Is Evolution a Dangerous Idea? If so, why?

Am I to believe the only thing keeping you alive is fear of death ? You dont "believe" in anything ?

Really ? And this ESP of yours, is that a supernatural power ? Because I suggest you use it to keep up with the topic and not go wandering off on your own.

Gobbledy gook anyone?

Hear hear

Palaeontology refutes evolution theory.

Fossil hoards are simply test samples. They represent a minute fraction of past life forms.

Each sample simply represents a different stage of evolution. A snapshot. There are no identifiable transition types. The fin becomes a wing or vice versa just by saying so. As does the gill becoming a lung. We have the finned and the winged. They do look a bit alike. If the fossil record is taken seriously it must contain nothing but transition types with no definitions and thus no species. Nothing but one undifferentiated and chaotic mass of life forms out of which the miniscule number of fossils represent singular existences which can be supposed to have been left over from the struggle for existence and to have escaped geological destruction. Which is anathema to labellers who love nice neat categories to display and preen over to hoi polloi and collect salaries and other types of coining.

The sudden arrival of types of life fitted to the conditions and thus able to expand reproductively are cosmic happenings and are beyond human understanding in respect of causation and in all other respects. The priesthood of science might offer explanations to get on in their own little organic worlds but that is of no importance except sociologically. Their known reproductive rates are sufficient to suspect they will be overwhelmed.

Man in the Diluvial was as he is now. No missing link. No evolution except in social organisation in which religion is the prime mover. No sign of man in the Tertiary. His sudden appearance has no "whence", no "how" and no "why". Those remain impenetrable secrets and pedantic careerists don't like impenetrable secrets. They are the new priests offering an explanation of the secrets of life on earth without any reference to social organisation as if they are looking down, a seemingly cogenital disorder of the ego, on mankind as an alien might well do if aliens can be imagined reaching us.

Evolution theory is a mode of returning us to the mass of undifferentiated organic glop.

Just so the Gothic suddenly appeared, as did Rome, Hellenism, Buddhism and Islam, and it throve on the conditions and here we are. Lords of all we survey. Evolution gives no reason for resisting wiping out everything else. There's not a single solitary compassionate hand wringer in the whole canon of evolutionary life until we get to Christianity.

But the pretence that we are not dealing with impenetrable mysteries when no benefits in social organisation are on offer is sick. And the society that embraces evolution will get sicker and sicker until it vanishes from the face of the earth which will then make room and bring forth a more sensible human type which grants religion its premier place in human affairs and the pretences of explanations of impenetrable mystery which religion involves can at least be of some use.

It is no accident that evolutionists are pessimists, look like pessimists and are rejected in social interaction because of their infantile assertions and general all-round bloody-mindedness which they attempt to disguise with sickly sentimentalities of the most pathetic nature like bleating about bluefin tuna as if that entitles them to wear a ******* halo when it's nothing but a phoney pose.



Indeed, the fossil record shows perfectly stable forms unaltered by the very forces claimed to be at work continually on all life forms. The very process of naming them is contradictory to the gradual evolution principle.

These unaltered forms can last hundreds of millions of years and have not been altered on the fitness principle. They appear suddenly in their definite shape. They are either adapted or they become extinct and new forms take their place which will expand reproduvtively if the environment allows them to.

Evolution is a dangerous idea because it can be used to discredit and destroy the Christian religion.
by Spendius Sun 4 Apr, 2010 06:23 am
and was him I answered

A non scientific view by a non scientist with an agenda. Razzberries, sir.

Of course it can. Even Darwin's long suffering wife knew a simple thing like that.

It will if Christians sit on their hands and let the type of asserted and ignorant nonsense we are getting on here from atheists go unchallenged. They have most of Media on their side and for very obvious reasons.

Setanta wrote-



Notice the not very subtle distinction between "the theory" and those who promote it. Their very language tells you they are out to destroy Christianity. Because Christanity disapproves and condemns some of the things they do in pantsdown mode and some of the consequences of those things which they know about beforehand.

A theory has no goals. Only the people promoting it can have goals. The gump can't even write coherent English. And "no one here" is hardly of much significance either.

WHEN Christianity falls, it will have done so of its own weight and corruption. People like spendi who spouts falshoods he does not believe, in an effort to keep the legs under a falling body.

Talk about the world turning upside down.Why dont the XChristians in the Creationist and ID camp just quit trying to insert their bullshit into school science surricula? Youve been dancing around this point for several years now and have never addressed it. Your double speak is entertaining but purely without substance, but I suppose you knew this.

These are the times a teacher lives for, when a pupil incorporates the lesson plan into his own worldview. Im so pleased with your progress in this point spendi.

Youll thank me when you are sober, or not.

There's your evolutionist for you. It says it all. No attempt to reply to the post except two incorrect assertions and a plurality of "Razzberries".

That is how the Communist Party stayed in power for so long. It wasn't actually very long on an evolutionary time scale but it must have seemed very long for those who had to put up with it.

You lie, sir. You know there is more to working with fossils than that paper suggests. But it helps to cloud people's judgement of the facts, which was your sole intent.

What an astute criticism. Are you hoping people will say well you must be right you are the great Mister Ed ? You are so clever you dont need to critique you can just wave your hand. You might just want to check though, that just because you dont understand doesnt mean a lack of facts...it might be due to your intellectual limitations.

Oh dear Mister Ed...you are down from 3 to 2 word posts. You will be irrelevant soon.

fm--you were asked this a bit back--



Why have you not answered yet and indulged yourself in more blowhardisms instead.



That has as much credibilty as your other assertions do. None. You know readers here won't check the record so you feel safe in asserting another bunch of downright lies.

You have had my explanations why science curricula should not include evolution theory until specialists in universities are ready to deal with it. Many many times. And you have also had my view on religion being improper in science classes. I have not been dancing around the point at all. On the contrary it has been the main point of my posting on the evolution threads. I have addressed nothing else except maybe for an odd digression or two.

What you have just done is not dissimilar to me claiming that you had admitted kissing Elton John.

When you answer the first point in this post perhaps you will respond to my post about palaeontology refuting evolution theory. Try to be a bit more scientific that Ed was though if you don't mind.

Don't fool yourself fm. You have taught me nothing except that Ionus doesnt exaggerate much. I would be wary of asking you the time.

yes of course, non-believers such as Edgar and even I are doomed to perdition due to our intellectual limitations. one would think that a loving god would take into account diminished capacity and allow tolerance.

You have hit minus in relevance already.

I find when comparing creation and evolution things happened in about the same way. How could people thousands of years ago figure out that it could have happened the way sience have proven it happened or think it happened.
Can you understand that?
1. God created heaven and earth. Evolution: first earth (rocks)
2. God created day and night Evolution: there I have know knowledge about
3. God created water Evolution earth was there first
4. God created earth Evolution: water came after earth
5. God created plants Evolution: guess plants came now too
6 God created animals in water Evolution: first came animals in water
7. God created animals in the
air and on earth Evolution: now came animals in the air and
on the earth
8. God created the human beings Evolution: Mankind developed