear You ask? Why, it's grandad at Desert Rock IV during his army days. Strangely enough, he died awfully young. Inexplicable, really...

    As Don said, when it comes to science many of today's "irrefutable facts" may very well become stock jokes of the future - and we already have more than enough evidence to support that little trend, do we not...

    It isn't my wish to stir the bubbling cauldron, but I often wonder how the condescendingly "omniscient" atheists / evolutionists / admirers of SS tailoring who bounce about "White Nationalist" circles would view things if the historically dominant Western religion comprised a belief system virtually congruent with the tenets of Christianity but centred upon a German messiah. What if the words "Israel" and "Israelites" were simply replaced with "Germany" and "Germans" (or, if one prefers, "Aryans") and the "carpenter" was named, let's say, "Hermann"? Would they be so casually dismissive of the Bible? Or would its apparently puerile contents be far more plausibe. Just a thought...

    Right, as my girlfriend isn't about, I'm off to eat a banana, have a wank, then soak in a bath. ****, come to think on it, I may just have stumbled upon some incontrovertible atavistic behavioural evidence which proves that I'm descended from monkeys and amoebae! Pass the Nobel Prize, You uneducated hicks... :icon_wink:
     
  25. jaxvid

    jaxvid Hall of Famer

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Messages:
    7,247
    Location:
    Michigan
    Funny stuff as always Rebajlo....

    In defense of those that defend evolutionary thinking is the observation that there is adaptation of species primarily due to environment going on all the time. The urge to extrapolate that on further is understandable. And the science behind how organisms adapt is worthy of study and is the foundation of modern thinking. There is no biology class without it, for example.

    However there is no way to really explain first cause(s) of existence through that process and no science is going to comfort you when the night is late, the child is sick, the prognosis terminal. There must be a way to deal with that part of life, which is much more important to the individual then the explanation of abstract scientific theory which has little effect on ones here and now.

    Sometimes it's better to hold competing theories about life then try to distill it all down to a single answer. Since there is no way one will ever know the correct answer the best bet is to get through your own existence in as satisfactory a manner as possible.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page