132
   

Why do people deny evolution?

 
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Sun 19 Oct, 2014 10:22 am
Quote:
THE MASONIC THEORY OF THE ORIGINS OF LIFE
The hidden link between Darwin, Marx, Neitzche & Hitler

Those generally thought to be the founders of the theory of evolution are the French biologist Jean Lamarck and the English biologist Charles Darwin. According to the classic story, Lamarck first proposed the theory of evolution, but he made the mistake of basing it on the “inheritance of acquired traits.” Later, Darwin proposed a second theory based on natural selection.

Though, here we must mention the name of another theoretician who played an important role in the origins of the theory of evolution: Erasmus Darwin, Charles Darwin’s grandfather.

rasmus Darwin was a Mason. Though, Erasmus Darwin was no ordinary Mason, he was one of the highest ranking masters in the organization; a 33rd Degree Mason.

He was the master of the famous Canon-gate lodge in Edinburgh, Scotland. Moreover, he had close ties with the Jacobin Masons who were the organizers of the revolution in France at the time, and with the Illuminati, whose prime cause was fostering hostility to religion. That is, Erasmus Darwin was an important name in European Masonic anti-religious organizations.

Erasmus educated his son Robert (Charles Darwin’s father), who too had been and made a member of the Masonic lodge. For this reason, Charles Darwin received the inheritance of Masonic teachings from both his father and his grandfather.

Erasmus Darwin hoped to have his son Robert develop and publish his theory, but it would be his grandson Charles who would undertake the enterprise. Although it came some time later, Erasmus Darwin’s Temple of Nature was finally revised by Charles Darwin. Darwin’s views did not have the weight of a scientific theory; it was merely the expression of a naturalist doctrine that accepts that nature has creative power.

The fundamental philosophy of freemasonry is based on Darwinism. That is because, though having no scientific aspect whatsoever, Darwinism is a fake ideology with a scientific guise propounded solely to make the mainstays of freemasonry (atheism, aimlessness, wars and degeneration) legitimate.

The Mason Magazine [printed in Turkey by the freemasons] explains why they support evolution theory as follows:


More here:
http://greatgameindia.com/the-masonic-theory-of-the-origins-of-life-the-hidden-link-between-darwin-marx-neitzche-hitler/
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Sun 19 Oct, 2014 10:23 am
Quote:
The greatest humane and masonic duty we all own is to hold on to the positive science, to spread this belief among people and educate them with positive science [Darwinism] by adopting the view that this is the best and only way in evolution.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Sun 19 Oct, 2014 10:29 am
Quote:
Masons openly admit that they will use the scientists and media which are under their control to present this deception as scientific, which even they find funny. When freemasons talk about the successes they arranged for Darwinism, they actually refer to infiltrating a deception into universities, schools, text books, into most of the mass media as a scientific truth, squelching the ones who have anti-Darwinist views, and hindering anti-Darwinist activities by oppression.

http://greatgameindia.com/the-masonic-theory-of-the-origins-of-life-the-hidden-link-between-darwin-marx-neitzche-hitler/


So, again and again and again and again it is completely clear the theroy of evolution is used for D E C E P T I O N!!!
farmerman
 
  4  
Sun 19 Oct, 2014 12:09 pm
@Quehoniaomath,
The convulsive nature of the internet allows the simple -minded folks like Quahog to deny truths and to promote bald-faced lies with abandon.

I rather believe hes a full "student" of Harun Yayah, or else Groucho Marx.

farmerman
 
  2  
Sun 19 Oct, 2014 12:15 pm
@farmerman,
Heres a free download of yayah's book "The Atlas of Creation"<br /> http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Books/4066/atlas-of-creation--<br />

See if you cant spot all the errors and outright lies.

cicerone imposter
 
  4  
Sun 19 Oct, 2014 12:36 pm
@farmerman,
Nah, Groucho Marx was witty and smart. Quohog has none of those qualities.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Sun 19 Oct, 2014 01:37 pm
SO, BRING IN THE CLOWNS EHH OEPS THE NON-EXISTING TRANSISITIONAL FOSSILS!!!!~


I KNOW, I KNOW, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE!
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Sun 19 Oct, 2014 03:03 pm
@farmerman,
http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Books/4066/atlas-of-creation.. SORRY. I screwed up the quote. so here is the correct one for Yayah' "book"
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  5  
Sun 19 Oct, 2014 03:07 pm
@farmerman,
Ive shown that Quahog is lying with all his "Quote mined" examples of what scientists re saying. If you notice, every time he gets buried in facts, he runs an tries to mass post other garbage so space appears between his last post and where someone trashes him.
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Sun 19 Oct, 2014 11:05 pm
YES YES SHOW SOME INTERMEDIATE FOSSILS AND WE ARE DONE AND OVER WITH!

EASY EH?

SEEMS NOT!


EASIER SAID THEN DONE!!

UNTIL THAT TIME WE HAVE TO ASSUME THE EVOLUTIONIST RELIGION IS VERY VERY VERY WRONG


farmerman
 
  4  
Mon 20 Oct, 2014 02:54 am
@Quehoniaomath,
With Quahogs head, safely up his ass, he isn't paying any attention to the examples of intermediate fossils because , being a science denier, he needs to be consistent at least.

Heres the evolutionary family tree of whales
    https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRurS5wnssXa2o-Rtmyg4iZN3aJchrvkRqeVX9LoiPbcTd2JIqq

What I find particularly funny is how Quahog keeps spouting his lies about how animals hve remained the same through history. I wnder whether he s seen any Cambrian whales or Triassic elephants?

The mere fact that all animals appear in some rationale sequence in the fossil record should surely make an intelligent amateur want to learn about the mechanisms of evolution.

Intelligence is something weve never accused Quahog of displaying.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Mon 20 Oct, 2014 04:20 am
Ancient fish invented sex

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-20/ancient-fish-to-thank-for-sex/5825594
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -1  
Mon 20 Oct, 2014 04:28 am
YUP, ON A MORE SERIOUS NOTE, SHOW US THE INTERMEDIATE FOSSILS!
farmerman
 
  3  
Mon 20 Oct, 2014 04:40 am
@Quehoniaomath,
Here an article by an "Old Earth Creation Scientist". (I know the title is an oxymoron but, hey, he at least has the honesty to state whats right is right)

Quote:


Transitional fossils, or the supposed lack thereof, has been used for many years by anti-evolutionists to argue against evolution. Here, I will explain what a transitional fossil is, and why it is not valid as an argument against evolution.

A transitional fossil shows the evolutionary development from one species to another. For example, if "organism one" existed 70 million years ago, and "organism two" shows up in the fossil record 5 million years later, then theoretically there should be intermediate species in this 5 million year gap, which shows gradual progression from one species to another. The lack of these "transitional" fossils is proof to young earth creationists that evolution is false.

Evolutionists have shown that indeed there are transitional fossils, and there are plenty of examples of them. For instance, see this article. Here is the key point...even if young earth creation science experts accept these examples of transitional fossils, they will still claim that there are no transitional fossils! These fossils will either be called unique species, or they will come up with some reason (disease, birth defect, etc) that accounts for the apparent transition feature.

Naturally, they will say, "Where are the transitional fossils between these transitional fossils?" If we had a clear fossil record, showing progression every 10,000 years for millions of years, they will not believe it, and will want the "transitional" fossils for the missing 10,000 year period. No amount of evidence will convict them that their belief is wrong.

The same thing could be said of progressive creationists as well. Progressive creationists believe in an old earth, but that God created each species a unique creation, and not evolved from an earlier species. I happen to be one of these myself. However, we must be careful not so say our view is the only one that is valid. Dr. Hugh Ross of the old earth ministry Reasons to Believe, has put forth many arguments against evolution. However, when you consider the possibility that within Theistic Evolution, you have God guiding the evolutionary process, then all bets are off. Yes, evolution by itself could not have happened...as Dr. Ross explains, 13.7 billion years is not nearly enough time, statistically speaking, for evolution to occur. However, with God's supernatural intervention and guidance, it could have easily happened.

I'm not saying that evolution is right, but what I am saying is that with God, all things are possible, including evolution. We should not be so quick, as progressive creationists, to condemn evolution.



Conclusion



The fact that young earth creationists will not be convinced, no matter how much evidence is presented, makes this a weak argument. The argument is not based on science, but on assumptions based on a young earth interpretation of creation.
- See more at: http://www.oldearth.org/transitional_fossils.htm#sthash.TOy7KRxj.dpuf [/ quote]
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Mon 20 Oct, 2014 05:14 am
WELL WELL WELL, STILL NO INTERMEDIATE FOSSILS!!

TELLS US SOMETHING DOESN'T IT?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Mon 20 Oct, 2014 05:22 am
I don't know why you guys keep feeding this t*cking troll. You're all just trashing this thread.
Krumple
 
  0  
Mon 20 Oct, 2014 05:35 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

I don't know why you guys keep feeding this t*cking troll. You're all just trashing this thread.


Are you jealous he's getting fed and you are not?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Mon 20 Oct, 2014 07:42 am
An interesting story on how it isn't just DNA from conception that helps create us.

Quote:
Researchers have discovered that maternal stresses effect changes in the DNA of the offspring in long term ways. In a study of expectant mothers in the 1998 North American Ice Storm and their children 13 years later, the researchers found that the number of days the expectant mother was deprived of electricity was predictive of the degree of epigenetic modification in the DNA of the children . The modifications were in 957 genes of the DNA related to immune function and metabolism, and were consistent whether the measurements were made in immune cells, PBMCs, or saliva cells.


http://www.neomatica.com/2014/10/15/children-born-soon-after-great-1998-north-american-ice-storm-show-dna-imprint-13-years-later/
0 Replies
 
Quehoniaomath
 
  -2  
Mon 20 Oct, 2014 08:02 am
I AM NOT TROLLING

I AM SERIOUSLY ASKING FOR EVIDENCE!


IT SEEMS IT CAN'T BE DELIVERED!

THERE ARE NO INTERMEDIATE FOSSILS!!!!

farmerman
 
  6  
Mon 20 Oct, 2014 08:08 am
@Quehoniaomath,
whenever anyone demands something and it is provided amply, and yet the individual keeps denying whats been shown and he keeps demanding as if it weren't,THATs TROLLING .

The only thing that is under discussion now is whether you are merely soft on the head, or are a committed representative of a Fundamental Religion that denies Science.

I say youre soft in the head. Agree?

Apparently you've got No comments about how you've clipped out the conclusionary part of Dr Raups statement which just about changes his point by 180 degrees. That's QUOTE MINING, even though this one was not skillfully done.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 06/24/2024 at 06:01:43