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.
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:
) 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.
