Clarkey Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I find the factual Da Vinci conspiracy theory credible when it concerns The belief in the exsistence of Jesus Christ and the belief that he was the son of God Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 So Darwin' theory is a 'fast moving and deadly poisin' (sic), care to explain why? Already gone though this at length, but if you missed it Too many scientists so subjective in their outlook they dismiss it without proper objective analysis. I have studied it in detail, and have found that the modern version uses only what can be scientifically proven. I have never once heard "We believe" or "its our theory" or any assumption for that matter from that movement. I attended a talk by Prof Ken Ham which had over 1000 people at it. I can out gubsmacked at his knowledge and fact based agenda. Since then I have respect for these guys who are all top scientists. Since then I have learned just how may scientists world-wide have taken this view, the numbers increase greatly every year. Seems it's a popular subject world-wide with experienced surgeons, who are often the mouthpiece for it. I try to base my views on what seems the most realistic, and looking at the evils which can "evolve" from Atheism the results are demonstrated by Darwin and his cousin Galton. Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton founded the evolutionary Pseudo-science of Eugenics. He shared Darwin's antagonism for religion for most of his adult life. He was a childhood genius, knew the alphabet @ 18months, memorised poetry by 5, discussed the Iliad @ 6 !. Galton believed that talent, character, intellect etc was inherent from ones ancestors.Therefore the poor were not hapless victims of their circumstances but were paupers because they were biologically inferior!!.He believed that humans should be selectively bred. Galtons views left no room whatsoever for human dignity or the human soul. He wrote "Hereditary Genius" in 1869 which proposed a system of arranged marriages, of people of distinction. Darwin mentioned Galton no less than 11 times in his book Decent of man.Galton was much awarded for his work. His work had great effect in that from the 1920's on more than half of the US states had laws for the compulsory sterilization of those held in custody who were deemed to be "unfit". This resulted in the forced sterilization of some 70,000 victims who were criminals, drug addicts, paupers, blind or deaf, or mentally retarded and other conditions. Even a few were done as late as the 70's!. About 60,000 swedish victims between 1935 and 1976, and it went on in Norway and Canada, the figures of which I dont know. Hitler reckoned a more cost effective way was in order with Genocide, over 11 million in total, including Jews, Christians, Blacks, Gypsies, communists, gays, amputees, and mental patients. This was rampant Darwinism, with a strong Galton sauce served with murder. Sadly ideas of racial superiority and eugenics did not die with Hitler. David Duke, Americas infamous anti black, anti-jew racist developed his ideas from reading Galton, Sir Arthur Keith etc. Galton/ Darwin also were strong on abortion, their legacy means today there is a one in four chance of a baby being aborted world-wide. In certain cultures it is common to find out the sex of a baby and abort on those grounds alone. However I doubt that Galton ever thought his theories would ever cause such havoc. If you were to consider the lesser of two evils, so to speak, maybe religion is the victim of a witch hunt, a smoke screen for the harsh and obviously heartless living style of the Pseudo-science of Eugenics born from wanton Atheism. The prescient of Atheist thinking is usually based on the outcome of accepted scientific theory, hence why Atheism is a religion, even though it needs no church, with no absolute definition to its structure or boundaries. Atheism clearly attacks other religions that have moral boundaries and laws etc, and opens the highway of Darwinistic/Galvinistic preaching to the masses. Many Atheists are particularly outspoken against Islam, saying its mind control, and based on a work of fiction, typically being hypocritical with its one sided "live and let live" policy, it continually fails to practise what it preaches in these modern times. Most Atheists have no solid thinking on their views of life - the universe - and everything (Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy quote there, and yes the answer is 42!), preferring to revel in whatever theory science throws forward that makes them comfortable. If they truly believe their is no afterlife, and Emily -Rose was just some psycho off her head, then why do they fear death more than any other religion? surely its just accepted as the "natural end"?. Atheism is also a very interesting religion to follow as the decade go by, science changes it's theories and various world views change, so does the ever searching Atheists set of views and moral values, which are truly optional to them. Someone on Supraforums once had the quote "The devils greatest trick was to convince people he didnt exist", giving this some thought, creating Atheism rather than Satanism was just as effective for him. What a smart move for him? Personally, from experience and many conversations down the boozer, most people hide behind Atheism, as religion is too scary, challenging, and a good escape goat to throw the worlds problems at. It's also worth considering how many people in the 3rd world benifit from religious charitys, without which many would have absoloutely no hope in this world. I know of one single church who now sponsors several orphanages, schools and even bakerys in places like Romania and Ethopia. The world wide effort of churches makes many people lives better, and discriminates against no skin colour. So there you go, and Martin, try "IN six Days" by John F Ashton Phd, 50 scientists who believe in creation over evolution, compelling reading, and thats just the tip of the iceberg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorin Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Someone on Supraforums once had the quote "The devils greatest trick was to convince people he didnt exist" Kevin Spacey also said a similar line in The Usual Suspects. And surely an Atheist's view can't change? They do not believe in the existance of any god, period... I'm Agnostic by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoboblio Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Too many scientists so subjective in their outlook they dismiss it without proper objective analysis. I have studied it in detail, and have found that the modern version uses only what can be scientifically proven. I have never once heard "We believe" or "its our theory" or any assumption for that matter from that movement. I attended a talk by Prof Ken Ham which had over 1000 people at it. I can out gubsmacked at his knowledge and fact based agenda. Since then I have respect for these guys who are all top scientists. Since then I have learned just how may scientists world-wide have taken this view, the numbers increase greatly every year. Seems it's a popular subject world-wide with experienced surgeons, who are often the mouthpiece for it. I try to base my views on what seems the most realistic, and looking at the evils which can "evolve" from Atheism the results are demonstrated by Darwin and his cousin Galton. Darwin's cousin Sir Francis Galton founded the evolutionary Pseudo-science of Eugenics. He shared Darwin's antagonism for religion for most of his adult life. He was a childhood genius, knew the alphabet @ 18months, memorised poetry by 5, discussed the Iliad @ 6 !. Galton believed that talent, character, intellect etc was inherent from ones ancestors.Therefore the poor were not hapless victims of their circumstances but were paupers because they were biologically inferior!!.He believed that humans should be selectively bred. Galtons views left no room whatsoever for human dignity or the human soul. He wrote "Hereditary Genius" in 1869 which proposed a system of arranged marriages, of people of distinction. Darwin mentioned Galton no less than 11 times in his book Decent of man.Galton was much awarded for his work. His work had great effect in that from the 1920's on more than half of the US states had laws for the compulsory sterilization of those held in custody who were deemed to be "unfit". This resulted in the forced sterilization of some 70,000 victims who were criminals, drug addicts, paupers, blind or deaf, or mentally retarded and other conditions. Even a few were done as late as the 70's!. About 60,000 swedish victims between 1935 and 1976, and it went on in Norway and Canada, the figures of which I dont know. Hitler reckoned a more cost effective way was in order with Genocide, over 11 million in total, including Jews, Christians, Blacks, Gypsies, communists, gays, amputees, and mental patients. This was rampant Darwinism, with a strong Galton sauce served with murder. Sadly ideas of racial superiority and eugenics did not die with Hitler. David Duke, Americas infamous anti black, anti-jew racist developed his ideas from reading Galton, Sir Arthur Keith etc. Galton/ Darwin also were strong on abortion, their legacy means today there is a one in four chance of a baby being aborted world-wide. In certain cultures it is common to find out the sex of a baby and abort on those grounds alone. However I doubt that Galton ever thought his theories would ever cause such havoc. If you were to consider the lesser of two evils, so to speak, maybe religion is the victim of a witch hunt, a smoke screen for the harsh and obviously heartless living style of the Pseudo-science of Eugenics born from wanton Atheism. The prescient of Atheist thinking is usually based on the outcome of accepted scientific theory, hence why Atheism is a religion, even though it needs no church, with no absolute definition to its structure or boundaries. Atheism clearly attacks other religions that have moral boundaries and laws etc, and opens the highway of Darwinistic/Galvinistic preaching to the masses. Many Atheists are particularly outspoken against Islam, saying its mind control, and based on a work of fiction, typically being hypocritical with its one sided "live and let live" policy, it continually fails to practise what it preaches in these modern times. Most Atheists have no solid thinking on their views of life - the universe - and everything (Hitch hikers guide to the galaxy quote there, and yes the answer is 42!), preferring to revel in whatever theory science throws forward that makes them comfortable. If they truly believe their is no afterlife, and Emily -Rose was just some psycho off her head, then why do they fear death more than any other religion? surely its just accepted as the "natural end"?. Atheism is also a very interesting religion to follow as the decade go by, science changes it's theories and various world views change, so does the ever searching Atheists set of views and moral values, which are truly optional to them. Someone on Supraforums once had the quote "The devils greatest trick was to convince people he didnt exist", giving this some thought, creating Atheism rather than Satanism was just as effective for him. What a smart move for him? Personally, from experience and many conversations down the boozer, most people hide behind Atheism, as religion is too scary, challenging, and a good escape goat to throw the worlds problems at. It's also worth considering how many people in the 3rd world benifit from religious charitys, without which many would have absoloutely no hope in this world. I know of one single church who now sponsors several orphanages, schools and even bakerys in places like Romania and Ethopia. The world wide effort of churches makes many people lives better, and discriminates against no skin colour. So there you go, and Martin, try "IN six Days" by John F Ashton Phd, 50 scientists who believe in creation over evolution, compelling reading, and thats just the tip of the iceberg. Sorry but I've read through that entire post, and at no point can I see any scientific or factual point to disprove Darwin's theory. I can see references to a superior race and Hitler, and character assassinations though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clarkey Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 etc etc I've read through that entire post I haven't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 You have to love these creationists. Hanging onto an ideal from a time when people knew no better. Bless 'em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 You have to love these creationists. Hanging onto an ideal from a time when people knew no better. Bless 'em. nice to know you're still an open minded individual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 nice to know you're still an open minded individual The biggest bigots are the evolutionists IMO. OK then, evolutionists tell me what there is to PROVE evolution, this I have to hear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 You have to love these creationists. Hanging onto an ideal from a time when people knew no better. Bless 'em. Creation science is based on the same geologicial evidence, without the crazy theorys being applied, e.g. 300 millions years p.s. If you want to knock it I suggest you learn about it first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 How old do you think the Earth is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 The biggest bigots are the evolutionists IMO. OK then, evolutionists tell me what there is to PROVE evolution, this I have to hear. Prove Creationism first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted April 9, 2007 Author Share Posted April 9, 2007 Yeah, so it was a good movie..........was it nominated for any oscars or anything???? If not, then it should have... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 nice to know you're still an open minded individual I am open-minded just not where pseudo-mystical control mechanisms are concerned. Like I've said before I've read enough to have made my own mind up. I don't believe any god exists, I think the bible is a load of shite and I genuinely believe that until mankind can free itself of the baggage of religion we will never realise our full potential. In 2000 years time people will look back at us and marvel at how little we knew and yet some people living now look back 2000 years and think all the answers were discovered then. Unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmark Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Yeah, so it was a good movie..........was it nominated for any oscars or anything???? If not, then it should have... You must be proud mate, an arguement about religion that you never caused,well apart from starting the post lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 I'm sure there's a comment about Lucifer that just a-waiting to be used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathew Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 derren browns book brings up a lot of good arguments about religion and thats coming from him who once was a hardcore, watever u wanna call it, christian. far too many unanswered questions for me to belive in a god etc and im with redm when he says that the bible is a load of shite. what also gets to me about religion is the way people tend to pussy foot about it. people wont think twice about mocking someones choice of car, house, friends etc yet when it comes to religion mockery is frowned upon. scientists try to prove their theories wrong when they cant then that is scientific fact. bible bashers on the other hand cling onto something which they cannot prove yet dismiss any bit of scientific fact which may go against it. it is up to the believer to prove to the non believer and until someone can show me something that backs up all their silly claims then i will stay a non believer. like i said have a gander at derren browns book and it picks up on a lot of arguments and points insisting why its a load of cobblers. yeah ive gone off topic but the one thing that gets to me is the way people get shot down for airing their views against the falseness of religion in front of religious people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Prove Creationism first. Your the one said it was old world nonsense, you prove (you'll be the first in history) evolution first. [How old do you think the Earth is?/QUOTE] Were you around on the first day? funny enough I wasnt either. Even stranger, I dont know anyone who was, they all long gone. Considering that C14 Carbon dating gives us 2200yrs accuracy, then we only have the timelines of people to provide any actual evidence beyond then. The Chinese have tortoise plastron which according to their calendar is over 4000 years old. The jews have their own "family history" to 6,000 and beyond that, I cant find anything that is solid evidence for any age, just a load of theory's. Therefore I conclude the age of the earth to unknown, and impossible for the scientific community to accurately estimate when they subjectively refuse to accept the geological evidence of the great flood. Objective science considers its effect. Its also worth considering the industrial revolution and its effects on carbon deposits making all carbon based guessing a farce. Attenborough (prob spelt wrong) makes me laugh as everything is a nice even 50 million or 100 million etc. Personally I think its impossible to put an exact age on the earth, and trying to do so is fallible, and a waste of time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathew Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 dont dinosaurs count as evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 dont dinosaurs count as evidence? Read back, we have covered that already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathew Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 what i dont get though is that religious followers dismiss any scientific facts put forward yet dont question for a second how jesus could have fed 5000! people with a few loafs of bread and a couple of fish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Name the scientific facts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathew Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 you prove to me that its all true........ as the burden is upon the believer to prove to the non believer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snooze Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 Chief, quick question: Do you know that God exists, or do you just believe that God exists? PS. just the short answer, please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt k Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 If you believe in a God/religion then it truly exists in your world, whether anyone else believes really should be irrelivant as that is the ultimate point of faith. I am pretty sure that if there was a person named Jesus and he endured the terrible acts as depicted in "The Passion of the Christ" then he must have believed he was the embodiment of God on earth and therefore whether he actually was or not is again irrelivant as his faith would have kept his resolve. I do not see any logic to an almighty God controlling the cosmos, but that is just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chiefgroover Posted April 9, 2007 Share Posted April 9, 2007 you prove to me that its all true........ as the burden is upon the believer to prove to the non believer. lol....your the one posted "scientific proof" yet it seems you know of none. Dont take it bad, nobody else does. Even IF i had proof of an existance of God, you'd still claim it to be a fraud or delusion of some sort, hence my references to subjectiveness. This thread is becoming a short sentence point scoring exercise, its boring me now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.